Loading…
See ideal weight ranges from four classic formulas plus the healthy-BMI span.
See ideal weight ranges from four classic formulas plus the healthy-BMI span.
Enter values above and click Calculate — results will appear here with the formula explained.
Four formulas dominate the ideal-weight conversation. Devine (1974) was built for drug dosing and became clinical convention; Robinson (1983) and Miller (1983) revised it from actuarial data, usually landing lower; Hamwi (1964) came from clinical observation for medication dosing. They disagree by several kilograms because they answer slightly different questions — dosing safety versus longevity statistics versus bedside habit.
More defensible than any single formula is the weight band corresponding to healthy BMI for your height — it acknowledges that people of identical height legitimately differ. A 170 cm male: Devine 66.3 kg, Hamwi 67.1 kg, Robinson 65.5 kg, while the healthy-BMI band spans roughly 53.5–72.0 kg. The band contains all three point estimates with room for frames and muscle on both sides; any single number inside it is as 'ideal' as the formulas get.
Frame size explains much within-band variation: wrist circumference and elbow breadth classify small/medium/large frames, shifting healthy weight by ~10% either way at fixed height. Two 175 cm men can differ by 8–10 kg of skeleton and muscle before fat enters the picture. If your wrists swallow watches and doorframes collect shoulder bruises, aim upper-band; if rings slide and collarbones show early, aim lower-band.
Muscle mass breaks every height-weight formula by design — none contain a composition term. Strength-trained individuals routinely sit 5–15 kg above 'ideal' at low body fat with excellent metabolic markers. The correction is simple: use formulas for the never-trained starting estimate, then switch to body-fat percentage plus waist metrics plus performance once training begins. Chasing formula weight while muscular means dieting away the healthiest tissue you own.
Age and life stage shift targets legitimately: older adults often do best slightly above youthful ideals (reserves against illness-related wasting), pregnancy follows trimester-specific gain guidelines rather than any formula, and adolescents use percentile growth charts. Post-illness or post-diet recovery weights above formula 'ideal' are features of healing, not failures of discipline.
None of these numbers account for individual health status, so treat outputs as orientation, never prescription. The practical target-setting sequence: healthy-BMI band first, frame adjustment second, composition check third (body fat + waist-to-height), clinician confirmation fourth — especially with metabolic conditions, medications affecting weight, eating-disorder history, or targets outside the band.
See ideal weight ranges from four classic formulas plus the healthy-BMI span. Formula: Devine: 50 kg (male) or 45.5 kg (female) + 2.3 kg per inch over 5 feet. Example: A 170 cm male sits 7.09 inches above five feet.
Four formulas dominate the ideal-weight conversation. Devine (1974) was built for drug dosing and became clinical convention; Robinson (1983) and Miller (1983) revised it from actuarial data, usually landing lower; Hamwi (1964) came from clinical observation for medication dosing. They disagree by several kilograms because they answer slightly different questions — dosing safety versus longevity statistics versus bedside habit.
More defensible than any single formula is the weight band corresponding to healthy BMI for your height — it acknowledges that people of identical height legitimately differ. A 170 cm male: Devine 66.3 kg, Hamwi 67.1 kg, Robinson 65.5 kg, while the healthy-BMI band spans roughly 53.5–72.0 kg. The band contains all three point estimates with room for frames and muscle on both sides; any single number inside it is as 'ideal' as the formulas get.
Frame size explains much within-band variation: wrist circumference and elbow breadth classify small/medium/large frames, shifting healthy weight by ~10% either way at fixed height. Two 175 cm men can differ by 8–10 kg of skeleton and muscle before fat enters the picture. If your wrists swallow watches and doorframes collect shoulder bruises, aim upper-band; if rings slide and collarbones show early, aim lower-band.
Muscle mass breaks every height-weight formula by design — none contain a composition term. Strength-trained individuals routinely sit 5–15 kg above 'ideal' at low body fat with excellent metabolic markers. The correction is simple: use formulas for the never-trained starting estimate, then switch to body-fat percentage plus waist metrics plus performance once training begins. Chasing formula weight while muscular means dieting away the healthiest tissue you own.
Age and life stage shift targets legitimately: older adults often do best slightly above youthful ideals (reserves against illness-related wasting), pregnancy follows trimester-specific gain guidelines rather than any formula, and adolescents use percentile growth charts. Post-illness or post-diet recovery weights above formula 'ideal' are features of healing, not failures of discipline.
None of these numbers account for individual health status, so treat outputs as orientation, never prescription. The practical target-setting sequence: healthy-BMI band first, frame adjustment second, composition check third (body fat + waist-to-height), clinician confirmation fourth — especially with metabolic conditions, medications affecting weight, eating-disorder history, or targets outside the band.
A 170 cm male sits 7.09 inches above five feet. Devine gives 66.3 kg, Hamwi 67.1 kg, Robinson 65.5 kg — while the healthy-BMI band spans roughly 53.5–72.0 kg. A large-framed lifter at 74 kg and 15% body fat is healthier than a sedentary 66 kg at 28% — the formulas can't see the difference, but the mirror, the tape and the bloodwork can.
Formulas are standard public references (see our methodology). External standards are cited in the text where they apply.
Last reviewed: September 2026 · Report an error