You’re tall. Being 5'9" as a woman puts you in the 95th percentile of height in the United States. That’s a lot of frame to carry. Yet, most of the "advice" out there feels like it was written for someone five inches shorter. It’s frustrating. You look at a generic chart at the doctor's office, see a number, and immediately wonder if you're "doing it right."
Finding the ideal weight for 5'9 female bodies isn't about hitting one specific digit. Honestly, it’s about understanding how your specific biology interacts with gravity.
I’ve seen women at this height look lean and athletic at 165 pounds, while others feel sluggish and "soft" at 145. Why the massive gap? It’s not just "metabolism" or some other buzzword people throw around at the gym. It’s bone density. It’s muscle distribution. It’s where your torso ends and your legs begin. If you have a 34-inch inseam, your skeletal weight is fundamentally different from a 5'9" woman with a long torso and shorter legs.
The BMI trap and why it’s kinda garbage for tall women
Let's address the elephant in the room: the Body Mass Index. According to the standard BMI formula, the "healthy" range for a 5'9" woman is roughly 125 to 168 pounds.
That is a massive 43-pound window.
But here’s the kicker. The BMI was invented in the 1830s by a Belgian mathematician named Adolphe Quetelet. He wasn't a doctor. He wasn't a nutritionist. He was a guy looking for a way to measure the "average man" for social statistics. Nick Trefethen, a professor of numerical analysis at Oxford University, has famously pointed out that the traditional BMI formula actually discriminates against taller people. He argues that the formula should be $weight / height^{2.5}$ rather than squared, because humans are three-dimensional objects, not flat squares.
When you use the "New BMI" calculator suggested by researchers like Trefethen, the ideal weight for 5'9 female individuals actually shifts upward. You have more vertical surface area, which means more skin, more blood volume, and a heavier skeletal structure. Trying to force yourself into the 120s just because a 19th-century math equation says so is a recipe for losing muscle mass and feeling like total crap.
Frame size is the variable nobody talks about
Have you ever tried to wrap your thumb and middle finger around your wrist? It’s an old-school trick, but it actually tells us something about your frame.
🔗 Read more: No Alcohol 6 Weeks: The Brutally Honest Truth About What Actually Changes
If your fingers overlap, you have a small frame. If they just touch, you’re medium. If they don’t meet, you’re large-framed. For a 5'9" woman, a "large frame" might mean your ribcage is wider and your pelvis is broader. You physically cannot weigh the same as a small-framed woman of the same height without losing vital muscle or even bone density.
The Metropolitan Life Insurance Company started using "Weight-for-Height" tables back in the 1940s. While they’re dated, they at least acknowledged frame size. For a 5'9" woman with a large frame, their "ideal" topped out around 170-175 pounds. For a small frame, it dipped toward 140.
What the pros say about body composition
Dr. Stacy Sims, a renowned exercise physiologist and nutrition scientist, often talks about how "weight" is a poor proxy for health, especially for active women. If you're 5'9" and you lift weights, your scale weight should be higher. Muscle is significantly more dense than fat.
Think about it this way.
A gallon of fat takes up about 15% more space than a gallon of muscle.
If you’re "skinny fat" at 140 pounds, you might actually have more health risks (like insulin resistance) than a woman who is a solid 165 pounds but carries a high percentage of lean muscle mass.
Researchers at the Mayo Clinic emphasize that waist circumference is often a better predictor of health than the scale. For a woman, regardless of height, a waist measurement over 35 inches is where the red flags for cardiovascular disease start popping up. If you’re 5'9" and your waist is 28 inches, but you weigh 170 pounds, you are likely in much better metabolic shape than someone shorter and lighter with a higher waist-to-hip ratio.
Real-world examples of the 5'9" physique
Let’s look at some recognizable figures to get a sense of how varied this height can look.
- Gisele Bündchen: Often cited at 5'11", but many reports put her closer to 5'9.5". Her "model weight" is famously low, likely in the 130s. This is the extreme low end and usually requires a professional-level diet and specific genetic lottery winnings.
- Athletic builds: Look at professional WNBA guards or CrossFit athletes. Many women at 5'9" in these fields weigh between 160 and 180 pounds. They look incredible, they're powerful, and their biomarkers—cholesterol, blood pressure, resting heart rate—are usually perfect.
