Height/ weight chart and worried about weight

Gannicus

Over the last 3 months I've lost 8 kilos and was quite proud of that. But recently I went to look at what I should way (in accordance with medical recommendations). Needless to say I was horrified to see the difference between my weight and what I should weigh.

A friend of mine told me not to look at it so strictly as I am of a very broad build tall and have quite muscular shoulders, arms and legs and he said just to work on my beer belly.

I've never really been self conscious of my weight until I saw what I should weigh. I am quite a long way off that weight and freaked & quite upset out for the last week as it's quite a large difference from what I currently weigh. How accurate are these charts

I'm 6'3" (would prefer not to go into what I way if thats possible)
here's 1 of the charts I'm talking about:

Hanley

What do you weigh, and how big is your waist around the belly button?

Completely impossible to advise without that info. You're on an anonymous internet website. No one will know you.

Gannicus

Hanley wrote: »

What do you weigh, and how big is your waist around the belly button?

Completely impossible to advise without that info. You're on an anonymous internet website. No one will know you.

I dunno what my waist is exactly but I wear 42inch waist slacks and weigh 130k at the moment. I was pushing.

Hanley

Big Steve wrote: »

I dunno what my waist is exactly but I wear 42inch waist slacks and weigh 130k at the moment. I was pushing.

If you're not self conscious about what you weigh, then it doesn't matter.

I know 2 guys the same height - one 90ish kg. One over 110kg. Neither look fat. Depends on how you carry it.

Gannicus

The actual difference between the two weights has made me very conscious of it. When I told a couple of very close mates they didn't believe me.

Librium

130kg? you need to be aiming for 100kg, even if you're a total tank.

Hanley

Librium wrote: »

130kg? you need to be aiming for 100kg, even if you're a total tank.

......is what someone would say if they were just trotting out rhetoric and not looking at the person as an individual.

At 130kg, he's probably far from lean, but 2 people can be the same weight and height and look VERY different. 100kg at 6'3 isn't very much for a "total tank".

Gannicus

Librium wrote: »

130kg? you need to be aiming for 100kg, even if you're a total tank.

I thought to aim for that as I thought that was okay. Looking at the chart I am now thinking approx 85-90kg is what I need to be, but after seeing I need to lose 40-45kg I became immensely disheartened.

I'm far from "total tank" I kept the arms legs and shoulders over the years as I used to kickbox and worked on building sites etc as a teen and up to about the time I turned 20.

ahnowbrowncow

If you go by that chart most rugby players are obese, it doesn't really take into account muscle mass so as your friend said don't take it too seriously.

Hanley

ahnowbrowncow wrote: »

If you go by that chart most rugby players are obese, it doesn't really take into account muscle mass so as your friend said don't take it too seriously.

Most rugby players sit at the very tail of the standard genetic bell curve and should not be used when comparing to "normal" folk.

CIARAN_BOYLE

Big Steve wrote: »

I thought to aim for that as I thought that was okay. Looking at the chart I am now thinking approx 85-90kg is what I need to be, but after seeing I need to lose 40-45kg I became immensely disheartened.

I'm far from "total tank" I kept the arms legs and shoulders over the years as I used to kickbox and worked on building sites etc as a teen and up to about the time I turned 20.

I think your friend is right. focus on the beer belly and things will be grand. Those charts tend to be very much for the average physique. Many sports persons for example will be significantly overweight according to those charts.

More general advice is ratios. I've been told that if your waist should not be more than twice the size of your neck. If it is you are carrying too much weight around the waist.

Librium

Hanley wrote: »

......is what someone would say if they were just trotting out rhetoric and not looking at the person as an individual.

At 130kg, he's probably far from lean, but 2 people can be the same weight and height and look VERY different. 100kg at 6'3 isn't very much for a "total tank".

take your holistic ****e and ram it.

i don't know what age this lad is, 20? 30? 40? but what ever it is he isn't going to get any lighter, unless he gets an illness.

if he's 130kg now he will be 140kg in 10 years. he has to be aiming for 100kg now, regardless of how 'big boned' or how ever you in the fitness industry call it.

ray jay

Big Steve wrote: »

I thought to aim for that as I thought that was okay. Looking at the chart I am now thinking approx 85-90kg is what I need to be, but after seeing I need to lose 40-45kg I became immensely disheartened.

