Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I was reading some things online about how much someone should weight at different heights. I am currently 62 years old, 6 feet tall and 195 pounds. I consider myself thin and in shape for my age. But, according to the website below, I am overweight. It says I should weight about anything from 140-177 pounds. Anything over 184 is overweight for my height.
I can see someone who is 22 years old being 140-177 at my height but not someone my age. I read somewhere people's body mass and bones just get heavier when they get old so they will get heavier without necessarily being out of shape or fat. But the article below says nothing about the perfect weight being higher as you age. Your thoughts?
I mean, at 62, do you really care? There is no perfect weight really. That is why the BMI range varies so much and not even BMI is perfect. You can also have a healthy body weight according to BMI but still have a high body fat percentage or vice versa.
You are better off using measuring tapes and make sure you are eating a balanced diet and get enough exercise. Don't eat more than your body burn in a day...etc..
Pay attention how your clothes look. Look at yourself in the mirror, naked, and you will know if you have extra unhealthy weight that you carrying around.
Obviously plenty of people are in denial about their weight. I used to be as well. But after I started to weigh and log all my food for the last 460 days, I have managed to keep my weight under somewhat under control.
That chart makes no distinction between males and females- not sure how it's useful at all except for the BMI calculation. I'd think that a 6-foot tall man weighing 140 lbs. would look skeletal. Here's one that takes sex into account. It asks for age but I couldn't see any calculations where it made any difference.
OTOH- try not to let age be an excuse to gain weight. I'm female, 66, 5'7" and weighed 131 lbs, when I got out of high school. I weighed 122 this morning. I don't want to go below that because it would mean my BMI would be low enough to pose a risk for osteoporosis, but I got there the old, boring way: eat healthier, move more. My peak weight was 147 about 10 years ago. It had nothing to do with age and everything to do with not exercising portion control when DH made pot roast, mashed potatoes, pancakes, corn bread... all the good, heavy, down-home stuff.
I was reading some things online about how much someone should weight at different heights. I am currently 62 years old, 6 feet tall and 195 pounds. I consider myself thin and in shape for my age. But, according to the website below, I am overweight. It says I should weight about anything from 140-177 pounds. Anything over 184 is overweight for my height.
I can see someone who is 22 years old being 140-177 at my height but not someone my age. I read somewhere people's body mass and bones just get heavier when they get old so they will get heavier without necessarily being out of shape or fat. But the article below says nothing about the perfect weight being higher as you age. Your thoughts?
The typical 62-year-old will have a fair amount of muscle atrophy so they'd ideally be a few pounds less than a 22 year-old. People's mass gets heavier when they get old because they get fat. Bone density peaks around 25 or so and decreases with age. Again, pretty minor difference.
I was reading some things online about how much someone should weight at different heights. I am currently 62 years old, 6 feet tall and 195 pounds. I consider myself thin and in shape for my age. But, according to the website below, I am overweight. It says I should weight about anything from 140-177 pounds. Anything over 184 is overweight for my height.
I can see someone who is 22 years old being 140-177 at my height but not someone my age. I read somewhere people's body mass and bones just get heavier when they get old so they will get heavier without necessarily being out of shape or fat. But the article below says nothing about the perfect weight being higher as you age. Your thoughts?
Yes, this is correct in a general way. I don't know about the specifics for your height, but "ideal weight" is different between 16 and 35, even, or 40, let alone the 60's. Someone may reach their full height in their teens, but their bodies are still changing. That's one reason a broad range is given as to goal weight. A 35 or 40-year-old would be underweight, if they stayed the same weight that they were in their teens or early 20's.
However, between 50 and 60 other things are going on; hormonal decline tends to diminish muscle mass, unless you work to maintain it, but even so, you may lose a little. At the same time, as you head into a state of permanent hormonal imbalance compared to earlier in life, insulin may play a larger role, with less input from other hormones to keep it in check, so you may gain fat, especially around the middle, and potentially--visceral fat. There's individual variation, though, on that score. Some post-60 folks somehow stay rail thin.
OP, how do you compare at your current age, to when you were 45 or 50? If you're heavier, you've probably gained fat. Knocking off 15 lbs. shouldn't be too hard, though. They say the older you get, the harder it gets to lose weight though, so don't postpone it too long. Your metabolism continues to slow down through the later years.
Last edited by Ruth4Truth; 04-20-2019 at 10:44 AM..
The BMI is just an easy way to see where someone's weight is in correlation to their height. If you want the real number, you have to look at the body fat percentage that is more difficult to measure.
Our gym has one of the $25 gizmo's that estimates your body fat, but even that adjusts for age and assumes as you age you have less muscle.
In my case, I am 6' tall and weight 165. If I put my age as 42, it gives me 8% fat, if I put my real age (51), it gives me 10-11% fat.
The BMI is just an easy way to see where someone's weight is in correlation to their height. If you want the real number, you have to look at the body fat percentage that is more difficult to measure.
Our gym has one of the $25 gizmo's that estimates your body fat, but even that adjusts for age and assumes as you age you have less muscle.
In my case, I am 6' tall and weight 165. If I put my age as 42, it gives me 8% fat, if I put my real age (51), it gives me 10-11% fat.
Interesting. So it's not really measuring the situation, it's using an algorithm? I was at a gym for awhile, that didn't use any electronic gizmos, the staff measured with calipers, and then did the math themselves. They said that was the most accurate method.
Ok, get a dex scan or buy a scale that determines your body fat% and adjust your diet fitness to that. I applaud you for being concerned. Your age is the age (or maybe a decade earlier) when the midsection starts expanding.
That beer but seems to be easy to acquire. Do your best to keep
it off. It takes discipline.
The BMI is just an easy way to see where someone's weight is in correlation to their height. If you want the real number, you have to look at the body fat percentage that is more difficult to measure.
More so BMI is a tool to measure populations to determine insurance rates.
Quote:
Our gym has one of the $25 gizmo's that estimates your body fat, but even that adjusts for age and assumes as you age you have less muscle.
In my case, I am 6' tall and weight 165. If I put my age as 42, it gives me 8% fat, if I put my real age (51), it gives me 10-11% fat.
Interesting. So it's not really measuring the situation, it's using an algorithm? I was at a gym for awhile, that didn't use any electronic gizmos, the staff measured with calipers, and then did the math themselves. They said that was the most accurate method.
Right, those electronic ones must be using an algorithm based on age because, as Malloric said, an older person in most cases should weigh comparatively less to have the same body fat percentage as a younger person.
I don't consider 6 ft and 195 to be thin, FWIW. 6' and 160 or less would be more like it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
