Ideal Weight Chart
Four published formulas, shown side by side — because the disagreement between them is more useful than any single answer.
What "ideal weight" actually means
There is no single ideal body weight. The formulas below were developed for clinical use — estimating drug doses, ventilator settings and nutritional targets — not to set beauty standards. They use height and sex only, which makes them reproducible and useful as a reference, but blind to muscle mass, frame size, age and fat distribution.
HealthCalc shows four formulas rather than one because their disagreement is informative. When all four land within a kilogram or two, the estimate is stable. When they spread wider, that is a reminder that the underlying concept is approximate.
| Formula | Year | Original purpose | Structure |
|---|---|---|---|
| Hamwi | 1964 | Quick clinical estimate | Base weight plus 2.2–2.7 kg per inch over 5 ft |
| Devine | 1974 | Drug dosing | Base plus 2.3 kg per inch over 5 ft |
| Robinson | 1983 | Correction to Devine | Lower base and smaller per-inch increment |
| Miller | 1983 | Correction to Devine | Higher base and smaller per-inch increment |
Formula details and the exact constants are documented on the Methodology page. All four were derived from mid-20th-century clinical and actuarial reference populations.
Ideal weight chart
Choose your unit system and sex. The Average column is the mean of the four formulas; the Range column shows the lowest and highest estimate. Neither is a target — they are a way to see how much uncertainty is built into the concept.
| Height | Hamwi | Devine | Robinson | Miller | Average | Range |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 150 cm | 43.4 | 43.3 | 47.4 | 51.8 | 46.5 | 43.3–51.8 |
| 155 cm | 47.8 | 47.9 | 50.7 | 54.5 | 50.2 | 47.8–54.5 |
| 160 cm | 52.1 | 52.4 | 54.1 | 57.2 | 53.9 | 52.1–57.2 |
| 165 cm | 56.4 | 56.9 | 57.4 | 59.8 | 57.7 | 56.4–59.8 |
| 170 cm | 60.7 | 61.4 | 60.8 | 62.5 | 61.4 | 60.7–62.5 |
| 175 cm | 65.1 | 66.0 | 64.1 | 65.2 | 65.1 | 64.1–66.0 |
| 180 cm | 69.4 | 70.5 | 67.5 | 67.9 | 68.8 | 67.5–70.5 |
| 185 cm | 73.7 | 75.0 | 70.8 | 70.6 | 72.5 | 70.6–75.0 |
| 190 cm | 78.1 | 79.5 | 74.2 | 73.2 | 76.3 | 73.2–79.5 |
| 195 cm | 82.4 | 84.1 | 77.5 | 75.9 | 80.0 | 75.9–84.1 |
| 200 cm | 86.7 | 88.6 | 80.9 | 78.6 | 83.7 | 78.6–88.6 |
| Height | Hamwi | Devine | Robinson | Miller | Average | Range |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 150 cm | 45.4 | 47.8 | 50.2 | 54.9 | 49.6 | 45.4–54.9 |
| 155 cm | 50.8 | 52.4 | 53.9 | 57.6 | 53.7 | 50.8–57.6 |
| 160 cm | 56.1 | 56.9 | 57.7 | 60.4 | 57.8 | 56.1–60.4 |
| 165 cm | 61.4 | 61.4 | 61.4 | 63.2 | 61.9 | 61.4–63.2 |
| 170 cm | 66.7 | 65.9 | 65.2 | 66.0 | 65.9 | 65.2–66.7 |
| 175 cm | 72.0 | 70.5 | 68.9 | 68.7 | 70.0 | 68.7–72.0 |
| 180 cm | 77.3 | 75.0 | 72.6 | 71.5 | 74.1 | 71.5–77.3 |
| 185 cm | 82.7 | 79.5 | 76.4 | 74.3 | 78.2 | 74.3–82.7 |
| 190 cm | 88.0 | 84.0 | 80.1 | 77.1 | 82.3 | 77.1–88.0 |
| 195 cm | 93.3 | 88.6 | 83.9 | 79.8 | 86.4 | 79.8–93.3 |
| 200 cm | 98.6 | 93.1 | 87.6 | 82.6 | 90.5 | 82.6–98.6 |
| Height | Hamwi | Devine | Robinson | Miller | Average | Range |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 150 cm | 95.7 | 95.5 | 104.5 | 114.2 | 102.5 | 95.5–114.2 |
| 155 cm | 105.3 | 105.5 | 111.9 | 120.1 | 110.7 | 105.3–120.1 |
| 160 cm | 114.8 | 115.5 | 119.2 | 126.0 | 118.9 | 114.8–126.0 |
| 165 cm | 124.4 | 125.5 | 126.6 | 131.9 | 127.1 | 124.4–131.9 |
| 170 cm | 133.9 | 135.4 | 134.0 | 137.8 | 135.3 | 133.9–137.8 |
| 175 cm | 143.5 | 145.4 | 141.4 | 143.7 | 143.5 | 141.4–145.4 |
| 180 cm | 153.0 | 155.4 | 148.8 | 149.6 | 151.7 | 148.8–155.4 |
| 185 cm | 162.6 | 165.4 | 156.1 | 155.5 | 159.9 | 155.5–165.4 |
| 190 cm | 172.1 | 175.4 | 163.5 | 161.4 | 168.1 | 161.4–175.4 |
| 195 cm | 181.7 | 185.4 | 170.9 | 167.4 | 176.3 | 167.4–185.4 |
| 200 cm | 191.2 | 195.3 | 178.3 | 173.3 | 184.5 | 173.3–195.3 |
| Height | Hamwi | Devine | Robinson | Miller | Average | Range |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 150 cm | 100.2 | 105.4 | 110.7 | 121.0 | 109.3 | 100.2–121.0 |
| 155 cm | 111.9 | 115.4 | 118.9 | 127.1 | 118.3 | 111.9–127.1 |
| 160 cm | 123.6 | 125.4 | 127.2 | 133.2 | 127.4 | 123.6–133.2 |
