Find your ideal body weight using Hamwi, Devine, Robinson, and Miller formula comparisons.
Disclaimer: This tool is for educational and informational purposes only. It is not a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. Always consult a qualified healthcare provider before making any health-related decisions or starting any diet or exercise programme.
⚠️ Important Context
These formulas were created for clinical use (nutrition assessment and drug dosing), not as personal health targets. A healthy body composition varies greatly by muscle mass, bone density, and individual biology. Use alongside BMI and body fat % for a fuller picture.
| Formula | Year | Male (kg) | Female (kg) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Hamwi | 1964 | 48 + 2.7×E | 45.5 + 2.2×E |
| Devine | 1974 | 50 + 2.3×E | 45.5 + 2.3×E |
| Robinson | 1983 | 52 + 1.9×E | 49 + 1.7×E |
| Miller | 1983 | 56.2 + 1.41×E | 53.1 + 1.36×E |
E = inches of height above 5 feet (60 inches). For heights under 5 ft, E is negative (the per-inch amount is subtracted).
Did you know?
The most widely used "ideal weight" formula — the Devine formula — was originally developed in 1974 not as a health guideline, but to calculate drug doses for patients. Its author, Dr. B.J. Devine, never intended it to be a fitness target!
The concept of an "ideal" body weight first appeared in life insurance actuarial tables in the 1920s and 1940s. The Metropolitan Life Insurance Company published famously influential "ideal weight" tables in 1943 and revised them in 1983, basing them on mortality data from policyholders. The Hamwi formula (1964) was developed for clinical nutrition. The Devine formula (1974) was created for pharmacokinetics — calculating drug doses based on weight. Robinson (1983) and Miller (1983) independently refined the approach. None of these formulas account for muscle mass, frame size, or body composition, which is why modern medicine favours body fat percentage over ideal weight targets.
The original Metropolitan Life Insurance "ideal weight" tables of 1943 were based on data from policyholders — a population skewed toward wealthy, predominantly white Americans — making them a poor reference for global diversity.
A 5'10" professional basketball player and a 5'10" endurance runner would have identical ideal weights by any formula, yet their actual optimal weights differ by 5–15+ kg depending on musculature.
Body recomposition (gaining muscle while losing fat) can make the scale stay the same while dramatically improving health markers, showing why weight alone is an incomplete metric.
"Ideal weight" concepts vary dramatically by culture. In many East Asian countries, health thresholds are set 5–10% lower than Western standards, reflecting different body composition norms.
Bone density accounts for a surprising variance in ideal weight. An athlete with denser bones from years of impact training may legitimately weigh 3–5 kg more than the formula suggests.
None is definitively "most accurate" as a health target — they were designed for clinical use such as nutrition assessment and drug dosing. For general guidance, the Devine formula is most widely referenced in medical literature. The average of all four is a reasonable middle ground. Use body composition (body fat %) for a more meaningful metric.
The formulas give a starting reference point, not a rigid target. More important is your body fat percentage, waist circumference, and how you feel. Two people at the same "ideal weight" can have very different health outcomes depending on muscle vs fat ratio.
They were developed independently on different populations using different methodologies. For taller people the Hamwi formula gives the highest estimate and Miller the lowest; for shorter people the order reverses, because Miller starts from a higher base weight but adds less per inch. The true target weight for any individual depends on factors none of these formulas capture.
No single ideal weight formula is universally best. The Devine formula is most commonly used in clinical settings. Hamwi tends to give slightly lower targets. Robinson and Miller generally produce the most moderate estimates. Use the average of all four formulas as a reasonable target range, and factor in your individual body composition, frame size, and health markers.