Everyday Systems

The title of this topic is one of my favorite quotes from the incredible talent Dean Martin. (Dean Martin at the Sands)

I thought it would be appropriate for this thread, and the topic I "came across" last evening.

I was reading Dr. Kenneth Cooper's "The Aerobics Program for Total Well Being". He states: To find your ideal body weight multiply your height in inches by 4 (in my case 69x4), then subtract 128. At 5' 9" tall his formula puts me at 148 pounds. I haven't seen 148 pounds since I was 25 years old. Now at 46 I weigh 180. Occassionally I get my weight down to 172. When that happens my wife tells me I look too thin.

I don't know. All I know, for me to hit 148 I'd almost have to have giardia. And then I would pass out.

I've seen all sorts of methods for estimating "ideal" weight. Who knows which one is exactly right, but a big red flag for me when I'm looking at an estimate is whether or not it takes into account frame size.

Because really, just like some people are taller/shorter than others, some people are broader/narrower than others (read: NOT necessarily fatter/less fat).

Add to that the muscle vs. fat issue, and it's just really hard to actually get at an ideal weight for an individual without looking specifically at that individual. But I think a better metric is how you look and feel at a specific weight. If you look and feel good at 180 (and not as good at 170 or 190), that is probably about the best estimate for "ideal weight" as you can get.

Is that formula for both men and women?

Heh. So every person who is 5'2" should weigh 120 lbs.

I know people that height who would find that both too heavy and too light. A bit procrustean, if you ask me.

I think ideal weight should be determined by some co-efficiented metric of BMI, waist size, body fat %, muscle mass volume, eye color and shoe size.

Especially shoe size.

In other words, I don't think weight can really be determined by a formula.

hehe -- I think ideal weight should be determined by how much you weigh when you look in a mirror and think, "not bad," OR when your favorite pair of jeans fit. Or both. Only slightly teasing here....

wosnes wrote:hehe -- I think ideal weight should be determined by how much you weigh when you look in a mirror and think, "not bad," OR when your favorite pair of jeans fit. Or both. Only slightly teasing here....

Girl, you're so sane you're crazy.

Oddly, this is exactly what my Wii fit tells me I should weigh (at 5'9"). My first thought is "ridiculous". However, I was 152 for a little while when I was 33 or so. It must be possible.

I don't know that I could ever be that light again.

Over43 wrote:The title of this topic is one of my favorite quotes from the incredible talent Dean Martin. (Dean Martin at the Sands)

I thought it would be appropriate for this thread, and the topic I "came across" last evening.

I was reading Dr. Kenneth Cooper's "The Aerobics Program for Total Well Being". He states: To find your ideal body weight multiply your height in inches by 4 (in my case 69x4), then subtract 128. At 5' 9" tall his formula puts me at 148 pounds. I haven't seen 148 pounds since I was 25 years old. Now at 46 I weigh 180. Occassionally I get my weight down to 172. When that happens my wife tells me I look too thin.

I don't know. All I know, for me to hit 148 I'd almost have to have giardia. And then I would pass out.

I got 128. That's actually a good weight for me. I'm 125 at the moment.

Although there are sensible ranges, and you can probably tell without a chart whether you're *way* outside those ranges, I often think that the question "How much should a human weigh?" is sort of along the lines of "How much should a vehicle weigh?" Depends on the vehicle.

[EDIT: Oh, and for 6-foot-1 me, that formula gives 164 pounds, or twenty pounds less than I weighed as a high-school student doing vigorous martial arts training three or four times a week. I'm never going to weigh that little, but I'm OK with that.]

It came to 140 for me (5'7"). I'm a little over that, but it's actually not an unreasonable weight for me. I used to weigh about 135 when I was younger (before pregnancy), and currently run 144-146.

But I'm surprised that there aren't gender-specific variants of the formula.

132. Yeesh. I don't think so.

OK ladies,

The formula for the fairer gender is multiply your height in inches by 3.5 and then subtract 108. I am still trying to wrap my head around 148. (I am really learning to love emoticons...)

Over43 wrote:OK ladies,

The formula for the fairer gender is multiply your height in inches by 3.5 and then subtract 108. I am still trying to wrap my head around 148. (I am really learning to love emoticons...)

Wow -- 112.5. Talk about shock! Well, that ain't gonna happen!

Um, no. 126 is not happening.

Just for the record, that would be a BMI of 19.7. Definitely on the low side of the normal range.

Dr. Cooper did not go into detail on the formulation of his formula. I won't even try to guess. However, his background besides medicine was a high school and college miler. Apparently he doesn't understand not everyone runs (or ran) a mile in 4:38 seconds, nor is built to do that.

I think his overall research into exercise and diet are beneficial (this book I am reading suggests a three meal a day regimen), but he walked off the pier with some of his suggestions, particulary during the late 60's and 70's.

wosnes wrote:Wow -- 112.5. Talk about shock! Well, that ain't gonna happen!

I'm also 5'3" so 'should' weigh 112.5 according to this formula!
Now, I'm actually aiming for around there or a teensy bit lower, but at least I fully admit that's for my own vanity! Yeah, I would love to be 112.5, as I'm sure many women my height would be, but getting down to that weight has NOTHING to do with health. 'Should' doesn't come into it. What a stupid formula.

I've seen one chart that showed the ideal weight for my height (5'3") as 104. For me, that's even beyond emaciated! That chart came from an MD with a dietary program.

Over43 wrote:OK ladies,

The formula for the fairer gender is multiply your height in inches by 3.5 and then subtract 108. I am still trying to wrap my head around 148. (I am really learning to love emoticons...)

Wow, I got 116. I don't even WANT to be that low.

I got 123. Haven't weighed that since I was 12. I was possibly an inch shorter. And the doctor told my mother I should lose 10 lbs. I think that's when my sweets craze started. I started sneaking food then.

I got down to 136 about 20 years ago. Had to ice my knees all the time from running. Feared going to any social events because I was afraid to eat anything but my very prescribed fare.

My aim for myself is what I call 3/15/45. Three modest meals most days (a third to a half vegetables and fruits.) Fifteen minutes most days of resistance work. Forty-five minutes most days of walking briskly. A year or two of that. Whatever I weigh is ideal

oolala53 wrote:My aim for myself is what I call 3/15/45. Three modest meals most days (a third to a half vegetables and fruits.) Fifteen minutes most days of resistance work. Forty-five minutes most days of walking briskly. A year or two of that. Whatever I weigh is ideal

I like that!

I call my aim "5 of 7" - if I'm compliant 5 days out of 7 on most habits, that's good. (Exercise, taking vitamins, etc.) But your formula approaches it at a different and useful angle.

123 pounds - that's about what I weighed in my twenties, when I must have had the world's greatest metabolism, because I pretty much ate what I wanted (though when I look back it basically WAS 3 meals a day, few snacks and dessert primarily on weekends). The lowest I ever was was 118 pounds when I was 28. I was walking everywhere (partly because I really hated to drive. I had three accidents in five years and two of them were most definitely my fault. Being from New York I could navigate life quite well with a minimum of driving)

Then I fell in love, got married and got into my thirties and moved to the suburbs and had to drive. Even so the weight creep was slow until I hit forty, got pregnant and gained 35 pounds (lost about 20 of those). My forties were the worst, I was up to 180 pounds on my 50th birthday - when I saw that on the doctor's scale, it forced me to do something about it. Then I lost those 40+ pounds, getting down eventually to 135 (for at least a month or so!!)I think that was a bit too much however, someone I worked with stopped me and said - "don't lose anymore weight). Well no fear there!! I'm now at 157 and would love just to get back into the 140s again.