Quote:
Originally Posted by troutman
I'm often shocked to see that my recommended weight range at 6'0" is 136-183. That seems very light for my build - broad shoulders, fairly muscular. I think 190 would be ok for me? Any less, I think I would look gaunt.
|
Use body-fat percentage instead of BMI if you're muscular. The BMI is good for measuring average populations and assessing health risk, but it has limitations: skinny fat people on the low end, and athletes and bodybuilders on the upper end.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bizaro86
140-189 lbs is the BMI recommended weight range for my height, which is absolute nonsense at the bottom of that range. It's almost like human health can't be curve fit into a quadratic equation.
|
It's almost like we've become so fat as a society that our perception of what constitutes a health weight is skewed. I'd wager most don't know what a healthy weight looks like anymore.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen
Technically 137 puts you on the right side of "normal". This guy is 6'0'' and 140:
https://height-weight-chart.com/600-140.html
You're certainly going to look skinny, especially dudes due to muscle, but I don't think you would necessarily be unhealthy. |
Pretty much exactly this; take a look at that site; once you get up to the 180 lbs mark at 6'0", the dudes kinda all start to look like they work in IT.
I maintain that body-fat percentage is a more important metric, but the problem is that it's so damned difficult to measure accurately. Bioelectrical impedance scales are generally regarded as inaccurate for singular measurement; you can use them to measure progress over a period of time, but they're not at all accurate when assessing current state. DEXA is the most accurate but requires you to pay or get your doctor to refer you and you will be subjected to a minute amount of radiation, like an x-ray. BodPod volumetric assessments are probably the best compromise at 95% accuracy and relatively low cost (2110 Fitness has them for $75 a session or $150 for three).