I wondered if our body gave more importance to the weight we are supposed to be at (according to our body frame) (in my case 72.5 kg according to this site (I think taking into account the size of the wrist is a good indication)
Or is body fat percentage more important for our body?
So, in my case, at 70 kilos and 15% body fat. Will my body tolerate a reduction of weight (and body fat) , let’s say 66kg at 12% body fat or will it always try to reach its ‘ideal body weight’?
Thanks
Set points can be changed, so who knows? But one has to ask oneself how realistic one’s goals are and whether the cost of getting there is worth it.
The site gave me 120lbs but I probably don’t want to have so little muscles or so little fat 
(I have no idea how I look like there as I never ever was even remotely that thin.)
Body fat percentage makes way more sense to me.
And my body does its best to be SUPER far from it’s “IBS”, lucky if yours goes there easily (and if you are even fine with that) 
And staying there. My SO slimmed down, no problem but realized he can’t keep that low weight. Good thing he finished growing up afterwards and gained some needed muscles but he still can’t stay completely slim without feeling starving and he doesn’t do that. A tad more fat (just a little bit but on the belly as for most of us) and it works way better.
As far as I know, a healthy enough person can reach any realistic weight/body fat, keeping it may not be a good idea though. People even can become super dry but it requires sacrifices and it’s temporal. For many, even a higher, more normal body fat is a big challenge.
I have both a tiny wrist and a small frame, I weigh about 114 pounds. According to livestrong a woman 5.4 would have an ideal weight of 120 pounds. As I am 5.2 I would then, according to this way of calculating, subtract 5 pounds per inch, so then my ideal weight would be 110 pounds. Unless I’ve misunderstood something. Of course it doesn’t take into account one’s amount of muscle. Sadly in my case I don’t have much muscle. I think NHS’s BMI calculator, however, is a lot better as it gives a much better range for each person’s height. As we are all individual with individual needs regardless of the size of our frames.
I’m sorry, but do you mean five and two-tenths feet? Which would be 62.4 inches? I thought at first you meant five and two-tenths metres, which would make you about 16’ 11", so I guess that’s not it. 
Hi Paul. Using a converter 5.2 would be 1.585 metres. Centimeter wise I am 159. And my weight is 52 kilogram which is roughly 114 pounds. Honestly though I think it is better to calculate one’s BMI as it gives a much better range of weight for people. To try and pinpoint someone’s weight from the size of their wrist and frame seems less sensible.
There are all sorts of ways to calculate whether we are overweight, and none of them is really satisfactory. The problem with BMI, for example, is that it doesn’t distinguish between someone heavy with muscle (good) and someone heavy with fat (not good). But as I recently posted in some thread here, they all have their drawbacks. Body composition is very tricky to measure. I’m not saying BMI can’t be useful, merely that we should shouldn’t put our entire trust in it.
There are other things, not just muscles. Wider hips and shoulders, bigger boobs and butts can change things. I just use my eyes, I don’t care about BMI.
BMI shows if it’s an extreme case (and very obvious to the eyes of a not super biased person) but around/in the normal range it doesn’t say much.
BMI is out of date and not at all useful, I know plenty of people who are classed as morbidly obese due to high muscle mass but with body fat in single digits. We are all individuals and our bodies do not fit neatly into little check boxes. Just be you, eat, nourish your body, and let it do its thing.
Last time I weighed, I was 130lbs @ 5’ 3" with high muscle mass and 17% bodyfat which is classed as an athlete, but by BMI I’m almost overweight 