Well, then, I took boredom to a new level:
If I figure that I'm actually 5'9" rather than 5'8.75678", which is closer to reality, my range for "normal" is 125-165.
125?!? ONE HUNDRED TWENTY-FIVE POUNDS?!?
Dream on. Okay, for me that's not a dream. It's a nightmare. I have some pictures of when I weighed that little. After the evil boy who I let make me so unhappy I cried so hard I barfed for about three months straight and even after that it took me almost two years to get back to a normal weight. Ryan doesn't like seeing any of those pictures because he said it makes him so sad.
Speaking of Ryan, he is 6'2" and his "normal" range is 145 to ... who cares. 145? He'd have to lose fat, muscle, bone mass, and potentially actual entire bones to weigh that little. So, after stomping around the room mumbling that it was the stupidest system ever, I did some more research about interpreting the results:
My distillation of the site is:
- BMI is a cheap and easy way to predict if someone has a high level of fat and is therefore a high risk for developing heart disease
- It's a range to take into account body type/gender/etc.
- It's not that effective for people who are highly athletic and muscular
- It's not that effective for older people who have less muscle mass
Other things to consider are:
- waist circumference (also slightly variable I would guess based on your size)
- other risk factors
But don't take my word for it!