Weight Loss
Moderators: spoiled_candy, coach_k, devilish_patsy, nycgirl, Mollybygolly

# Does this theory on ideal weight actually work?

I've read a formula that's supposed to help you decide your "ideal" weight. The formula is that if you're 5 ft you should weight 100lbs and an extra 5lb for every extra inch. So if you're 5 ft 5 inches, your ideal weight would be 125lbs (assuming you're medium-framed.) It then says if you're small framed, take away 10% and if you're large framed add 10%. So a 5 ft 5 inch large-framed person should weigh around 137.5.

It makes sense to me, but do you think it's accurate?

And is measuring your wrist size the best way of determining your frame size?

Replies appreciated.

20 Replies (last)

Well, personally - for me - not accurate. I am 5ft4 inches, small frame. Which means my "ideal weight" is 120lb minus 12lb which is 108lb. I am currently about 126lb and am just about right as far as I am concerned. I could go down to 120 and still be "just" OK. Absolutely no less tho. 108lb would be absolutely emaciated on me.

Ideal for whom is the question? Runway models?

i've heard it before. my parents talk about it, and they're in their mid-70s, so i'm guessing it's an old idea. i'm 5'8" with a small frame, so that would put me at 90% of 140, which is 126. that's probably a little too low for me at this age, but it was dead-on when i was in my 20s.

Original Post by pgeorgian:

i've heard it before. my parents talk about it, and they're in their mid-70s, so i'm guessing it's an old idea. i'm 5'8" with a small frame, so that would put me at 90% of 140, which is 126. that's probably a little too low for me at this age, but it was dead-on when i was in my 20s.

....Even in my 20's this weight would have been too low.....

Yes, this idea has been around for donkey's years. It may work for a sub sector of bodies but as a general rule I think it does not work, except in the roughest of ball park measures.

Dangerous to treat it as gospel.

Oh, I'm definitely not treating it as gospel. I know that bodies vary too much and not everyone can be defined by one hard-and-fast rule.

I suppose I was just wondering whether it's a formula that can give you a rough idea.

Original Post by wastedink:

Oh, I'm definitely not treating it as gospel. I know that bodies vary too much and not everyone can be defined by one hard-and-fast rule.

I suppose I was just wondering whether it's a formula that can give you a rough idea.

VERY rough idea - perhaps treat it as a weight range rather than one goal weight. ie for me, disregarding the frame size this would give a range of 108lb to 132lb for 5'4.  If you are losing weight - perhaps aim for the top weight and then reassess. If you look at yourself with HONEST eyes, you should then be able to assess where in the range you should be and are most comfortable. And where your body is able to go to.

that formula sounds like bullocks to me.

Original Post by furrybelly:

Original Post by wastedink:

Oh, I'm definitely not treating it as gospel. I know that bodies vary too much and not everyone can be defined by one hard-and-fast rule.

I suppose I was just wondering whether it's a formula that can give you a rough idea.

VERY rough idea - perhaps treat it as a weight range rather than one goal weight. ie for me, disregarding the frame size this would give a range of 108lb to 132lb for 5'4.  If you are losing weight - perhaps aim for the top weight and then reassess. If you look at yourself with HONEST eyes, you should then be able to assess where in the range you should be and are most comfortable. And where your body is able to go to.

Yeah, that's what I'm planning to do. My current targer weight is between 135-140lbs (I'm 5 ft 8 inches.) 140lbs is my initial target and if I'm happy, then I'll stay at that weight. But I wanted to know what the options are for going a bit lower than that - if I decide to (which will obviously all depend on how I feel when I get to 140lbs!)

That formula also does not take into account muscle mass. According to that theory, I should be 115 lbs, which I have never been not only in my adult life, but my (healthy) teen life as well. The only time I ever weighed that little was when I had an ED when I was 14. And at that weight, I looked gaunt, bones jutting out everywhere, the whole nine yards.

The weight that works on my 5'3", athletic body is usually around 135-138. (almost back there, yay!) Too much less than that doesn't look right on me, for whatever reason. I have muscles and curves and a butt and it all works :) Sometimes, when I really work at it, even a 6-pack!

I know you were looking to this theory as a ballpark figure, but for something that varies so vastly from person to person, it doesn't really make sense. I would say that you reach your "ideal" weight whenever you are feeling good about yourself and feel healthy.

Good luck! :)

I'm medium framed, and I weigh 122 at 5'3. If I start going below 120, I think I look too thin. 115 on me would mean giving up my butt and boobs...that's okay. I'd rather look like a woman :) And I'd also like to continue eating more than salads and fruit.

