What. It’s a great combo - but obviously these numbers don’t say very much beyond it’s somewhere in the right range, some people have way more muscles than others, bigger hips and boobs, wider shoulders etc. And in this okay range even our taste matters.
Wow, that’s quite extreme but I can imagine that, sure. My SO is that height and he needs to be very light to look okay, maybe 140lbs while almost everyone says a man with this height should be WAY more. Well, he has very muscular legs but otherwise isn’t muscular at all and he has a tiny belly even at 140. He was 124lbs when he freshly starved down and had minimal muscles (wasn’t muscular before either) but couldn’t keep it, it required so little food that it was impossible even for him who is fine with being hungry hours a day if it’s needed for his figure…
But another man with his height may be 180lbs with way less fat than what he has at 140.
130 would be good for me at 5’4" but I would like more muscles than that even as a 46 years old woman, actually… (I need to work for that but I am fine with that.) 120 is out of question. I want to be slim, not skin and bones without some proper musculature.
This is very individual. And I never would say someone weigh too much when it’s not sure from the numbers that it’s too much to be healthy.
I am 5’4" and 163lbs (I don’t worry about my health at this point, it’s mostly aesthetical). It’s much for me as I am not muscular but it’s a great weight even for this height for some woman (the minority but they exist) who has a differently built body and it’s not some fluff, they are just differently built, more muscular. These 2 numbers say little unless they are extreme.
