Too thin at ideal weight range?
 

I was reading a book today that claimed your ideal weight range is 100lbs for your first 5' and 5 lbs for every inch after plus or minus 10%. Now this is not your healthy weight range but ideal, a healthy weight range is much wider. So for me my ideal range would be 112-138. I've weighed 138 before and I was too thin, I assume that might be because I'm a medium frame and this range is more for people of a smaller frame, but I don't know. What do you guys think about these numbers, do they apply for you? I'm pretty comfy here in the low 150s just outside of my healthy range and think I'd feel just incredible in the low 140s but now this bs has me wondering what the 130s would be like. With my muscle tone I doubt I could get there anyway.

I'm not sure as I've never been at my ideal body weight.. According to this formula, I should be 110. My goal weight right now is 125. THe lightest I've ever been as an adult 118 except when really really sick (crohn's disease flare and couldn't swallow) that was 112 and I looked weird and dreadful..but probably also bc I was sick.
At 118 I felt chubby but I have never had much muscle tone, and my old best friend was like a size 0, and my tummy has always been distented so I don't know.

I'm thinking that anyone who's big boned, or anyone with much muscle mass would need to weight more than the formula suggests.
My sister is the same height as me, but has always been 'dense' . She is in the 130's, and takes a 4 at AE and a small in tops. And she's a DD! I don't get it. LOL So I think that formula is not accurate and it's really old (I remember hearing about it in elementary school)

That is a very old formula. It comes from a time when women--or at least the upper middle class women it was speaking to--really didn't carry that much muscle, when "regular exercise" was 30 minutes of calisthenics every other day and, perhaps, some brisk walking.

I was told in a nutrition class in college that those old charts also assumed "height in shoes" and "shoes" were assumed to have 2 inch heels. However, I've never verified that anywhere else and he told us some other stuff I know to be wrong.

This old formula caused me much unhappiness about 17 years ago, when I had an eating disorder due to over-the-top efforts to keep my weight at 115 or lower.

I can't do it. Personally, I know that's unhealthy for me. I need to be at least 10-15 pounds heavier, and even that requires a lot of hours of exercise on my part.

Wow, and this book was published 2008! It did mention that the other charts were old and based on people wearing 1 inch heals, but the formula was good for your ideal range.

It actually works for me. I am 5'7". My ideal weight per this forumula is 135. I like to weigh 130 (a little less than the "ideal weight" of this formula). I am very very small-framed, though (tiny wrists, fingers, etc).

That's ridiculous for me, it would put me at 110 pounds, which I haven't been since I was an athletic seventh grader. At 160 pounds I was sexy and muscular, so even the BMI range of normal weight for me (120-138) is ridiculously low. There's no way.

I refuse to calculate and ideal weight for myself beyond what I know looks and feels good, its that simple.

I think you have done an incredible thing losing all the weight you have! If you feel good, who cares if you are hitting a certain number. I actually based my goal weight on that same idea. That's why I'm shooting for 155. But if when I hit the 160's, I feel great, then I will not worry about the number on the scale. Congrats again! You've done an amazing thing.

Yeah I wouldn't really go by those charts, it's whatever looks good on you. Everyones body is different and carries weight differently so whose to say that chart can cover all?
For me it would be between 103.5 (yikes!) - 126.5 (maybe)
My body shape happens to be an hourglass and I have a medium frame, so 130 is honestly a really good weight for me. last time when I was at 141 (just hitting the normal range), people thought I didn't need to go down any further and I felt like the last 10 lbs or so would be for my stomach and to "iron out" a few places.

But then again 125-130 might be my happy place, so who knows?

That would never or could never apply to me. I am 5'2", so I'd have to weigh about 110...I have a friend who is an inch shorter than me, and smaller boned than me...she weighs 125 and she is in a 2/4...Personally I don't think I could ever get as small as she is, or would ever want to be as small as she is. That is why my goal is 149: I have a huge bone structure (my bones are peaking out quite a bit and I am still obese), and am fleshier in all the "right" areas. So for me the formula is not practical.