85kg would be fairly thin for someone who's 6'3 and probably wouldn't be a good goal for someone with a broad build. 100kg is a pretty reasonable target to go for, you can always revise later it if it ends up being too high or low.

PhoenixParker

I wouldn't focus on your goal weight.
130kg is better than 138kgs
125kg is better than 130kg.

Focus on the next 5kg and keep going.

The beer belly is a legitimate target, if you want to go with it.
From a health point of view waist to height ratio is a decent target.
Your currently at 0.54 (roughly) and you need to aim for below 0.5.

g'em

Librium wrote: »

take your holistic ****e and ram it.

less of this please

Squatman

At my height, I should be 65kg, im currently 103kg, with a bodyfat of approx 17%. Chubby, yes, obese no. I also happen to know a guy with a b.f. of ~<10% (visibly 6 pack) and according to this chart is also obese.

Moral of story is, its a guide only, and even then it should be taken with a pinch of salt.

OP. whats you resting heart rate?

swimming in a sea

My thoughts are that targets like 100kg or 95kg are misguided. You are now 130kg so overweight but to carry that extra weight you've had to build muscle. So you probably have more muscle than person who is 90kg and is the same height as you.

So say you want to loose 30kg to get to 100kg to do this safely through exercise and diet the minimum time it will take will be 6 months. If you lift weights as part of your exercise(which you should) then you will be building more muscle so it is unlikely you will ever get down the a waif like weight of 85kg. Why would you anyways, lift weights get moving and watch the diet and don't worry about the scales and you will be a 100kg tank.

Think of it this way it is a lot easier for you to be a 100kg tank than for a skinny 80kg 6'3ft guy to bulk up to be 100kg tank

Squatman

swimming in a sea wrote: »

So say you want to loose 30kg to get to 100kg to do this safely through exercise and diet the minimum time it will take will be 6 months.

Where did u pick that number from?

the_syco

Hanley wrote: »

What do you weigh, and how big is your waist around the belly button?

This is true. Looking at the chart, it says I'm "obese", but it's just a bit f belly fat. If you do any bodybuilding at all, these charts will usually have you in the obese section, imo.

Hanley

the_syco wrote: »

This is true. Looking at the chart, it says I'm "obese", but it's just a bit f belly fat. If you do any bodybuilding at all, these charts will usually have you in the obese section, imo.

I very, very strongly disagree with this.

It's an excuse that is used A LOT by people who are in the gym lifting weights but are still far from an optimal body composition. Sure, it can effect it. But "normal" people won't end up as "obese" per the BMI charts just because of some weight training.

I'm 90kg, 5'10 and probably carry more muscle than most and I'm still in the overweight category. If you're >90kg and around average height while still being lean, you tend to look VERY big and there's no mistaking muscle mass for being fat.

Most peopel carrying weight seem to entirely underestimate how much they could actually lose on a diet.

Zamboni

swimming in a sea wrote: »

Think of it this way it is a lot easier for you to be a 100kg tank than for a skinny 80kg 6'3ft guy to bulk up to be 100kg tank

That would really depend on a host of variables, including but not limited to;
Your definition of "tank"
The body composition starting points of each subject
Training history of each subject
Nutrition discipline level of each subject
Psychological approach to goal setting, failure and program adherence

swimming in a sea

Squatman wrote: »

Where did u pick that number from?

well just through experience, from what I've seen over the years 1kg a week is the way to go. Manageable, if you consistently hit that mark it'll keep you motivated and best for the elasticity of you skin not be losing massive amounts of weight quickly so to avoid excess skin.

But just my opinion, I'm not a doctor.

Faster Doudle

swimming in a sea wrote: »

Squatman wrote: »

Where did u pick that number from?

well just through experience, from what I've seen over the years 1kg a week is the way to go. Manageable, if you consistently hit that mark it'll keep you motivated and best for the elasticity of you skin not be losing massive amounts of weight quickly so to avoid excess skin.

