66
kg
145.4
lb
6.9
in
59.4
kg
72.6
kg
66
kg
145.4
lb
6.9
in
59.4
kg
72.6
kg
The Miller formula for estimating ideal body weight was published in 1983 by D.R. Miller and colleagues in the American Journal of Hospital Pharmacy. Like the Robinson formula published the same year, the Miller formula was developed as a scientific refinement of the earlier Devine formula, using statistical methods applied to population data to derive coefficients that better predict optimal body weight for a given height. The Miller formula is distinctive for producing the highest ideal weight estimates among the four major IBW formulas, particularly for shorter individuals.
The formula structure follows the same general pattern as other IBW equations: a base weight at 5 feet of height plus an increment per additional inch. For males, Miller uses a base of 56.2 kilograms with a 1.41 kg increment per inch over 60 inches. For females, the base is 53.1 kilograms with a 1.36 kg increment. The notably higher base weights and lower per-inch increments compared to Devine (50/2.3 for males) mean that Miller estimates are higher for people around 5 feet tall but converge with or fall below Devine estimates for people over about 6 feet tall.
Miller derived these coefficients from a broader cross-sectional analysis of population weight-for-height data, aiming to produce estimates that better reflected the actual weight distribution in the general population rather than the idealized weights from insurance tables. This approach inherently captures a slightly larger body habitus as the reference, which some clinicians view as more realistic while others consider it less conservative. The Miller formula is particularly useful as an upper bound when presenting multiple IBW estimates to a patient.
In clinical application, the Miller formula sees its greatest use in comparative analyses where multiple IBW formulas are presented together. Nutrition support teams and clinical dietitians often report Devine, Robinson, Miller, and Hamwi IBW estimates simultaneously to provide a range rather than a single point estimate. The Miller formula's higher values make it particularly useful for patients with larger frames who might feel that Devine or Robinson estimates are unrealistically low for their body type.
This calculator implements the Miller formula with automatic metric-to-imperial conversion. Results include the IBW in both kilograms and pounds, along with a 10% range for frame size variation. The Miller formula is one of four IBW equations available on our platform. For the most comprehensive assessment, use our Ideal Weight Calculator to see all four formulas and their average simultaneously, giving you a well-rounded picture of your ideal weight range.
The Miller formula (1983) calculates ideal body weight as: Males: IBW = 56.2 + 1.41 x (height in inches - 60) and Females: IBW = 53.1 + 1.36 x (height in inches - 60). Height in cm is divided by 2.54 to convert to inches. The higher base weights (56.2/53.1 vs Devine's 50/45.5) and lower per-inch increments (1.41/1.36 vs 2.3) produce higher estimates for shorter individuals and relatively lower estimates for very tall individuals.
Miller IBW represents a somewhat more generous ideal weight estimate compared to Devine or Robinson. The higher base weight reflects broader population data rather than idealized insurance tables. If your weight is close to the Miller estimate but above the Devine estimate, you may fall in the normal range for your frame size. The 10% range accounts for frame size variation.
Inputs
Results
A 175 cm male has a Miller IBW of 64.5 kg. Compare with Devine (71.5 kg) — Miller gives a lower estimate at this height.
Inputs
Results
A 160 cm female has a Miller IBW of 56.5 kg, notably higher than Devine's 50.6 kg at this height.
Miller uses higher base weights (56.2 kg for males vs Devine's 50 kg) but lower per-inch increments (1.41 vs 2.3). This means at 5 feet, Miller gives significantly higher IBW, but the gap narrows and reverses as height increases because Devine adds more weight per inch.
Neither formula is definitively more accurate. Miller was derived from broader population data and may better reflect typical body sizes, while Devine is more established in clinical protocols. The most accurate approach is to consider multiple formulas together.
Miller is particularly useful for people with larger body frames who find Devine or Robinson estimates unrealistically low. It also serves as a useful upper reference when presenting a range of IBW estimates in clinical nutrition assessments.
Miller and colleagues published their formula in 1983 in the American Journal of Hospital Pharmacy. They used statistical regression analysis on population weight-for-height data to derive coefficients that better reflected actual weight distributions.
Miller is less commonly used for drug dosing than Devine, which remains the pharmacological standard. However, in nutritional support, Miller is frequently included in multi-formula IBW assessments to provide a broader range of estimates.
Miller's male base (56.2) and female base (53.1) differ by only 3.1 kg, compared to Devine's 4.5 kg gap. This may reflect Miller's broader population sample and the recognition that gender differences in ideal weight may not be as large as previously assumed.
Like all classic IBW formulas, Miller does not account for age. Elderly patients may benefit from slightly higher weight targets to maintain reserves during illness. Miller's generally higher estimates may be more appropriate for this population compared to more conservative formulas.
Yes, for males at about 183 cm (6 feet), Miller and Devine give similar results. Above this height, Devine gives higher estimates; below it, Miller gives higher estimates. The crossover point differs slightly for females.
For a 170 cm male, estimates range from about 64 to 72 kg across the four formulas (Miller, Robinson, Devine, Hamwi). The spread increases with height. Using all four provides a realistic range rather than a misleadingly precise single number.
Being above any single IBW estimate is not necessarily cause for concern. Focus on the range provided by multiple formulas, your body composition, and overall health markers. Consult a healthcare provider for personalized weight assessment.
Roboculator Team
The Roboculator Team explains calculations, planning tools, and practical formulas in clear language for real-life situations.
How helpful was this calculator?
Be the first to rate!
Ideal Weight Calculator
Ideal Weight & Body Measurements
Ideal Body Weight (Devine Formula)
Ideal Weight & Body Measurements
Ideal Body Weight (Robinson Formula)
Ideal Weight & Body Measurements
Waist-to-Hip Ratio Calculator
Ideal Weight & Body Measurements
Waist-to-Height Ratio Calculator
Ideal Weight & Body Measurements
Ponderal Index Calculator
Ideal Weight & Body Measurements