BMI

BMI is not really a good indicator. It was developed as a way to compare differences in populations, not individuals. It is probably one of the most mis-used metrics in weight management. For example, NYC rats are huge, hence weigh more than, say, a rat in rural kansas, so you can't say that NYC rats have more body fat just because they weigh more, because they are physically larger. So, you index the rat populations in both places and categorize them, separately into underweight, average, overweight and obese. Then you might see that the obesity rate is high in the kansas rat, even though it weighs less. The only way BMI is SOMEWHAT useful to an individual is if you fit into the population that the index was created on - even then, it is suspect due to variation. BTW, all that stuff about the rats was made up - I have no idea about which rat is fatter!

So, off my soapbox, deciding your goal weight is a very personal thing. You can use insight about how much you used to weigh and if you were happy at that weight.

If you know your body fat percentage, you can set body fat goal and back calculate your goal weight from that:
"lean body mass" = (1-"Current %body fat") * "Current weight"
"Goal weight" = "lean body mass" / (1-"goal % body fat")

BMI assumes an average body shape, which those of us with real hourglass figures don't have. That's also why it doesn't work for athletes.

On the other hand, if your BMI is THAT high, you probably need to lose weight and being in a healthy range (unless you're really muscley) will be good for you.

Those fat indicators aren't accurate either and the hip/waist ratio REALLY doesn't work for hour glass folks.

I am obese in my profile picture according to BMI.

I have a question.

General BMI Calculators have me at an obese 36 BMI.

However, I did the Hip to Waist Ratio and the wrist to forearm calculations, and it said 27.

I have an hourglass build and my waist is 29". I am so confused as to where my realistic goal should be.
I currently wear a size XL.

Input?

BMI is a population based tool. For personal goals it's best to use BMI coupled with either waist to height or waist to hip ratio. Your waist measurement is under the population based goal for women so that's good. Webmd has a nice tool.

http://www.webmd.com/diet/calc-bmi-plus#moreWTH

BMI is about averages. Average healthy individuals fall into the recommended BMI range of 19-25. Do you have reason to believe you are not average? Are you a superior athlete? To you have a medical condition that changes your fat to body weight ratio? If the answer is no to such questions, than you there is no reason to not aim for a healthy BMI. You may be fine at a higher BMI, but studies have shown that the average person is at less risk for many diseases when they are at a healthy BMI.

I have what is considered to be an extreme hourglass figure, and consider myself to be above average in muscle content due to an athletic youth and 6 months of recent weight training, and I fall smack dab in the middle of the BMI range just fine. BMI is not as flawed as many people like to believe.

BMI is not as flawed as many people like to believe.

My beef is that I guess technically I fall into the "superior athlete" category of exceptions, but insurance companies see 5'10" 215 and see "fat *kitten*" and charge me accordingly or require a lot of extra tests.

BMI is not as flawed as many people like to believe.

My beef is that I guess technically I fall into the "superior athlete" category of exceptions, but insurance companies see 5'10" 215 and see "fat *kitten*" and charge me accordingly or require a lot of extra tests.

Yes, but you are the exception, not the rule.

BMI is not as flawed as many people like to believe.

My beef is that I guess technically I fall into the "superior athlete" category of exceptions, but insurance companies see 5'10" 215 and see "fat *kitten*" and charge me accordingly or require a lot of extra tests.

Yes, but you are the exception, not the rule.

Actually, the current BMI charts have been revised downwards several times as the WHO has expanded its' reach to non-Caucasian, often typically-smaller-framed, populations. This means that for those at the upper end of physical build among the population, the current charts are not particularly apt, even if they were meant to be applied to individuals, which they're not. Essentially, this means that if you are a Caucasian with Northern European ancestry (typically larger-framed and more muscular than those whose ancestry is from more Southern climes) chances are your 'healthy weight', as an individual, will be at the upper end of 'normal' at the very least, or well into 'overweight', and in some cases even 'obese', by BMI terms. You can't compare oranges to bananas, and expect both to have the same, or even similar, average vital statistics!

You are totally right. There is ton of data out there that says that Asians are at greater risk at 23-25 BMI than Caucasians. I can't find any information saying that Caucasians are fine at 36 though.

BMI is not as flawed as many people like to believe.

My beef is that I guess technically I fall into the "superior athlete" category of exceptions, but insurance companies see 5'10" 215 and see "fat *kitten*" and charge me accordingly or require a lot of extra tests.

^^^^^THIS^^^^^

This is exactly right.