But just my opinion, I'm not a doctor.

I think maybe you mean 1 lb weight loss per week? 1kg a week seems like a hell of a lot to lose!

OP, I think the chart is just a rough guide, but at the same time I think it's accurate enough to suggest that you are currently overweight. You lost 8kg already, that's great! So just keep going as you are and like another poster said, concentrate on losing the next 5kg and see how you feel, don't get overawed by a big target.

rubadub

Hanley wrote: »

But "normal" people won't end up as "obese" per the BMI charts just because of some weight training.

+1

ahnowbrowncow wrote: »

If you go by that chart most rugby players are obese,

I expect many would fall under "overweight", but how many would be obese (using that chart), I doubt its a majority? I do not follow rugby so do not know who to pick as the fattest. You can see guys heights & weights here
http://www.irishrugby.ie/squads/index.php?includeref=dynamic&filter=yes&searchteam=&searchyear=&searchdecade=&searchinit=&order=&layout=

Clicking on some bigger looking lads some would be classed as obese, but they are carrying lots of fat.

brownej

rubadub wrote: »

+1

I expect many would fall under "overweight", but how many would be obese (using that chart), I doubt its a majority? I do not follow rugby so do not know who to pick as the fattest. You can see guys heights & weights here
http://www.irishrugby.ie/squads/index.php?includeref=dynamic&filter=yes&searchteam=&searchyear=&searchdecade=&searchinit=&order=&layout=

Clicking on some bigger looking lads some would be classed as obese, but they are carrying lots of fat.

If you take someone like Paul O'Connell. He's 6"6' and 110kg which puts him in the overweight category but he is carrying very little fat and looks absolutely massive in person. There's no mistaking a "tank" when you see one.

OP.
You shouldn't be looking at the chart and feeling bad about it. A professional rugby player physique is not that pratical for ordinary people. these guys are professional athlethes. This is their job.
If you are unhappy with your current size and want to do something about it then go to the gym. Do some cardio, do some weights (after getting some proper instruction first) and alter your diet to make it more sustainable. As you lose weight gradually you will start to fell better as you get fitter and healthier and eventually you will get to a size that is manageable for you and is something you are happy with. That could be 110kg or 90kg but you will know yourself when you get there.

ray jay

Faster Doudle wrote: »

I think maybe you mean 1 lb weight loss per week? 1kg a week seems like a hell of a lot to lose!

Not for someone the size of the OP.

Squatman

ray jay wrote: »

Not for someone the size of the OP.

Not for the first few weeks, but the amount of weight that he would lose as the weeks progress would decrease.

rubadub

Squatman wrote: »

Not for the first few weeks, but the amount of weight that he would lose as the weeks progress would decrease.

1kg per week is 2.2lb. The usual you hear is people should aim to lose about 1-2lb per week, and that anymore loss could be you eating into muscle rather than losing fat.

In his first few weeks I could imagine dramatic loses as he loses water weight. Then it would slow but I can see no reason he could not continue to legitimately lose 2.2lb of fat per week for a while after.

The 1-2lb estimate is for an average size person, male or female, so straight off a man can probably afford to lose more than a woman as this loss figure would no doubt be based on a % of your weight, and men naturally have a higher ideal weight. Its similar to how they estimate you might be over the legal limit after a single pint of beer, but a thin dwarf will have a higher blood alcohol level after a pint than a 40stone man. In this case the OP is a 6ft3" man so can probably afford to lose more than the 2lb recommended amount per week, just like he can eat more than the recommended 2500kcal. Also if you are very overweight/overfat you can probably afford to lose more than the 1-2lb without any ill effect. On those programs with superobese people you can see massive weight loss per week.

You can even attempt to calculate his recommended limit from that chart. At 6ft 3" the OK weight is about 72kg. If the person (male & female) is 5ft 7" their OK weight is about 58kg. So his "OK weight" is 24% higher than "average" (72/58). So I would expect his recommended fat loss limit to be ~24% more than usual quoted 1-2lb.