| 165 cm | 135.3 | 135.4 | 135.4 | 139.3 | 136.4 | 135.3–139.3 |
| 170 cm | 147.1 | 145.4 | 143.7 | 145.4 | 145.4 | 143.7–147.1 |
| 175 cm | 158.8 | 155.3 | 151.9 | 151.6 | 154.4 | 151.6–158.8 |
| 180 cm | 170.5 | 165.3 | 160.2 | 157.7 | 163.4 | 157.7–170.5 |
| 185 cm | 182.2 | 175.3 | 168.4 | 163.8 | 172.4 | 163.8–182.2 |
| 190 cm | 193.9 | 185.3 | 176.6 | 169.9 | 181.4 | 169.9–193.9 |
| 195 cm | 205.7 | 195.3 | 184.9 | 176.0 | 190.5 | 176.0–205.7 |
| 200 cm | 217.4 | 205.3 | 193.1 | 182.2 | 199.5 | 182.2–217.4 |
A second opinion: the healthy BMI range
The ideal-weight formulas and BMI answer slightly different questions. The formulas estimate a single reference weight from height; BMI defines a range of weights that correspond to a population-level healthy category. Comparing both keeps either one from looking more precise than it is.
| Height | Low (kg) | High (kg) | Low (lb) | High (lb) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 150 cm | 41.6 kg | 56.0 kg | 91.8 lb | 123.5 lb |
| 155 cm | 44.4 kg | 59.8 kg | 98.0 lb | 131.9 lb |
| 160 cm | 47.4 kg | 63.7 kg | 104.4 lb | 140.5 lb |
| 165 cm | 50.4 kg | 67.8 kg | 111.0 lb | 149.5 lb |
| 170 cm | 53.5 kg | 72.0 kg | 117.9 lb | 158.6 lb |
| 175 cm | 56.7 kg | 76.3 kg | 124.9 lb | 168.1 lb |
| 180 cm | 59.9 kg | 80.7 kg | 132.1 lb | 177.9 lb |
| 185 cm | 63.3 kg | 85.2 kg | 139.6 lb | 187.9 lb |
| 190 cm | 66.8 kg | 89.9 kg | 147.2 lb | 198.2 lb |
| 195 cm | 70.3 kg | 94.7 kg | 155.1 lb | 208.7 lb |
| 200 cm | 74.0 kg | 99.6 kg | 163.1 lb | 219.6 lb |
For a 168 cm woman, the four formulas average about 59.9 kg with a range of 59.0–61.5 kg. The BMI-based healthy range at the same height is 52.2–70.3 kg. The formula range sits comfortably inside the BMI range, which is exactly what you would expect: it is a narrower estimate within a broader category.
Why the formulas disagree
- Different reference populations. The constants were fitted to different insurance and clinical datasets, mostly decades ago.
- Different base heights. Hamwi and Devine anchor at 5 ft (152.4 cm); Robinson and Miller use different starting weights.
- Different increments. The per-inch (or per-centimetre) addition ranges from about 1.36 to 2.7 kg depending on the formula and sex.
- Height-only inputs. None of them know your waist, body fat, muscle mass or frame size.
A 3 kg spread between formulas is normal. If you are 5 kg above the highest estimate but have a healthy waist and body-fat percentage, the formula is probably not the right tool for your question.
Using the chart without over-trusting it
- Use it as a bracket, not a bullseye. The Range column is more honest than any single formula.
- Check body composition. A body-fat estimate and waist-to-hip ratio tell you where the weight sits.
- Account for frame and muscle. A large-framed, resistance-trained person can be healthy above the formula range.
- Do not chase weight for its own sake. Strength, sleep, blood pressure, blood glucose and energy matter more than hitting a formula number.
See it in context: the worked case study follows one woman whose ideal-weight estimate, BMI and body-fat percentage point in slightly different directions — and explains what to do about it.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which ideal-weight formula is most accurate?
None is clearly best for an individual. Devine is the most widely used in clinical settings, while the average of several formulas is more stable than any single one.
Why is my ideal weight different from my BMI range?
The formulas estimate a single reference weight from height, while BMI defines a broad category. The formula range usually sits inside the BMI range.
Does ideal weight change with age?
These formulas do not adjust for age. In older adults, preserving muscle and function matters more than matching a mid-century reference weight.
Is ideal weight different for athletes?
Yes, in practice. Athletes often carry more muscle and can be healthy above the formula range. Body-fat percentage is a better guide.
Should I try to reach the average value?
No. Treat it as one reference among several. A sustainable weight you can maintain with good health markers is a better target than a formula output.