Ideal Weight Calculator

Find your ideal body weight (IBW) using four proven medical formulas — Devine, Robinson, Miller, and Hamwi — alongside your BMI healthy weight range.

Medically ReviewedTrusted by 100,000+ WorldwideNIH · CDC · WHO Sourced
cm

Ideal weight formulas are based on height only — weight is optional below.

Medically Reviewed

Dr. Sarah Mitchell, RD — Registered Dietitian Nutritionist

Last medically reviewed: May 11, 2026Last updated: May 11, 2026

Formulas, references, and recommendations cross-checked against published clinical research from NIH, CDC, WHO, and the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics. Read our full Editorial Policy.

What Is Ideal Body Weight (IBW)?

Ideal body weight (IBW) is a concept used in medicine and nutrition to estimate a healthy target weight based on height and sex. Unlike BMI, which uses both height and weight, IBW formulas predict a target weight from height alone — useful for drug dosing, ventilator settings in ICUs, and nutritional planning.

The four major ideal weight formulas — Devine, Robinson, Miller, and Hamwi — were developed between 1964 and 1983, before modern understanding of body composition. They're based on average frame sizes and don't account for muscle mass, bone density, ethnicity, or age. Treat them as guides, not strict targets.

📏

Height-based

not weight-based

Unlike BMI, ideal weight formulas only need your height — simple to use and remember.

🏥

Clinical origin

built for medicine

Originally created for drug dosing and ventilator settings — now used broadly for weight guidance.

⚖️

A guide, not a rule

body composition matters more

A muscular athlete and a sedentary person can have the same IBW yet very different health profiles.

The Four Ideal Weight Formulas Compared

All four formulas share the same structure: a base weight at 5 feet (60 inches) plus an increment for each additional inch. The differences lie in the base weight and per-inch values.

Devine (1974)

Male: IBW = 50 + 2.3 × (height_in − 60)

Female: IBW = 45.5 + 2.3 × (height_in − 60)

height_in = height in inches

The most widely cited formula. Originally developed by Dr. B.J. Devine for calculating drug doses based on body weight. Still standard in pharmacology and ICU dosing today.

Robinson (1983)

Male: IBW = 52 + 1.9 × (height_in − 60)

Female: IBW = 49 + 1.7 × (height_in − 60)

height_in = height in inches

A revision of Devine with a smaller per-inch increment. Produces slightly lower values for taller adults. Often used in clinical nutrition and parenteral feeding calculations.

Miller (1983)

Male: IBW = 56.2 + 1.41 × (height_in − 60)

Female: IBW = 53.1 + 1.36 × (height_in − 60)

height_in = height in inches

Published the same year as Robinson but uses the highest base weight and smallest per-inch increment — so results stay close to Robinson for average heights but diverge at extremes.

Hamwi (1964)

Male: IBW = 48 + 2.7 × (height_in − 60)

Female: IBW = 45.5 + 2.2 × (height_in − 60)

height_in = height in inches

The oldest formula, by Dr. G.J. Hamwi. Uses the largest per-inch increment, producing the highest ideal weights for taller individuals — often considered more realistic for athletic builds.

How Accurate Are Ideal Weight Formulas?

Honestly — only moderately. Ideal weight formulas were developed for narrow clinical use cases, and they have well-documented limitations when applied as personal targets.

1. They predate body composition science

All four formulas were published before DEXA scans, bioelectrical impedance, and hydrostatic weighing became standard. They cannot distinguish between fat mass and lean mass — a critical limitation.

2. They assume an average frame size

The original studies sampled adults of average bone structure. Small-, medium-, and large-frame individuals can legitimately weigh ±10% from a formula's prediction without any health consequence.

3. They were built on US/European populations

Hamwi (1964), Devine (1974), Robinson (1983), and Miller (1983) were all derived from data on predominantly Caucasian American hospital patients. Application to global populations is approximate at best.

4. They don't account for age

Body composition shifts with age — typically toward lower lean mass and higher body fat. A formula calibrated to young adults is less accurate for adults over 50, and least accurate over 70.

5. The four formulas disagree

For a 5'10" (178 cm) man, the four formulas range from 70 kg to 79 kg — a 9 kg spread. The spread itself proves that no single 'ideal' number exists.

Bottom line: The average of the four formulas, used alongside the BMI healthy weight range (18.5–24.9), gives a realistic target zone — not a single magic number. For deeper assessment, pair with body fat percentage, waist-to-height ratio, and basal metabolic rate.

