digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

How Much Should You Weigh?

healthatoz.com — BMI calculators are in abdundance but this one, from the now revamped healthatoz.com, seems to be more on the money. It not only asks you your height, but also your frame size and gives you a simple way to determine your frame size. You'll probably be surprised at how much you should REALLY weigh...

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • IvanB, on 10/12/2007, -3/+47Looks like I'm too fat.

    I don't feel like I am..
    • nobullshit, on 10/12/2007, -9/+81this is so so wrong. i'm 6 foot 2, 220 lbs, and in great shape. this tells me that i should be 170 to 190ish.

      maybe if i spent a month in a concentration camp.....
    • Tenlow, on 10/12/2007, -6/+108I think it's "how much you should weigh if you're an emo kid"
    • noeljohnhoward, on 10/12/2007, -18/+4like,
      im 5'10-11
      medium acording to the half assed wrist rating system
      and i weigh 140
      sooo im under weight.
      but i dont feel underweight
      hahahah i donno man
    • eplawless, on 10/12/2007, -2/+128this system discriminates against midgets with large hands.
    • consoneo, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7I am 5'11" and weigh 185... Says I should weigh 146.. According to the body size estimator, I have a small frame because my fingers overlap.. but I have big wrists and gigantic hands... so it's not quite accurate :) HORRIBLE SITE! hehe, jk. I guess it's alright if you don't use the body size estimator, and just use common sense. 175 is what it says I should weigh for a large frame, and that's what I used to weigh before I started working out regularly. Probably meant for the optimum stress on the musculoskeletal structure.
    • hammydude, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7according to it I weight too little! Oh well I have really thin wrists anyways
    • dolemite5005, on 10/12/2007, -2/+18Wow. Being 6'3" with a "small frame" (or big hands) i should weigh 160lbs. I don't think i've weighed that little since grade school.

      I weigh 220 now and eat well, work out plus run a few miles every single day of my life.
    • bitt3n, on 10/12/2007, -1/+18this is absolutely retarded. it says I should weigh 138 when I weigh 170 and have 6% body fat.
    • dziban303, on 10/12/2007, -5/+13"Up yours!" to the poster. Thanks for making everyone feel inadequate to some degree.

      This calculator sucks anyway. I'm 6'1" and according to this stupid thing I have a small frame (ridiculous), but when I last weighed 170 pounds (college diet, aka ramen and some steam on special occasions) I was emaciated, certainly not normal or healthy.

      Buried as inaccurate.
    • supanaturalhigh, on 10/12/2007, -9/+9@*****

      I'm 6'2", and it says I'm supposed to weigh 174 lb. I actually only weigh 145 lb, and in no way do I look like I'm from a concentration camp.
    • Boor, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I'm not sure how tall I am, the measuring tape says I'm 6'2" but the height meter at the local bank says I'm like 6'4". I don't know who to believe :(. Anyway if the banks right im my perfect weight, if the measuring tapes right im overweight.

      Note: im fairly inept at using the measuring tapes
    • CamZak, on 10/12/2007, -1/+76' and I'm supposed to weigh 150? Somewhere an anorexic is crying because of this website not taking into account of people with long fingers.
    • Gemini25RB, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3@*****
      Read your post, thought you said "6 feet tall, 2220 lbs, and in great shape"

      Thought you were being sarcastic, but then i noticed the space between the '2' and ','. Makes a lot more sense now.
    • ZenMojo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Test is screwed. I've got small wrists, true, but I've also got huge hands, which ruins the test already. But the real problem is that I'm 5'8'' and 40'' at the shoulders but somehow "small-framed."
    • Greattastic, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Tenlow:
      I thought I was in good shape and it says I'm 50 pounds underweight
    • blobzorz, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3It was right on the dot...
    • Comatose51, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I punched in Lance Armstrong's height and estimated him at medium built and he's STILL overweight! he's roughly 5'10 and 165 pounds and it estimated 156 for him. He's probably closer to small built than medium so I was being generous.

      This thing is horribly off.
    • worthbak, on 10/12/2007, -6/+9i love how everyone on digg is now like,"yea i weigh like 180 with a six pack. it isnt like im just a geek in my mom's basement or anything" gotta love the internet!