Ridiulous for me, too. I am 5 feet even and small boned. At 100 pounds I would look like a concentration camp victim. I would need to eat a very low calorie diet to get to 100 pounds and I doubt I could ever maintain that weight.

In my late 20s, I ran regularly and dropped down to 125 easily. That's well within this "ideal range" for me. And my "easy to maintain" weight earlier in my 20s was 133--also in this range. But I don't think that I could/should get down to 125 now that I'm in my 40s. And that's not to say it's right for everyone.

Okay, I've figured out how I could hit 115, at my age. It's very simple. I can have one leg cut off. I've got rather meaty thighs & calves, so that should do it. I would remove the prosthetic limb for my weigh-in, so it wouldn't count. Also, after extensive rehabilitation, perhaps I could then change jobs & become a one-legged personal trainer, and work out both alone & alongside my clients for three hours daily. Under those conditions, with all being optimum, I really think I could do it.

[/Irrational from pain & irritability.]

You know, any formula trying to describe biology that uses numbers that round and pretty and perfectly linear almost HAS to be B.S.

Ok, I'm glad that I'm not the only one who found this ridiculous. Especially as a general rule, for some people sure, for everyone, please.

That formula would put my "range" at 117-143. At 117, I would look like a concentration camp victim. At the age of 12, I was at this height and weighed 112 with out any hips or boobs. That is totally unrealistic. In my early 20s I weighed 140 and felt really good at that weight. I feel good at this weight too, 132.5 this morning on my probably not so accurate scale. I don't think i picked this weight--it picked me.

If I'm calculating correctly it tells me I should be between somewhere between 148 and 122 or so. Honestly, my goal is 138 so it works for me. I know what I look like at that weight and it would be perfect.

According to this formula, I'd be "ideal" at 142.5...which is right where I am. I'm told I'm too thin, but I don't think so most of the time..

That would put me at 130 - 160 (145 in the middle) Nope. There is no WAY I could get down to 145. Even 160 would be difficult. I am shooting for 170. I think that will be plenty thin for me... I guess I am just big boned! I got down to 150 at the end of high school. I did unhealthy things to get there and I would not be happy going back there.

Right now, jsut about anything below 200 would make me happy.

Just an interesting note - the three of us that "agree" with the formula are at/near goal weight.

As an aside, my original goal weight was 150 - I couldn't imagine myself thinner than 150.

Glory makes an interesting point. I used to think 150 was my set point weight and I'd never lose more than that. Now, that I am close to goal, I think 120-125 is my ideal weight. Therefore, the formula works for me.

Even though I am close to goal, I have a lot of work to do. I still need to gain a few pounds of muscle and lose a few pounds of fat. My body fat % is still not ideal.

I agree what other people have said. We must decide for ourselves what our healthy weight is. After all, we know our bodies.

I have been 135 and still *thought* I was fat, but looking back at pictures of myself, I was TINY and my face looked really sharp. I was living with my grandparents, and although they never said anything, I think they worried I was anorexic. I wasn't allowed to eat dinner in my room--I had to eat it where they could see me eat. During my entire sophomore year of high school, I ate one meal a day when I got home from school. I was not healthy--and I was NOT in good shape. Now, I'm aiming for 145 with a lot more muscle, which I think will put me in a size 6. This is healthy and attainable for me--anything smaller, I just wouldn't look like myself, and I wouldn't be able to maintain the level of physical fitness that I really love. It is also the top range for BMI, so I think I'll stick with that flawed formula instead of this other flawed formula ;)

With that formula, my ideal weight would be 125 (+/- 10% would be 112.5 - 137.5)...my ultimate goal is 135 so it works for me. I'll still have a pot belly and big boobs but hey...that's my body!