Ideal Weight for Athletes & Muscular Individuals

If you train seriously, lift weights, or play a power sport, you will almost certainly weigh well above your calculated ideal body weight — and that's perfectly healthy. The reason is simple: muscle is denser than fat. One liter of skeletal muscle weighs about 1.06 kg; one liter of body fat weighs about 0.90 kg. A bodybuilder and a sedentary office worker of the same height can hold the same IBW result yet differ by 15–25 kg of lean mass.

✅ What athletes should track instead

  • Body fat percentage via DEXA scan or US Navy method (use our Body Fat Calculator)
  • Lean body mass (LBM) — track increases over time
  • Performance metrics — strength PRs, run times, recovery
  • Resting heart rate and HRV
  • Waist-to-hip ratio — better cardiometabolic indicator

❌ What athletes should NOT do

  • • Force weight down to a formula's IBW number
  • • Cut calories below BMR to "hit a target weight"
  • • Trust BMI alone — it labels most NFL athletes "obese"
  • • Set a weight goal during peak training season
  • • Compare your scale weight to non-athletic peers

Typical bodybuilders, powerlifters, and rugby players commonly carry 15–30 kg of muscle above their formula IBW. For high-performance athletes, the right target is a healthy body fat percentage — typically 6–13% for men, 14–20% for women — not a scale number. Use the Calorie Calculator to plan your maintenance and lean-bulk targets.

Ideal Weight by Age

Body composition shifts naturally with age — and the four classic ideal weight formulas don't account for it. Here's what changes across life stages.

Adolescents (13–17)

IBW formulas are not validated for teens. Growth is uneven (height first, weight catches up) and body composition shifts rapidly with puberty. Use pediatric BMI percentiles from the WHO or CDC growth charts instead — they account for age and sex.

Young adults (18–30)

Formulas work best here. Lean mass peaks in the mid-20s, metabolism is at lifetime highs, and body composition is most stable. Average ideal weight formulas align reasonably well with healthy BMI ranges for most young adults of average frame.

Adults (31–50)

Slow metabolic slowdown and gradual muscle loss (sarcopenia) begin. Resistance training and adequate protein become critical. IBW targets remain useful but should be paired with body fat tracking — gaining fat while losing muscle can keep scale weight stable.

Adults (51–70)

Sarcopenia accelerates without resistance training. Bone density may decrease. Research published in JAMA and the Journal of the American Geriatrics Society suggests a slightly higher BMI (24–28) may be protective for adults over 65, contradicting strict adherence to IBW.

Older adults (71+)

Maintaining muscle mass becomes the primary health goal — not hitting a scale weight. Underweight in older adults is independently associated with higher mortality. Discuss any intentional weight change with a physician or registered dietitian.

Ideal Weight Across Ethnicities

All four ideal weight formulas were derived from predominantly North American and European populations. Decades of research published by the WHO, NIH, and major peer-reviewed journals show that body composition and cardiometabolic risk thresholds differ meaningfully across ethnic backgrounds.

Asian populations

The WHO recognizes lower BMI cutoffs for Asian populations: overweight at BMI ≥ 23 and obese at BMI ≥ 27.5, versus 25 and 30 for general populations. This reflects evidence of higher visceral fat and diabetes risk at lower BMIs in South Asian, East Asian, and Southeast Asian groups.

African and African-diaspora populations

Research from the NIH-funded Jackson Heart Study and others shows higher lean mass at the same BMI in many African and African-American adults, meaning standard BMI thresholds may overestimate body fat. Waist circumference and waist-to-height ratio are particularly informative complements.

European populations

The classic IBW formulas were calibrated to this group, so the four formulas work most accurately here — but still don't capture frame size or athletic body composition.

Latino / Hispanic populations

Studies show heterogeneous body composition across Latino subgroups, often with higher body fat at the same BMI compared to non-Hispanic Caucasian populations. Waist circumference cutoffs may need adjustment in clinical use.

Pacific Islander populations

Often have higher lean mass and bone density. Standard BMI thresholds tend to overestimate obesity prevalence; body composition assessment via DEXA or skinfold is recommended for individuals from these groups.

These are population averages drawn from peer-reviewed research — individual variation is significant. Discuss appropriate weight targets with a registered dietitian or physician familiar with your background and medical history.