Dermighty

I'm 6'3" and 100kg and my mate is 6'2" and 100kg and we look totally different, I'm much leaner and he has a lot more muscle while both of us are broad and we both have small enough waists (34" for me). So I'd agree that height+weight isn't everything.

Just focus on being healthy instead of what slot you fit into on some generic chart that some f*cker made up in a lab!

Hanley wrote: »

I very, very strongly disagree with this.

It's an excuse that is used A LOT by people who are in the gym lifting weights but are still far from an optimal body composition. Sure, it can effect it. But "normal" people won't end up as "obese" per the BMI charts just because of some weight training.

I'm 90kg, 5'10 and probably carry more muscle than most and I'm still in the overweight category. If you're >90kg and around average height while still being lean, you tend to look VERY big and there's no mistaking muscle mass for being fat.

Most peopel carrying weight seem to entirely underestimate how much they could actually lose on a diet.

Carrying 3 in 1's home from the Chinese doesn't count :P

TimeToShine

so a 5'11 man should be ~65kg? that's about the weight of a teenage girl.

you should try and gauge your progress using measurements. unless you're carrying a lot of fat then the scale alone is a poor representation of progress.

riveratom

Always have to smile at these graphs.

I am 5'9" and at approx 92kg which puts me at borderline obese - I've got visible upper abs

The Guvnor

Hanley wrote: »

......is what someone would say if they were just trotting out rhetoric and not looking at the person as an individual.

At 130kg, he's probably far from lean, but 2 people can be the same weight and height and look VERY different. 100kg at 6'3 isn't very much for a "total tank".

Very true take two guys as an example (what I read years back) both are 6ft2 and 250lbs - both morbidly obese according to the chart.

However one is a desk jockey and the other is a linebacker for the NY Jets - apples and oranges etc.

Librium

both probably have equal liklihood ratios of dying of stroke or heart attack.

why is there some unwritten rule that big and muscle is healthy?

Magill

haha, i'd look bloody sweet at 12stone im telling ya !

Mellor

Librium wrote: »

both probably have equal liklihood ratios of dying of stroke or heart attack.

why is there some unwritten rule that big and muscle is healthy?

Whether or not big and muscly is always healthy is obe thing but they obviously don't have the same risk of stroke or heart attack. To suggest they prob would is nonsense.

Hanley

Librium wrote: »

both probably have equal liklihood ratios of dying of stroke or heart attack.

why is there some unwritten rule that big and muscle is healthy?

Because one is a trained state where you're eating good quality food, hopefully improving all physical qualities, looking after yourself, are likely to have lower blood pressure, a better blood profile and just feel better in general.

But hey, you stick to those guns of yours and keep making an lllogical argument.

The Guvnor

Librium wrote: »

why is there some unwritten rule that big and muscle is healthy?

There isn't but surely being in shape, training, eating healthy foods and generally taking care of yourself is better than not being active?

It is merely an example of how these height/weight charts are not at all perfect and do not account for people who are more athletic.

rubadub

TimeToShine wrote: »

so a 5'11 man should be ~65kg? that's about the weight of a teenage girl.

It does seem low.

I tried to find where the chart originated and if notes/warnings were given. It appears to be from www.food.gov.uk

Searching on there I found a link to a NHS chart which slightly different. And it did have a warning

Is this chart suitable for all adults?
This chart is suitable for most people aged 18 and over. However, if you have a very muscular build, it may not be suitable as having lots of muscle may put you in the overweight or obese categories, even if you have little body fat. For example, professional rugby players can fall into the 'obese' category despite having very little body fat. However, this will not apply to most people.

In addition to BMI, your waist circumference can provide information about your health. You can learn more in Why body shape matters.

http://www.nhs.uk/Livewell/healthy-living/Pages/height-weight-chart.aspx

PhoenixParker

It is low, 5'11" and 65kgs would put you as borderline underweight on that chart.
Anywhere between that and 81kgs would be a healthy weight.

