The optimal ratio of weight and height has always interested mankind. There are many methods for calculating the ideal body weight, but none of them can be called absolutely accurate. It is necessary to take into account not only numbers, but also well-being, and appearance. Not always a person with theoretically ideal values has a beautiful body, and vice versa, one who does not fit into the norms of weight and height adopted now can have an excellent figure.
With the same weight, height and age, two people of the same sex can look completely different - one will seem thinner than the other. Or an athlete with developed muscles with a slender and toned figure can weigh more than a loose, plump man of the same height, because muscles are heavier than fat. Sometimes an outwardly thin person weighs more than someone who looks fatter due to heavy bones.
Most formulas for calculating normal weight are not suitable for people who are too short or too tall. People of the same height, but of different ages can not have the same body weight, because with age there is a gradual increase in weight, which is the norm. Fat deposits in different people are not distributed equally throughout the body even at the same weight, and this affects the physique.
For a long time, the formula of Paul Brock was considered the most famous and simplest way to determine a person’s weight: height minus one hundred. This method did not take into account gender, age and body structure. Current standards of weight and height do not correspond to the values obtained by this formula, at least for young people. Therefore, when it comes to people under 30 years of age, it is customary to reduce “growth minus one hundred” by 10% or subtract 110 from growth. For those who have crossed the 50-year mark, Brock's result is increased by 5-7%. Sometimes changes are made to this formula taking into account growth: from the growth below 165 cm, subtract 100, from 165 cm to 175 cm - 105, above 175 cm - 110. Brock's formula is adjusted taking into account the type of addition. For the normocostal type, the result remains unchanged, for the narrow-boned type - 10% is subtracted from the result, for the broad-boned type - 10% is added.
Another popular way to determine the optimal ratio of weight to height was proposed by Adolf Ketle in the 19th century. This method consists in deriving the mass index, which is calculated by the formula: weight in kilograms divided by height squared. If the resulting figure is in the range from 18 to 25, then body weight can be considered optimal.
Some scientists believe that the focus should not be on the ratio of weight and height in numbers, but on the percentage of fat. To do this, measure the vertical fold of fat on the abdomen 2.5 cm from the navel. If the thickness of the fold is up to 2.5 cm, then body fat is within normal limits, more than 2.5 is an excess. Therefore, its weight can be considered optimal, regardless of its value, if the thickness of the fat fold is 1-2 cm.
As you know, normal weight is not only aesthetics, but also the ability to avoid many diseases. The most important thing for a person to have is not an ideal ratio of weight and height, but a percentage of fat safe for health and external attractiveness, which does not always depend on numbers. There is a simple way to determine the permissible completeness. This is a measurement of waist circumference. For women, this value should be no more than 80 cm, for men - 95 cm. If the waist circumference exceeds 85 cm in women and 100 cm in men, then the risk of various diseases increases. It is considered more dangerous if the waist circumference approaches or exceeds the circumference of the hips, which usually happens with a large belly. Normal weight can be determined by the ratio of the waist and hips. To do this, the waist circumference should be divided by the circumference of the hips. The result should not be more than 0.8 for women and 0.9 for men.