My original goal weight WAS 160...but when I got there I lost another 20 pounds. Long story. But my body seems to be content where it is now. I never thought I could be in the 140s, and in fact assumed I couldn't because I'd always been told I was "big boned" by my mom and sister. Turns out I've got a small frame.

Lets see that would put me at an "ideal range" of 116.8 - 120.6

Currently that would put me at a bodyfat range of 9.6%-12.5% which would be downright unhealthy. 12% would be something I think I would look kind of scary at. Even if I assume some of my current LBM is water that may go away, the lowest my LBM has ever been as an adult would make that weight range very very low.

And the 3 of you are also a little taller than I am.

I remember this formula from the 80's. Of the thin girls in my college, the formula broke down below a certain height and above a certain height. Although I have seen some variations of interpretation here.

When that formula was out in the 80's the +/-10% was on the 5 lbs per inch which is what I posted on, not overall. Overall that gives me a range of 106.8- 130.6.

Reasonable for me is around 125-130 (which as a note to the other posters is about 15 lbs lower than I thought I would look ok at). So the very top end of the range is ok

But 106.8 heh... that would be..ummm. dead. Serious muscle loss.

But I do know for my friend who is 5'10, she considers 150 way too heavy for her, so she likes the bottom end of the range.

I love a logical thinker !

I'm relatively tall.

100 pounds for the first 5 feet. 5 pounds for every inch over 5 feet.

That would put me at 145.

If I topped out at 6 feet, twelve inches over 5 feet, that would put me at 160.

I don't think I could pull it off. 170 is my tentative goal, I'll see what happens if I ever get that low. I could never dream of hitting 145, though. I have a large frame and build muscle pretty easily. . .

I've found that it works for me. I'm 5'8 and 140 is supposedly my ideal.

I was a fit 140-145 in college and so I knew that under 150 is when I'd feel 'thin' again. 140 was my goal, but I think that the mid 130s fits me better -- really just because of liking the wiggle room.

But I also know that without working this hard for it, I would be about 175ish, 10 lbs overweight. I know from going up and down that that's my body's 'set point' -- the weight that "sticks" without diet/exercise, but also without the overeating and unhealthy lifestyle that caused me to become significantly obese.

Set point and ideal being different ... probably why a high % of people are technically-but-not-obviously overweight, without the issues that plagued a lot of us who gained much more than that.

Is it sound to base this entirely on height without taking age into consideration at all?

What's attractively slender in someone who's 21 might be considered a bit frail for a woman in her early 70s.

Eh. That would put me at about 118, and I am 108 with a ton of muscle, which makes me look smaller than I am, and yet still healthy. I much prefer this to 118. These charts are nonsense. It's all about the individual: your musculature, your proportions, etc. A woman with less muscle is going to look larger at these "ideal" weights. A woman with large breasts is going to look smaller because she carries more weight in her chest. A woman who is pear shaped may need to lose a bit more to even out her proportions (if she cares to or can). People are all different.

I think body mass composition comes into play with age. At 17, I weighed 130, but was thinner than I am now at 40. I have noticed that I have a lot more fat and less muscle.

Paradoxically, I am approaching my lowest weight ever, but am not in my best shape ever. Oh well.

See, I don't really get this. I have more muscle than any woman I know and I am at 108. And we are almost the same height. I lift heavy, I run long distances up mountains, I do the stair stepper. I have a ton of muscle built over 20 years of hardcore exercise. I did not lose it to lose weight. And while I was thin at 129, I am not ridiculously thin now.

I think a lot of people really do find as they lose weight that they have a smaller frame than they thought. Fat surrounds your muscle. Often what you see in the mirror is fat AND muscle, not particularly large muscles. Women don't bulk without performance enhancers and a calorie surplus. So you can lose fat and still maintain the muscle (for the most part), provided you work to preserve it. You typically won't gain muscle—not on a caloric deficit—but you can preserve it.