      [for the record, i do weigh 170 and have a six pack]
    • HardSide, on 10/12/2007, -3/+15'10" Medium built, and it says I should weight 158 and not my 170. Thats freaking nuts, I can run a mile easy, i excercise easy with 25 pushups without stopping and 110 situps without stopping. Give me a break, this website blows.
    • thoughtfulclown, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2damn - i'm 6'2", 165 pounds, large frame, and i should be 25 pounds heavier...

      time to hit those weights...
    • CTRLALTDLT, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2All these are complete BS really if your muscular. Im 6'5 and 220 and you can still see my ribs. It says my weight should be 173, how many people do you know 6'5 that weigh under 200?
    • packerbacker89, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1@HardSide
      I'm 6' 2", 175-180lbs, a mile run is nothing (I can run about 3-4 miles on a beach, or more than 2 miles on the road), 55 pushups is my 'low' max, and I've done 350 situps before without stopping. I can do 30 chin-ups, and a few more pull-ups, I have a 6-pack, and yet I consider myself to be right around the perfect weight. If anything, I could lose some fat on my stomach.
    • Kbennett, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3The problem with this and most other BMI calculators is they don't take into account above average muscle mass, so they're particularly off if you're an athelete.
    • wunch, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1On the results page: "This healthy weight calculation is intended only for adults and may not accurate for those who are extremely muscular, less than 5 feet tall, or very elderly."

      Even taking that into account, I think this is way off.
  • DisposableRob, on 10/12/2007, -0/+77It asks for frame size, but not gender?
    • captinherb, on 10/12/2007, -3/+71or muscle mass. Wait, this is digg, never mind..... :)
    • Jeyrad, on 10/12/2007, -4/+95There are no women on the internets.
    • JimmyLin, on 10/12/2007, -1/+36This is the worst body mass calculator I have ever encountered.

      Here is a much better one: http://www.halls.md/body-mass-index/bmi.htm (your gender actually matters).

    • EXreaction, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Lol, according to: http://www.halls.md/body-mass-index/bmi.htm

      If you are 440 pounds 2' 8" tall, and 2 years old you are > 98th percentile. :lol:
    • JohnCrichton, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2it said "check your numb", well no *****, i just happen to be one of the zombies.
    • thecoolestcow, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Ooo nice, Jimmylin. I usually depend on sites with Comic Sans and teddy bears and cat favicons. Those are the only one's I find to be accurate. Nice animated gifs too. Those add a good 90s flair.
    • oxyrubber, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5"There are no women on the internets."
      SOOOO not true. Everyone I meet on internet chat rooms claims to be a hot 17 year old girl.
      /tehehe
    • toxicredm, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1@JimmyLin:

      But it doesn't take frame size into account. In fact, I bet it is only for small frame people. I'm 5'6" with a large frame and I weigh 200 lbs and it says I'm obese. I know I'm a little overweight, but to suggest I'm obese is just absurd.
  • DisposableRob, on 10/12/2007, -9/+1...
  • DisposableRob, on 10/12/2007, -9/+2freakin double click
  • Tanbo, on 10/12/2007, -16/+11If all Americans followed these weight recommendations, we'd have a far healthier nation.
    • pegothejerk, on 10/12/2007, -3/+42if we americans followed ANY recommendations, we'd have a far healthier nation.
    • zweben, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6edit: beaten to obligatory sarcastic comment.
    • foolfromhell, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1no. It says I am 8 pounds underweight, but I know I am quite fat.
    • Software2, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7"if we americans followed ANY recommendations, we'd have a far healthier nation."

      I reccomend the Angus diet. Nothing but Angus.
    • Lososaurus, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3The problem is Americans do follow these recommendations. These recommendations are unrealistic because they do not take into account muscle mass, gender(sometimes), heritage. These old formulas expect every person to be Lance Armstrong or an Olympic track runner. Americans try to follow these recommendation but ultimately give up because of perceived futility.

      What people need to do is stop focusing so much on something as silly as a number and should focus on general health and fitness.
    • OdinEye, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3@Lososaurus

      Americans do not "try" to follow these, or any other recommendations. We keep getting progressively fatter as a nation, despite ongoing recommendations to the contrary. If we're "trying", we really suck at this.

      I'll agree that a single number isn't the way to focus, but we desperately need people to understand how to eat right.

      Amazingly enough, regular consumption of triple cheeseburgers at McDonalds turns out not to be good for you. Unfortunately, judgement of weight becomes relative to what you see around you. As people get bigger and bigger overall, people assume they must be okay (more or less) as long as they are consistent with what they perceive as the average (which is rising). At this point, people who are actually within their appropriate BMI (their real appropriate BMI, not the one from this site) get ridiculed for being "too skinny" by the people around them.
  • airencracken, on 10/12/2007, -6/+3I'm underweight.
  • Roger, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4What about age? Sex? Race?
    • TimDigg, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Race?!?!?
    • JohnCrichton, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8samoan??
    • kalleanka, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Believe me, nationality matters.
      I moved from Europe to USA and in one dag I went from M to S. How cool is that, no diet needed!
    • umdigger, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1dag....from somewhere in Scandinavia?
    • skydivingdutch, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Actually that would be dutch
    • umdigger, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I speak Danish and dag = day (for the most part). So it's not just dutch and my comment is still valid since it was only a question and not a statement.
  • cgfranco, on 05/23/2008, -2/+1I'm underweight...by like four pounds.
    • neuropsychguy, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1And I'm overweight by a few pounds! That's the first time I've ever been told that (other than people joking). I'm not as skinny as they come but I'm pretty close.
  • zweben, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2According to this thing, i'm about 20 lbs under weight. Not too far off what I usually hear, but i'm not convinced that i'd be any healthier if I weighed 20 lbs more.