Librium

Mellor wrote: »

Whether or not big and muscly is always healthy is obe thing but they obviously don't have the same risk of stroke or heart attack. To suggest they prob would is nonsense.

well since when did you become a cardiologist i thought you were a carpenter. LVH is common amongst athletes and is a risk factor for ischemic heart disease.

I would suppose about 1% of the obese people reading this are obese due to regular exercise and 99% are obese because they are fat and lift weights.

riveratom

Librium wrote: »

well since when did you become a cardiologist i thought you were a carpenter. LVH is common amongst athletes and is a risk factor for ischemic heart disease.

I would suppose about 1% of the obese people reading this are obese due to regular exercise and 99% are obese because they are fat and lift weights.

LVH, most commonly caused by hypertension? Which is caused by poor diet / lack of exercise?

It's much more about body composition than weight. I could be 100kg and have 8% body fat. Or I could be a 'healthy' 75kg with 22% body fat.

I would say the average beer-bellied Irish guy is probably in the 'healthy' range, but at that weight and bf %.

So you're spot on re the last part - most people will be just fat.

Librium

The ideal scenario is to look like a 400m runner not a power lifter. I don't see how people can argue with that. Looking like a sumo wrestler, a professional wrestler is not healthy. Aim for a body type like Rob Kearney not Jerry Flannery.

Don't see why people are getting so butt hurt.

Hanley

Librium wrote: »

The ideal scenario is to look like a 400m runner not a power lifter. I don't see how people can argue with that. Looking like a sumo wrestler, a professional wrestler is not healthy. Aim for a body type like Rob Kearney not Jerry Flannery.

Don't see why people are getting so butt hurt.

You're strawmanning the absolute sh*t out of this.

riveratom

Librium wrote: »

The ideal scenario is to look like a 400m runner not a power lifter. I don't see how people can argue with that. Looking like a sumo wrestler, a professional wrestler is not healthy. Aim for a body type like Rob Kearney not Jerry Flannery.

Don't see why people are getting so butt hurt.

You do know that a sumo wrestler and a professional wrestler are not the same?

Librium

riveratom wrote: »

You do know that a sumo wrestler and a professional wrestler are not the same?

yokosuna would disagree (RIP)

Librium

Hanley wrote: »

You're strawmanning the absolute sh*t out of this.

extra 10kg of muscle you might have on average joe bloggs might make you a faster runner, a stronger wrestler, or like kill him in a death match over a piece of fruit in a post-apocalyptic world but i don't know if it affords you any better health gains in the long run.

yeah resistance training for bone density, healthy heart and lungs and all that jazz but when you get the point where you're wearing tapout tshirts and have tattoos with a skin head, you've gone too far.

brownej

rubadub wrote: »

It does seem low.

I tried to find where the chart originated and if notes/warnings were given. It appears to be from www.food.gov.uk

Searching on there I found a link to a NHS chart which slightly different. And it did have a warning

http://www.nhs.uk/Livewell/healthy-living/Pages/height-weight-chart.aspx

It would appear to be as simple as BMI expressed in grapical form.
The normal weight is 20 to 25 overweight is 25 to 30 obese seems to be up to about 39 and very obese is over this again.

rubadub

Librium wrote: »

yokosuna would disagree (RIP)

I take it he was a professional sumo wrestler. "Professional wrestling"/pro-wrestling is a term describing the theatrical hulk hogan style stuff, an amateur could do pro-wrestling. You could describe hulk hogan as a professional pro-wrestler.

Librium

rubadub wrote: »

I take it he was a professional sumo wrestler. "Professional wrestling"/pro-wrestling is a term describing the theatrical hulk hogan style stuff, an amateur could do pro-wrestling. You could describe hulk hogan as a professional pro-wrestler.