I am in no way suggesting that everyone is supposed to be at these "ideal" weights. You should lose to where you feel comfortable and are still healthy. But I do think that people often think they have a larger frame than they do, or that their size is dictated by muscle when it isn't. As a number of people have stated in this thread, when they got to their original goal they realized they could actually go to a lower weight than they had previously thought possible.

Now, it could be that you carry a lot of weight in your breasts, so at 106.8 you really would look very thin everywhere else. Or you could carry more weight in your lower half and look very thin on the upper half at that weight. But you wouldn't suffer much muscle loss at all—not if you were maintaining muscle while you lost weight.

I used to think I was just HUGE. Mentally, I thought of myself as an Amazon. A "big girl." Big boned, just genetically destined to be a large woman. I honestly thought I had shoulders like a linebacker.

That was my mental picture of myself. In part because I was heavy at 200 lbs, in another part because it gave me excuses of why I was so big. For awhile, I didn't even try to lose weight, why bother - I was soooo big, I would always be BIG, LARGE, an AMAZON! (I am just speaking of my own journey and my own demons in this case).

I now call these my big fat lies. I am not an immese person, bigger than normal. I may be tall, but I have a narrow rib cage and my shoulders aren't particularly broad at all. It has taken several years of maintenance to revise my mental image of myself as a large (not just weight, but overall size) woman.

Like Petite Powerhouse said above, I had a small frame wrapped under my fat. Like a little diamond ring in a jewel box, wrapped in a big old shirt box.

I picked 150 originally because I had never been lower for any length of time in my adult life. In college (after a hideously unhealthy near starvation diet) I did get down to 137. Of course, I didn't sustain it because I didn't have any healthy eating habits or a plan for maintenance. So, I thought 137 was unsustainable. I thought the weight was the issue, not how I got there.

I had never gotten to a goal weight via a healthy method. I had never had a plan for maintenance. When I hit 150 this time, the weight was still coming off 1,2 lbs per week. It was easy to keep going.

I too thought that I was a big-boned girl with a massive frame--think bulky Scandinavian farm-girl. My original weight goal was 150--the very top of a normal bmi for my height. I didn't think that a weight under 150 would be sustainable for me. But I was wrong, not only is it sustainable but I feel great. Like Petite Powerhouse, I do weight train, probably not as much as she does though. Saef brought up a valid question regarding age. I'm 47. And my frame? I now think I have a medium frame. I wear a 6 or 8. :)

So... I enter a healthy BMI at 127 lbs. And this forumla puts my ideal weight at 100 lbs. Seriously?!?! Like, from when I was 8 years old? No. Just, no. Not ever happening. Even the standard height/weight chart puts the lowest healthy weight range for a small framed person of my height at 104. 104-115 for a small frame. And isn't that usually considered too strict as well?

So yeah, something is wrong with that formula. I'm sure it works for some, and probably at a certain height range or something. But definitely not for everyone.

I am 5'6" so my ideal would be 130. The lightest I recall being as an adult is 142 and I remember it being difficult to maintain. I comfortably maintained 148-152 for a few years. My first goal is 150 and that would put me at 108 pounds lost. When I get there I will evaluate if I want to go for another 10-15, but I just can't imagine with my bone size being 130. My husband refers to super skinny people as "sucked up" (not nice I know!) and he prefers some curvy flesh. Maybe 145 is a more realistic goal for me. I guess we'll wait and see!

I have 105-106 lbs of lean body mass currently. I have never in my adult life had less than 102 lbs of lean body mass. When I was 126 lbs a couple years ago -pre injury I was at 19% bodyfat.

Yes, I would have to lose significant muscle to be alive at 106.8

MTA: Or I could go with Saef's suggestion and lose a limb instead.

I'm five one. I'd love to weigh the 105 pounds the old formula says I should weigh, but I don't think that's going to happen unless I cut my calories down to deprivation levels and exercise four hours a day. The last time I weighed 105 was when I was in middle school.

Hmm. That would put me at 130-135. I think it's reasonable for me because I can't see myself being lighter than that.