AT 6 3" and 225 lbs and 47 years old I consider myself reasonably muscular and fit. I’ve got thick, muscular legs, but a relatively thin waist and broad shoulders, so my overall build is medium heavy below the waist and medium above.
Height weight charts tell me I should weigh approx 160 to 200. I went down to 190 once in my college years and looked (literally) like a poster child for World Hunger Relief with ribs and spine bones sticking out. It was a struggle to stay at that weight.
BMI calculators specify that at 225 I am significantly overweight and just under the obesity range.
I understand that these are supposed to reflect population averages, but when I go out into the average world I see lots of non-fat men build kinda-sorta like I am. I’m hardly out of the ordinary, and yet these bell curve height-weight “averages” kick me to the edges.
A 6’ 3" man who weighs 200 lbs (TOP end of the recommended range) is going to be quite slim. Are height weight charts a real reflection of healthy weight ranges for the US population or are they skewed low on purpose for some reason?
[It depends on what ht/wt charts you’re using. The ones based on the older charts originally drawn up by insurance companies are VERY out of date and not valid anymore. But, you’re really getting into an area of controversy here, too. Some researchers, like Dr. Stephen Blair, say that weight all by itself is a very bad predictor of health, and physical fitness counts for much more. Fit obese people live longer than couch-potato thin ones (in his studies.) Health is not something that can be predicted if all you’re doing is looking at a ht/wt chart.
My BMI was 23.6, right at the top edge of normal. I’m hardly slim. I’ve got a bit of pudge on the belly, but am very well defined in terms of muscles (both upper and lower body). I think for most people it’s about right - which is what it claims to be.
The BMI standard is far from perfect. I wouldn’t worry too much about it. And keep in mind that the BMI just an "indicator,"and not a real measurement.
If you want to get an idea of how healthy you are, my advice is to stick with “real” measurements such as blood pressure, heart rate, fat percentage, cholesterol level, etc.
Or you can do what I do… if you feel good, then assume you are healthy.
Well, I’ve been below the minimum requirement for my height, and I was thinish, but not a freak or anything. Currently, I’m sort of right in the middle, BMI about 22.
However, BMI is about populations, not individuals. If you happen to be an outlier, I wouldn’t sweat it too much. (If you’re slim and trim and weight 225, most likely you have higher than average muscle mass.
At 5’11" and 177 pounds, I’m at the top end of normal. I definitely could stand to lose more weight and/or convert some of it to muscle (based on both looks and where I would like to be strength-wise). I’m not in the best cardiovascular shape ever, either (judging by frequent heart-pounding, out-of-breath jogs and bike rides), although it’s much improved since the beginning of summer.
While I can’t ever imagine being the 132.3 pounds it lists as the low bound of normal, the top bound of normal is 178.9 (where I was about a week ago). That’s a 44.6 pound difference, so I imagine the borders are very fuzzy.
BMI is a risk factor for heart disease and the like. If you’ve got a high BMI, you’re at a higher risk for heart disease than you would be with a lower BMI, even if your risk for heart disease is very low due to your health.
Of course, that doesn’t actually answer your question, does it? In America today, a healthy weight will seem low solely because the average American is significantly overweight.
When I was younger I was very athletic and my BMI was always in the “underweight” range. Now I have gained weight and feel flabby and would like to work out again (but now I have boobs and don’t want to lose them) but my BMI says “normal.” I think it works for populations, not individual people.
Meh, I don’t like to put too much stock into the whole BMI thing. According to the Weight Watchers site I should be 116-140 lbs. (I’m currently 5’4" and 180 lbs.) I would look like hell if I was that thin. Even on the 140 side of it. When I worked out 2 1/2 hours a day 6 days a week (a couple of years ago) I weighed 150. I was slim, very toned and defined and felt great. A few years prior I was 135 lbs and everyone thought I looked “sick.”
I agree with the posters above that said that if you exercise and eat healthy food, you can still be somewhat heavy and still be in good shape. My goal is to get back to 150 lbs.
Insurance companies put out charts outlining ideal weight according to height and age, and these charts are often taken as the gold standard and copied in many other places.
However, these charts were put out by insurance companies at a time when general research indicated that underweight people have the fewest health problems (and there is still good evidence for that). The charts are, therefore, biased towards lower weights.
I note that neither of the websites in the OP asks for gender. Isn’t the healthy weight-height relationship different for men and women? And if those charts are calculated for women, or for the population as a whole, might that explain why astro (a man) is getting results that seem odd?
I would agree. I personally think that a man my age and height probably would be a little lighter than me. Even when I’m in shape, I still look like a woman with all the appropriate curves and the gazongas. The fact that I am muscular, (but not stocky) may add some pounds too.
IMHO, the problem with the charts is that they don’t take into account body type. The old ectomorph-mesomorph-endomorph thing.
In contrast to the OP, I am over 6’2" and a few years ago I went all the way down to 155. I still had a bit of a gut and was not exactly skin and bones. My weight the past year has been in the 170-175 range which is quite definitely out-of-shape/too-heavy… for me.
But if they made 3 charts, then most people would automatically decide they are mesomorphs in order to avoid reality.
Huh? A 6 ’ 3 " man who weighs 200 lbs is QUITE SLIM? I don’t think so, unless he’s tremendously big-boned. The chart, as noted, doesn’t account for body shape. Small-boned men are on the lower end, though the weights you cite make me think “Asian,” not your typical overfed suburban male. I also think these charts don’t differentiate between muscle and fat. That is, between the 220 lb. gym rat chugging protein shakes and the 200 lb. sofa spud noshing on Twinkies and Ho-Hos.
Big difference. Ultimately, the chart is a crude, blunt instrument that requires sensible caveats–and helps insurance companies boost premiums, based on “science.”
True. The BMI chart has no way of measuring body fat content. Muscle mass and bone mass play a large role in someone’s weight. Even my doctor told me that she doesn’t like the chart.
But since men typically have more lean muscle mass vs fat, you’d think a similar-sized man would weigh more than a woman. My SO and I are very close in pant size and height, and he weighs 25lbs more than I do.