hris Von Erich (Von Erich Family Tree) - 21
Mike Von Erich - 23
Louie Spiccoli - 27
Art Barr - 28
Gino Hernandez - 29
Lance Cade - 29
Jay Youngblood - 30
Rick McGraw - 30
Joey Marella - 30
Ed Gatner - 31
Buzz Sawyer - 32
Crash Holly - 32
Kerry Von Erich - 33
D.J. Peterson - 33
Eddie Gilbert - 33
The Renegade - 33
Chris Candido - 33
Test - 33
Adrian Adonis - 34
Gary Albright - 34
Bobby Duncum Jr. - 34
Owen Hart - 34
Yokozuna - 34
Big Dick Dudley - 34
Brian Pillman - 35
Marianna Komlos - 35
Umaga - 36
Pitbull #2 - 36
The Wall/Malice - 36
Emory Hale - 36
Leroy Brown - 38
Mark Curtis - 38
Eddie Guerrero - 38
John Kronus - 38
Davey Boy Smith - 39
Johnny Grunge - 39
Chris Kanyon - 40
Vivian Vachon - 40
Jeep Swenson - 40
Brady Boone - 40
Terry Gordy - 40
Bertha Faye - 40
Billy Joe Travis - 40
Chris Benoit - 40
Larry Cameron - 41
Rick Rude - 41
Randy Anderson - 41
Bruiser Brody - 42
Miss Elizabeth - 42
Big Boss Man - 42
Earthquake - 42
Mike Awesome - 42
Biff Wellington - 42
Brian Adams (Crush) - 43
Ray Candy - 43
Nancy Benoit (Woman) - 43
Dino Bravo - 44
Curt Hennig - 44
El Gigante/Giant Gonzalez - 44
Bam Bam Bigelow - 45
Jerry Blackwell - 45
Junkyard Dog - 45
Hercules - 45
Toni Adams - 45
Andre the Giant - 46
Big John Studd - 46
Chris Adams - 46
Mike Davis - 46
Hawk - 46
Mitsuharu Misawa - 46
Ludvig Borga - 47
Luna Vachon - 48
Steve Dunn - 48
Cousin Junior - 48
Dick Murdoch - 49
Jumbo Tsuruta - 49
Rocco Rock - 49
Sherri Martel - 49
Steve Williams - 49
Doug Furnas - 50
Moondog Spot - 51
Bastion Booger/Norman the Lunatic - 53
Ken Timbs - 53
Uncle Elmer - 54
Pez Whatley - 54
The Angel of Death - 54
Eddie Graham - 55
Tarzan Tyler - 55
Haystacks Calhoun- 55
Giant Haystacks - 55
Buddy Rose - 56
Kurt Von Hess - 56
Moondog King - 56
Randy Savage - 58
Gene Anderson - 58
Dr. Jerry Graham - 58
Bulldog Brown - 58
Tony Parisi - 58
Rufus R. Jones - 60
Ray Stevens - 60
Stan Stasiak - 60
Terry Garvin - 60
Boris Malenko - 61
Little Beaver - 61
Sapphire - 61
Shohei Baba - 61
Sir Oliver Humperdink - 62
Dick the Bruiser - 62
Wilbur Snyder - 62
George Cannon - 62
Karl Krupp - 62
Dale Lewis - 62
Gorilla Monsoon - 62
Hiro Matsuda - 62
Bad News Brown - 63
Bulldog Brower - 63
SD Jones - 63
Wahoo McDaniel - 63
Savannah Jack - 63

dead wrestlers

btkm8unsl0w5r4

I am always amazed when I ask people in the gym what they weigh. I have seen 5'9'' with bellies weigh 75kg and 5'4'' guys that are very lean weigh 89kg. I think a lot depends on your genetic build and whether you have trained for you genetics.

A stocky bloke that trains with weights can carry more muscle so look a lot leaner at higher weight. A thin shouldered guy who does a lot of cardio need to be lighter to look as lean.

Body fat percentage is more accurate representation of your body shape. However as a public health exercise these graphs take average results. You can see from the recent waist measurement campaign against obesity that the public health people are trying to get away from BMI also.

Personally I think the best representation is the mirror, you either look fat or not, if you want to look good in skinny jeans or look good with your shirt off are down to personal preference, most chaps here would probably prefer Hugh Jackman to Russell brand.

Hanley

Jay Narrow Boy wrote: »

most chaps here would probably prefer Hugh Jackman to Russell brand.

..I prefer ladies, but I'm not one to judge.