The "ideal" is entirely dependent on what you want your body to do. Do you want to run marathons? You’ll probably trend toward the 140s. Do you want to powerlift or stay curvy? You’re looking at the 160s or 170s.
💡 You might also like: The Human Heart: Why We Get So Much Wrong About How It Works
The physiological cost of "underweight"
There is a dark side to chasing a low number. For tall women, the pressure to be "willowy" can lead to what experts call RED-S (Relative Energy Deficiency in Sport).
When a 5'9" woman drops below 130 pounds without it being her natural set point, her body often starts shutting down non-essential functions. The first to go is usually the menstrual cycle (amenorrhea). Then comes bone demineralization. Because you have longer levers (arms and legs), your bones are under more mechanical stress. If you don't have the body fat and hormonal health to support bone density, you’re at a much higher risk for stress fractures.
I've talked to women who spent years trying to maintain 135 pounds because that’s what they thought they "should" weigh. They were cold all the time. Their hair was thinning. They had zero libido. When they finally let their weight climb to 155 or 160, their energy skyrocketed, their cycles returned, and they actually looked better because their skin had a glow that starvation simply can't produce.
Factors that shift your "settling point"
Your body has a "set point" weight it wants to defend. For a 5'9" female, that range is influenced by:
- Age: As we hit our 30s and 40s, sarcopenia (natural muscle loss) kicks in. If you aren't actively fighting it with protein and resistance training, your "ideal" weight might stay the same while your body fat percentage climbs.
- Hydration: Tall people hold more water. A 5'9" woman can easily see a 3-5 pound fluctuation in 24 hours just based on salt intake and hormonal shifts.
- Pregnancy history: Childbearing can permanently widen the pelvic structure. If your hips are wider, your "ideal" weight is naturally going to be higher than it was when you were 19.
Practical steps to find your "Actual" ideal weight
Stop looking at the standard BMI chart. It wasn't made for you. Instead, use a multi-pronged approach to find your own healthy baseline.
Step 1: Check your waist-to-hip ratio
Take a measuring tape. Measure the narrowest part of your waist and the widest part of your hips. Divide the waist number by the hip number. For women, a ratio of 0.8 or lower is generally considered a sign of good metabolic health. This matters infinitely more than the number on the scale.
Step 2: Get a DEXA scan or bioimpedance test
If you’re really curious, find a facility that offers a DEXA scan. It’s the gold standard for measuring body composition. It will tell you exactly how many pounds of bone, fat, and muscle you’re carrying. You might find out that your "heavy" 165-pound body actually has a very low body fat percentage and high bone density.
📖 Related: Ankle Stretches for Runners: What Most People Get Wrong About Mobility
Step 3: Monitor your "Non-Exercise Activity Thermogenesis" (NEAT)
If your weight is "ideal" but you’re too tired to walk the dog or take the stairs, it’s not ideal. Your weight should be a number that allows you to live a vibrant, active life without obsessive calorie counting.
Step 4: Focus on the "Middle Range"
For most 5'9" women who aren't professional athletes or models, the "sweet spot" usually lands between 145 and 165 pounds. This range typically allows for enough muscle mass to protect your joints and enough body fat to maintain hormonal health.
Moving forward
Forget the generic charts. If you are 5'9", you are a "statistically significant" human being who requires more fuel and more structural mass than the average person.
Prioritize strength training. Tall women who lift weights tend to have better posture and fewer back issues—a common complaint when you're 5'9" and living in a world built for 5'4" people. Eat enough protein (aim for roughly 0.8 to 1 gram per pound of goal body weight) to support that muscle.
Ultimately, your ideal weight is the one where your blood work is clean, your energy is high, and you don't spend every waking second thinking about food. If that’s 162 pounds for you, embrace it. The scale is a tool, not a judge.
Start by tracking how you feel after meals and during exercise for two weeks. Note your energy levels on a scale of 1-10. If you’re consistently at a 4 or 5 while trying to maintain a "target weight," that weight is too low for your biology. Adjust your intake upward by 200 calories a day and see if your energy climbs. Your body will tell you its ideal weight if you actually listen to the signals it's sending.