    I don't think 3 choices of frame and the height is enough to fomulate an accurate ideal weight.
    • zweben, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11I just had a revelation!

      According to my calculations... if I lose my legs up to my mid shin, i'll be just short enough to hit my ideal weight!


      Oh wait.... i'll be lighter with part of my legs missing. =(

      *puts down chainsaw*
    • pants428, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2according to this, I am underweight...
      (switches from light beer to regular)
  • Bob042, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4This doesn't really take much into account, it's an extremely vague calculation. I guess really muscular people are also horribly obese.
  • DDoSAttack, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5***** big time...

    I am 6' 3" with a large frame (according to the article) and weigh 250lbs... I am far from overweight. This thing, like most all other BMI calculators, don't take muscle mass into account.
  • eaber81, on 10/12/2007, -0/+28I'm not overweight, I'm undertall.
  • dpk87, on 10/12/2007, -2/+15 pounds under.
  • 6ixStringJack, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8Huge Scam. When I worked out for 2 years I put on 60 pounds and was in the shape of my life. I was 195 lbs and only 5' 6". According to this I was 52 lbs overweight.

    No wonder we have so many Aneorexics and Bulemics in this country. We all can't be Kate Moss. We can't all afford the cocaine.
  • stuartjmoore, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1wow, 20lbs under if I'm a small frame... which I'm not sure I am.
  • Tobey, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Somethings wrong with this thing... It says I need to lose 105lbs. There's not gonna be much left of me if I do that!

    I found this one to be a little more accurate: http://www.halls.md/ideal-weight/body.htm
  • colonelmustard, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2It works great for me. I'm a pound overweight.
    • 6ixStringJack, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2You must be a wuss then. When I was 143lbs people used to push me around. You should get your ass in the gym and put on some weight.
  • NCSUGavin, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2"This calculation is only an estimate. "

  • lefrat, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2This could really use AJAX...
    It reloads the page everytime you click on the damn pointer!
  • Vuredel, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0My result was actually EXACTLY what I weigh. 5'5", small frame. 122 lbs. But, I think I need to gain weight, still. =)
  • Bloodwine, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3We need to get rid of BMI and just pay attention to percent body fat instead.

    BMI can give a rough estimate of your shape in most cases, but it has too many issues to be reliable for everybody. While fat calipers and those omitron digital calipers aren't 100% reliable, they are better than going by BMI.
    • CaseyUCF, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1True that
    • corduroy, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1I hate BMI, it's so innacurate.
      Is the person who hits their optimal weight but 40% body fat healthier than an athletic person (12-15%) who is 10lbs overweight? BMI is only accurate for those that have a good diet and don't do any extra physical activity... Divert from the "average" and your results are messed up. I'd say that's a fairly limited scope for something that's applied to the general public.

      However, percent body fat isn't a good indication of healthiness either. A 270lb bodybuilder at 4% body fat who runs out of breath climbing stairs is in no way healthy. Lean yes, healthy no.

      I think ideal body weight should take into consideration weight, height, blood pressure, blood rate, age, and frame.
  • Veamon, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5goddamn, all this weight calculating makes me hungry. Where are my Cheetos?
  • AstroZombie138, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Its true that this doesn't take into account muscle mass, but for most people this is not an issue. My point being that there are a lot of 200lb+ guys out there that think they have an extra 30lbs muscle mass when in reality they have an extra 10lbs muscle and an extra 20lbs of nicely placed fat.

    If you're athletic you use BF% only and don't even worry about what you weigh.
  • nixr, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11I'm fat.
  • Kohaxx, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1It says my weight is perfect for my height, yet I'm in terrible shape, men really should have a different way of calculating this, I can only see this working if you only cared about a scale reading which doesn't reflect how you look or feel at all.
  • Eric21, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1im a 6'9 190 pound stick
  • MrBeatdown, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1This is an absurdity. I compete in mixed martial arts and lose weight like crazy to compete at 155 pounds. According to this I should be walking around at 152, as opposed to the 170 pounds I walk around at when I am healthy and not prepping for a fight.

    Marked as inaccurate.
  • kiwiboyus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I call shinanagins! It doesn't take gender in to account. No way 143 pounds is heathly for 5'7'
  • Xinareiaz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1lol, ive always been 25-30 pounds underweight
    Im 6' 3" and only weigh 135
    • neuropsychguy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Wow, 5 inches taller than me and 10 pounds lighter. I thought I was skinny...
  • Veamon, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Notice how all the fatties here are all "I'm not fat though..."