Original Post by samantha135:

That formula also does not take into account muscle mass. According to that theory, I should be 115 lbs, which I have never been not only in my adult life, but my (healthy) teen life as well. The only time I ever weighed that little was when I had an ED when I was 14. And at that weight, I looked gaunt, bones jutting out everywhere, the whole nine yards.

The weight that works on my 5'3", athletic body is usually around 135-138. (almost back there, yay!) Too much less than that doesn't look right on me, for whatever reason. I have muscles and curves and a butt and it all works :) Sometimes, when I really work at it, even a 6-pack!

I know you were looking to this theory as a ballpark figure, but for something that varies so vastly from person to person, it doesn't really make sense. I would say that you reach your "ideal" weight whenever you are feeling good about yourself and feel healthy.

Good luck! :)

Wow Samantha135, I looked at your gallery and you look stunning in all your pics. There is no way anyone would say you are overweight, despite what the "formula" says.  I agree that the "formula" does not work for very well muscled people, but then again, none of the standard body weight calculators seem to be able to cope with muscle. However, it also seems that so many people have absolutely NO idea of what a healthy weight is for their body (well, judging by the amount of "what do you 5'3 (eg) girls weigh" and "do I look overweight?" threads that abound on CC, anyway). So, sometimes it seems we do need a rough guide.  But also to understand there is a caveat that not everyone falls into the range.

As I said, people need to look at themselves with honest eyes. You'll soon work out what weight you need to be. There will always be those who willfully misunderstand such "guides" and assume they should be at the low end of the range, regardless. But I hope the rest of us can take it for what it is, ie a guide. But then again.....

Generally tho, I do agree that this formula is skewed low

PGEORGIAN - FANTASTIC PROFILE PIC!

i have that button i wear it with pride :) haha

anyway, I'm 5'6 and I'm athletic, I would think that 130 would be too low for me. When I weighed less and was 145 I was feeling/looking proper, maybe give or take a few pounds. I agree that muscle mass/(specific) body type plays a bigger role and that this formula should not be regarded as a real guide to how a person is meant to look.

I'm 5 ft 3 and some change, and 115 is great for me. My frame is small? My fingers very slightly overlap when I circle my wrist, but I don't know how accurate that is. I'd say I am small but not tiny.

I have been 110 before, which was good..but almost a bit too thin, really. A few more pounds less and I would have been considered underweight on the chart.

For a while I hovered at 112, which was also okay.

I'm good at my current 114-116, but could go up to 120 and not freak out too much too.

yeah i am agree with your formula it fit on me me 5,4  and have 120 lb weight its good for measuring weight . you are smart or weak or healthy.

www.healthcaresite.org/7-tips-toward-helping- you-reduce-your-insurance-costs

I am more similar to Samantha135 (though I am slightly jealous of her amazing pictures!) - 5'3" and when I was 125lb once due to illness I had sticking out hipbones and collarbones and did not look my best. 130-137lb sits much much better on me. It's taken a while to come to terms with that due to daft formulas like the one you mention (or BMI, for that matter). I do a lot of hiking and a lot of weightlifting, perhaps that's it... my body composition has changed (for the better I believe, despite the scale.)

That would be 108 for me - way too low.  I''m 130 and that's not bad.

It's about spot on for me. 5'2 and I like myself around 110 or a couple of pounds under, but I know anything under 105 and I start to look a bit scary.

I don't know. I'm 5'2" with a small-medium frame.  According to that list, I should be between 99--110, probably about 105. I've only been 105 once, and I looked emaciated. I would be very happy to be 120, but I do have muscular legs!

For the record, I'm about 138 now, and nobody thinks I'm overweight. People are always shocked that I need to lose as much weight as I do.

it would seem nice to people wanting to look slim.

5'6 would be 130 pounds :)

in the end what matters is how you look to your self in the mirror.

id like to get to 130 pounds just to see for myself how id look O_o and then decide.

there are lots of formulas about ideal weight. you would take the one which fits your goals/ ideas in general which you like.

Totally false for me. I've got big breasts, big hips, lots of muscle. I'm 5'0, and 143 pounds. I think 135 or 130 is my absolute goal weight. 100 pounds on me would be half starved and gaunt.

I'm 5'3" with a small frame (wrist less than 6 inches) so my ideal weight is supposedly 103.5 lbs. That is underweight on the charts, and my therapist/doctor both want me to gain up to 115 lbs (I'm 112ish right now) so I would say that the +/- 10% thing is sort of off.

The 5 ft = 100 lbs + 5lbs for every inch is a good guideline, but as for an actual ideal weight, you can't really judge based on that.

20 Replies