Ideal Weight vs Other Health Metrics

Ideal weight is just one of several ways to assess a healthy body. The best clinical picture uses multiple metrics together.

MetricInputsAccuracyBest Use CaseLimitations
Ideal Weight (IBW)Height, sexLow–moderateDrug dosing, quick referenceIgnores muscle mass, frame size, ethnicity, age
BMIHeight, weightModeratePopulation screening, broad guideDoesn't distinguish fat from muscle
Body Fat %Skinfold / Navy / DEXAHighBody composition trackingMethod-dependent; requires measurement
Waist-to-HeightWaist, heightHighCardiometabolic riskDoesn't capture overall composition
Lean Body MassWeight, body fat %HighAthlete tracking, muscle goalsRequires accurate body fat measurement

Best practice: use ideal weight as a starting reference, BMI as your range, and body fat percentage for body-composition truth. Add waist-to-height ratio if your cardiometabolic risk profile matters.

Health Disclaimer: Ideal weight formulas were originally designed for clinical drug dosing, not personal weight management. Results vary significantly with frame size, muscle mass, age, and ethnicity. This calculator is for general informational purposes only and is not a substitute for personalized advice from a registered dietitian (RD/RDN), physician, or other qualified healthcare professional. Discuss any intentional weight change with a licensed clinician.

Frequently Asked Questions

Ideal body weight (IBW) is an estimated target weight calculated from your height and sex using medical formulas. Originally developed in the 1960s–1980s for drug dosing and ventilator settings, IBW is now used as a weight reference point. It doesn't account for muscle mass, frame size, or body composition.

No single formula is definitively most accurate — each was built for a different population. The Devine formula is the most widely cited in clinical literature, while Robinson and Miller are used in modern nutrition practice. For most average-height adults, all four formulas produce results within a few kilograms of each other.

BMI is generally more informative because it gives a healthy range (18.5–24.9) rather than a single target, and it uses your actual weight not just height. However, neither metric measures body composition. For deeper insight, combine BMI with body fat percentage, waist-to-height ratio, and lean body mass.

Not as a strict target. Athletes and muscular individuals routinely weigh well above their calculated IBW while having excellent body composition and low health risk, because muscle weighs more than fat. Athletes should rely on body fat percentage, performance metrics, and DEXA scans rather than IBW formulas.

All four formulas already produce separate values for men and women. For the same height, women's IBW is roughly 5–10 kg lower than men's, reflecting average sex-based differences in muscle mass and bone density. Women in peri- and post-menopause may also have legitimately higher body fat at the same weight.

Yes. Older adults naturally lose muscle mass (sarcopenia) and may gain body fat at the same scale weight. Strict IBW targets designed for healthy young adults can be counterproductive after age 60. Research suggests slightly higher BMI ranges may be protective in older adults — focus on body composition over scale weight.

Use it as a starting reference, not a strict target. The average of the four formulas plus the BMI healthy weight range (18.5–24.9) together define a realistic target zone for your height. Aim for 0.5–1 kg per week through a 500–750 kcal daily deficit — a safe, sustainable rate.

Each formula was developed by different researchers using different patient populations and study designs. They use different base weights (assigned at 5'0") and different per-inch increments. For a 5'6" (168 cm) man, the four formulas span about 9 kg, which reflects the genuine uncertainty in any single "ideal" number.

Yes. Body composition and metabolic risk thresholds vary by ethnicity. The WHO recognizes lower BMI cutoffs for Asian populations (overweight ≥23, obese ≥27.5) because of higher cardiometabolic risk at lower BMIs. African and Pacific Islander populations may have higher lean mass at the same BMI. Use IBW as a general guide only.

Body fat percentage and body composition matter far more than scale weight for long-term health. Two people at the same weight can have completely different health profiles depending on muscle-to-fat ratio. Measure body fat percentage (US Navy method or DEXA scan), waist-to-height ratio, and resting heart rate alongside any weight target.

Authors & Medical Review

Written By

SamCalculator Editorial Team

Health and nutrition writers covering evidence-based weight management, body composition, and clinical references. Read more on our About page.

Medically Reviewed By

Dr. Sarah Mitchell, RD

Board-certified Registered Dietitian Nutritionist (RDN) specializing in weight management, body composition, and clinical nutrition. Reviews all formulas, statistics, and recommendations on this page.

Last medically reviewed: May 11, 2026 · Last updated: May 11, 2026

Related Calculators