    Yes. You are.
  • castillo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I'm suppost to weigh 176! I'm no where near that.
  • termitenshort, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1I'm fat ....
  • Foshi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Here is a good idea... ask your doctor.
  • MrTea, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I should weigh 160lbs; I am 70lbs over that. Yay?
  • PocoElMono, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I'm underweight as well. At 6'2" with a small frame, it says I should be 159 pounds, and I'm 140.
  • sathia, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I told him: 190 cm, he answered 74 kg, c'mon can't be true
  • gamer31, on 10/12/2007, -1/+130 pounds underweight

    i think ribs are sexy if you ask me.
  • rawM3TAL, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Dead on for me. I'm 5'3", small frame, and it guessed 115. I'm 110.

    :D

    (boo for being short)
  • smaxl, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I guess working out is making me unhealthy. I guess i should go back to playing video games all day and watching movies to loose weight.
    • wilsonder, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1damn straight! w00t, screw athletics. I would hardly say I'm skinny but If i had to lose 30 pounds to be "A healthy weight" I would fall over dead.
  • krazygluon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Buried as Lame...It doesn't ask gender WTF? Caculating my skeletal/lean body masses suggests that with 0% bodyfat I *might* weigh what this thing suggests...total crap what about those with small wrists or big hands AND wide shoulders?
  • dvdmon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1BMI has always been a flawed method of measuring ideal weight. But it underlies part of the problem. Most people want easy answers and so experts have popped up to tell people to look at a couple of metrics and then eat accordingly. Nutritionists also give everyone the same advice. Unfortunately, despite shairing the same general genome, people's bodies can react very differently to things. But we're given a one-size fits all advice. Then again, it's probably what many people want. They just want to be told what to eat or that they are too fat or too thin (but really mostly too fat), rather than researching what might be the best choices for them and also base how much they want to weight on how they feel physically.

    Then there's the whole issue of how much being "overweight" actually matters in the scheme of things. Some say that a few extra lbs can mean a huge risk factor in heart disease, cancer, etc., or that eating very little might prolong your life. But there is no proof of any of this, it's just conjecture and also, I think, a projection of our obsession with being thin, an obsession which produces it's fair share of anorexics, bulemics, liposuctions, dangerous diet pills, and even doctors and nutritionists who obsess so much about calories that they would rather you eat processed low-fat microwavable crap than REAL whole foods, with *gasp* actual fat, even saturated fat!
  • Tanbo, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2Look, you people can't handle the truth. MANY of you are overweight - this should come as no surprise as Americans have a reputation for being overweight.
    But no one wants to accept this until they develop heart disease, diabetes, etc. later in life.

    Lose weight folks, I'm serious. Hopefully this BMI calculator will encourage you.
    It says I am 10 pounds overweight. Most people I meet think I am the perfect weight, but in reality, I know this calculator is correct, and I need to lose 10 pounds.
    • mollybridget, on 03/16/2008, -0/+0And if that calculator told you that you were underweight would you have believed it?
  • adamsucks, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Very inaccurate. Just because you have thin wrists doesn't mean you've got a "small build".

    According to that thing I'm 65 lbs overweight. Sorry, but I'm perfectly fine at my weight, minus a small beer gut. :)
  • frank3000, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1cant they please learn some ajax for that dial thing?
    im tired of the page reloading with every click
  • justonia, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1These BMI calculators are so out of whack if you do even a little bit of weight lifting. They never take muscle mass into account, so if you are 5'11", 200lbs and muscular, you are "overweight". But if I was what they consider proper weight, I'd be emaciated. I've got a better idea to tell if someone is overweight, take a shirt off and look in a mirror, it's pretty obvious as long as you don't have an eating disorder.
  • adamsucks, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Very inaccurate. Just because you have thin wrists doesn't mean you've got a "small build".

    According to that thing I'm 65 lbs overweight. Sorry, but I'm perfectly fine at my weight, minus a small beer gut. :)

    Oh .. and a 12'0" large build person should weigh 721 lbs.
  • bluto20, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Guess I need to work on losing 105 lbs. :(
    • wilsonder, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1I don't think anorexia can even help you with that...
      You might consider losing an arm and a leg though... quite literally
  • Sippi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I am 6'7 and it only goes to 6'6, but it was close. Says I should weigh 194lbs. and I weigh 195lbs.
  • ad0beaddict, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Im 6'2 140 in exelent shape and it says i should way 174pounds
  • tw0bit, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Im apparently under weight...im 155 should be 170...im still in highschool...chicks digg bones right?
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 100 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.