What should you weigh for your height?
A healthy range in kilograms, calculated on the Indian BMI cut-offs — and, underneath it, what the four classical ideal-weight formulas say, with a straight explanation of why they should not be your target.
Range, not number
Every ideal-weight formula ever published produces a single figure, and every one of them is wrong for that reason. Two adults of the same height and sex can both be perfectly healthy eight kilograms apart, because one carries more muscle than the other.
That is the ICMR band converted back into kilograms. It is a wide range on purpose — a 170 cm adult has thirteen kilograms of room inside it, and all of that room is healthy.
Where the classical formulas came from
All four take the same shape: a base weight at five feet tall, plus a fixed increment for every inch above it. Hamwi published his in 1964 as a bedside rule for estimating nutritional requirements. Devine's, the most cited of the group, appeared in 1974 in a pharmacy journal — its purpose was to scale drug doses to body size, and it was never validated as a health target at all. Robinson and Miller both revised the same idea in 1983 against different data.
They persist because they are simple and because they were printed on a lot of charts. But none was built from an Indian population, none accounts for body composition, and none of them was designed to answer the question people now use them for.
Questions people ask
What is my ideal weight for my height?
+
There is a healthy range rather than a single ideal. For an Indian adult that range runs from a BMI of 18.5 to a BMI of 23, which this calculator converts into kilograms for your height. A 170 cm adult, for example, sits between roughly 53 and 66 kg. Where you land inside that band depends on how much muscle you carry.
Which ideal weight formula should I use?
+
Honestly, none of them as a goal. Hamwi, Devine, Robinson and Miller are shown here because people search for them, but all four are fitted to mid-twentieth-century American and European data, and Devine's was written to calculate drug doses rather than to set a health target. They also produce a single number, which no real body should be held to. The BMI-derived range is the more defensible answer.
Why do the four formulas disagree?
+
They were fitted to different populations at different times, and they use different per-inch increments. The spread between them at any given height is usually five to eight kilograms — which is a useful reminder of how imprecise the whole idea of a single ideal weight is.
I'm muscular and the range says I'm overweight. Is that wrong?
+
Probably, yes. These ranges are derived from BMI, and BMI cannot tell muscle from fat. If you train seriously with weights, expect to sit above the range at a genuinely low body fat percentage. Measure your body fat instead and use that.
Should I aim for the bottom of the range?
+
No. The bottom of the healthy band is not healthier than the middle of it — being underweight carries its own risks for bone density, hormones and immune function. For most people who train, the upper half of the range at a good body fat percentage is a better place to be than the lower half achieved by eating less.
Related calculators
A number is a starting point, not a plan.
This calculator can tell you where you are. It cannot watch your form, adjust when your knee flares up, or keep you consistent in week six. If you want that part, we run a private studio in Kharadi and the first session is free.
This tool provides general fitness and nutrition information for healthy adults aged 18 and over. It is not medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. Speak to a doctor before starting any new exercise or nutrition programme, particularly if you have a health condition, are pregnant or post-partum, or have a history of disordered eating.