formula for ideal weight??

I was reading a book in the shop the other day that talked about how to calculate your Ideal Weight. It said quite adamantly that people should weigh:

100 pounds if 5 ft tall, then you add 5 more pounds for each additional inch. So, if you're 5'3'', you add 5x3 lbs to make 115 lbs, and if you're 5'1.5'' like me you add 5x1.5 lbs to make 107.5 lbs. I weigh more than that!

According to the book, anything over this formula is overweight! These weights seem really low though!

Has anyone else heard about this? I'm sort of upset now--according to this I'm overweight!

SEEMS LOW to me too. I know your waist size is not suppose to be more than half of your height. In that case if you are 5'6" which is 66 inches your waist should not be more than 33 inches. I heard this from Dr Oz(Oprahs Guest host Dr.). But as far as what you read I would think the size of your bones should be taken in to account . Frame size. I will probably never see myself as the right size.

That formula drove me nuts for years.  I was fit and thin at 123lbs but because of that dang formula I always felt that I was fat (this is an understatement).  And they blame celebrities for making people feel that they are fat.  HA!  The so-called experts didn't know what the heck they were talking about. 

I've heard that formula before, and personally it works for me - I'm 5'1" and anywhere between 103-105. But the taller you get, the more inaccurate it seems to be - someone that's 5'7" seems to have a much wider healthy range of weight than someone who's shorter (not a fact; just a personal observation).  Also, it doesn't really take into account age, muscle weight, frame, whatever. Since I'm young and small-framed, it works. If you're older and larger-framed, well, it's not going to work.

In my opinion, don't go so much by the numbers. Eat well, be active, and whatever weight you feel good at in the healthy BMI range is probably your ideal weight.

What do you mean older?  How old are you? 

There is absolutely NO WAY at 5'6" with a large frame I could ever weigh 130 pounds!!  Maybe if I had some terminal illness, maybe!  That's just crazy talk.  At my lightest in my adult, full grown life, I was 140 and I was thin...probably too thin.  I have huge bones, should've been a boy I suppose.  130?!?  NO WAY!

I'm fifteen. If you look at the BMI-for-age charts, then the healthy BMI range for teenagers dips a lot lower than the one for adults does (for adults, anything below 18.5 is underweight; girls my age, because quite a few are still growing, have a minimum BMI of around 16 or 17. EDIT: That only applies to the ones who haven't hit puberty yet, or are still in it. If you've already passed it, like me, then a BMI of 16 is ridiculous).

Here, have a link: http://www.kidsnutrition.org/bodycomp/bmiz2.h tml.

 Try plugging in some statistics into it to see what I mean. For me, apparently a weight range of 92lbs to 127lbs is healthy (although anything under a hundred would be pretty scary looking). For adults the numbers are different.

This is a great website and it gives you different formulas for your ideal weight. http://www.halls.md/ideal-weight/body.htm

Oh...I see.  Okay!

I have heard that formula too. And on www.dietitian.com, which is run by a registered dietitian, the ranges are also lower than the BMI. What you have to understand is that the BMI was created based on insurance mortality records.

However, I am 5' and I can tell you that I'd be sickly at only 100 lbs. Yes, I probably would have no jiggle at all. I also know that I wouldn't have any breasts left. I really like my breasts, thankyouverymuch!

The last time I was around that weight was high school - I ranged between 97 and 103 - but I had yet to grow to a full five feet!! I was only 4'11" - if that!!

The dietitian web site gives a range of 90 to 110 as healthy for me, and says if you are small framed, go on the low side of that range, medium framed go in the middle, and large framed at the upper end. I am medium framed, and right now at 110 and it's probably true another few lbs wouldn't be so bad, especially because at this point it would decrease my waist size.

But 100?? Or less than that?? No way!! I'd look like a clothes hanger.

The other thing is that if I was down around 100 I doubt I'd have all that much muscle.

The other thing is that if I was down around 100 I doubt I'd have all that much muscle.


Very good point.  That formula would take into account that the individual shouldn't be carrying that much muscle.

Yeah, I think if I got much lower than 110 I'd have no breasts or muscle left either! Maybe it's best to stay at 115 ...

I think you have to take into acount a persons frame size also.

I'm 5'1...and to ME my ideal weight is 100-102. I know this because I have been at 100 before..and that is the weight I am most comfortable at.

I'm currently 107-109...and while I feel  A LOT better than I did at 120...the excess belly weight bothers me even more now. If the weight were anywhere else I'd be ok with it...I feel like the Pilsbury Dough boy! I guess that is just my reminder of how much further I really have to go.

The calculators say 105. One of them said 101-132...at 132 I am extremely overweight. (Been there...even my face was fat.)

So according to that I'd need to be 102.5 lbs. When I was hovering around 120 I wore a size 2 and looked emaciated. People were begging me to gain. Ain't no way I'm losing 20lbs more than my goal. I don't even know if that's even possible for me.
Don't listen to the book. It's stupid. Ask a professional who has seen you and measured your body fat percentage to come up with an ideal range for you.

It's kinda close in my case, however my BMI going by that exact system would be considered underweight.  It probably wouldn't suit me either if I got down that low because of my shape.  I think that's why it's best we stick to ranges.  Just about anything health wise is a range & not an actual figure.  Even temperatures, although most people seem to think it's just 1 norm.  Too many variables for it to be that simple.  Please don't be even the slightest bit upset over what you read.  It's a generlization & bunk.

I think giving you an EXACT number on ideal weight is a bunch of bull, personally.  People have different body types and sizes...

actually I think that formula would work perfect for me. Im 5'6 and 135 and my goal is to lose another 10 pounds so I would be around the formulas number. And I'm faaaaar from skinny right now. lol

According to the ideal weight calculator, I should weigh 119 (or 123). Neither is a bad number for me, but they're both sort of at the bottom of my healthy range, not the middle.

i understand the frustration here, but for me personaly the formula seems right, i'm almost 5'5 1/2 and aiming at 120-125.

Hi everyone!  Here is my opinion on this.  You can set yourself up for failure trying to reach an unreasonable goal.  Maybe that formula is right for you and perhaps not.  It's a ball park.  I'm 5'5" and I look and feel best around 138-140 and to me I look like I weigh alot less.  Good Luck!

my papa is a doc and he said at 5ft it is 105 and for women you add 5 pounds for every foot and for men u add 6.....