I have a question/comment about something that Joan said in another thread (men's exercise).

Hi FtLaud: For your height, your weight is just about perfect....(to calculate ideal body weight, take 106 pounds for the first 5 feet and then 6 pounds for every inch thereafter). You should weigh 172. So you're just about right...

But before I comment any further I want everyone to know that I do not want to start a war here like happened yesterday. :( I just have a legitimate question - I am not offended, or upset or anything :D

I know this was with reference to men's weight, but I am wondering where you got the 106lbs for the first 5 feet rule :confused:

What worries me is that if this rule is for men, then the ideal would be even less for a 5 foot woman (less muscle mass).

Well, I am a woman who is exactly 5 feet tall and last time I weighted 106lbs was when I was 12 years old! This just doesn’t seem right.

Even when I was meticulously monitoring what I ate and working out twice a day my weight was 111 on a VERY good day.

What gives? :confused:

-Diane

Try this body mass index and weight/height comparison calculator

For Men
http://www.halls.md/body-mass-index/av.htm

For Women
http://www.halls.md/body-mass-index/bmi.htm

Thanks Andrew....that's the LATEST indicators being used......and will tell whether you're underweight, normal weight, overweight, or obese based on height and weight.....and so risk of chronic disease is determined which is overall the most important issue....diabetes, heart disease, cancer, kidney disease, etc.

Diane, forget the other thing....it was JUST a rough estimate I was using in the moment...

Oh, okay. I've always had issues with those height weight charts. But I guess that is the best we can do right now, until we can calculate body fat % accurately and inexpensively.

-Diane

You CAN get your body fat % calculated accurately...but it IS expensive....i

Inaccurately not expensive.....by a dietitian or personal trainer it can be done with an instrument called triceps skinfold calipers....they actually squeeze a little bit of your upper arm and a number comes out -- indicating what percentage of your body is fat and what percentage is muscle mass...but it is not totally accurate....

Here is a body mass indicator for kids:

cdc.gov/nccdphp/dnpa/bmi/bmi-for-age.htm

Sorry, the previous web site is correct, but try this -- it's a good site for kid's BMI's:

http://www.cdc.gov/growthcharts

According to the site Andrew posted, I am overweight. I am in top shape and have little fat on my body. The calculator assumes that all of your weight is fat, not muscle. Just remember that the internet is for a rough guess, a speicalist is for accuracy.

According to the women's BMI calculator listed above, I'm underweight. I don't feel underweight ... I'm just not very big! ;) As Gil said, it gives you a rough assessment, and you need to look at your overall build and fitness level too.

Yep...like all other health information provided on the Internet...take it with a grain of (virtual) salt. If you're concerned with what you read, print it out and take it to your doctor.

Grain of virtual salt. Love that. :D

Just to add--remember, it's body fat percentage that really counts! I got a rude awakening when I went to my physical to be a volunteer EMT--I am borderline underweight (110, I"m a five foot 3--ok, so 2.5, but I round up--female) but my body fat percentage is something like 32. Which is too high.

So yeah, skinny does not equal healthy, necessarily.

So now I'm trying to gain weight and lose fat...let me tell you how much fun that's NOT!

Yeah, heh, heh,

I had a bit of trouble with the averages at first too. :-) The health book the Navy uses right now, uses just one of the many different means of figuring out a good healthy weight for an individual. According to it my ideal weight is 170 pounds or so, which, believe me would look pretty ugly, but then I caught the little note saying to add ten percent for larger frames. That booted me up into the one eighty something area. Still on the very light side. It just didn't seem a realistic weight for me. Especially seeing as how I hadn't seen that weight since years before I had finished growing. Finally my doctor put my questions on the matter to rest by telling me that for my frame anything in the 225, to 235 range was probably just about right. Right now I am running a little on the light side, but between the adderall, and all the running, my metabolism is running higher than usual. I think it is mostly the running now. As my heart rate and blood pressure have normalized. I think my body has adjusted to the adderall. Besides, with the schedule I keep, I forget to eat alot. I need to stop doing this as it runs you down wicked bad.