I'm exactly 6' and I've been working out, but I'm curious what would be considered a healthy weight. According to this site (
http://www.halls.md/ideal-weight/body.htm ) I should weigh between 140-184, which I find insane. I can't imagine being 6' and weighing anything under 160-170 as being healthy. But then again, I'm not a medical professional either. I was thinking for myself that somewhere between 190-200 might be a good weight. Just curious what other people think.
For my frame, without additional muscle mass (which I work on, well, on and off), I really should be under 160, and when I'm in pretty good shape and make progress on cutting and watch my carbs/sugars, I'll usually be around 155-160lbs, and STILL not see abdominal definition. So, ultimately, even at that weight I'm, quite likely (but guessing) a decent ways off from 10% bodyfat, which is, on average, the point where you can start seeing abdominal definition.
And I'm 5'11".
I've weighed nearly 180 before, and it was fat - which I carried very very strangely because I still looked skinny unless you paid close attention and could tell I definitely had a baby-bump type gut going on. D:
So for my frame, with an additional inch, and no additional muscle mass, I'd say an ideal healthy weight would be around 145-150.
Part of what makes my figure deceptive is I have a concave chest (hole, sunken chest, whatever you want to call it), and it makes my side profile figure all weird between the hips and collar bones. I fear I could get down to even 8 or 9% body fat and still not see abs, even though I definitely have definition and mass in the abdominal region - it's just hidden by fat because I'm not dedicated enough (working on that ).
My goal is to be able to carry around 175 lbs and look cut. I have a LOT of work to get to that point, when I can't even look cut at 155.
But in general, if it comes down to having a slightly bulging abdominal region and looking pretty good everywhere else, that's a great body weight and typically considered optimal health. Looking cut with less than 10% of bodyfat is great and all, but **it alone** doesn't really translate into any additional health benefits compared to, say, 12-15% bodyfat - where you can see some muscle definition in some areas but definitely can't see any abs behind what I'd call more of a pouch than a gut (which is just about the best I've ever achieved).
There's strong science that supports having just a *LITTLE* extra "padding" in the abdominal/waist region - for both and women. I can't say what science technically says about the female figure dipping below that level of a little extra padding around the hips/ass, I do know that, combined with a healthy lifestyle, is the start of the ideal health range.