I know there are a ton of variables involved and different people are looking at diferent things.
I was just browsing some of these charts for my height of 6'0. Some have as low as 140lbs at that hight as normal with some having 185 as obese.
I just looked at about 10 of them and they were all so different.
This one made the most sense to me, but that is just "me".
What do you all think?
www.rush.edu/rumc/page-1108048103230.html
Charts that try to put people in 'ranges' based on stats as vague as height and weight are a load of bollocks.
That is what I think. 
BMI doesn't consider limb length, torso width/depth, neck length and most importantly BFP. It has so many unknowns that it glosses over that I can't really see a use for it.
The most it's useful for is far extremes. If you're under 14 or over 40 then you're unhealthy and if you didnt know that already then you're fucked anyway.
GSP walks at 190 and is 5'11. By most of the charts I've seen that puts him comfortably in the 'overweight' range. Same with Anderson Silva walking at 220. Those fat bastards.
They might live a bit longer if they lost mass, I can't see any Q of L improvements with losing it though.
Haha, but even then they'd just spend the short time extra they had regretting not fulfilling their athletic potential.
I'd bet that increased affluence would more than offset their slight "obesity" in terms of lifespan.
as someone who was once 6 feet tall and 140, I would not consider that "normal" at all. Yeah, maybe not at risk of a heart attack, but that is seriously fucking skinny.