iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

BMI: Why Body Mass Index Isn't The Best Measure Of A Healthy Weight

First Posted: 12/19/10 11:07 AM ET Updated: 05/25/11 07:20 PM ET

Bmi

The next time you happen to catch a Minnesota Vikings game, take a look at Adrian Peterson, the team's 6'1, 217-pound running back. Now ask yourself: what kind of physical characteristics would you attribute to him? Athletic? Lean? Fit? All of these certainly sound like valid answers to us -- but his clinical classification might surprise you.

By any normal standards, Peterson is one of the fittest men on the planet. But by our country's system of measuring body fat, he's overweight. If you're like most people, you've probably heard of the 'body mass index,' or, as it's more informally known, BMI. It's a popular formula used to not only gauge if a person is overweight or obese, but also how great their risk is for future health problems.

Stay out in front of major health problems by performing these 7 instant health checks that can save your life.

BMI is a relatively straightforward equation that measures a person's body fat by comparing their weight to their height:

(Weight in pounds) / (Height in inches) (Height in inches) x 703

You can also figure out your BMI without doing any math, here: Log onto http://nhlbisupport.com/bmi/ for an online calculator.

There are four different categories a person can fall into, ranging from underweight to obese. They are:

*18.4 or lower: Underweight.
*18.5 to 24.9: Normal weight.
*25 to 29.9: Overweight.
*30 or higher: Obese.

According to the National Institutes of Health, being overweight or obese by this measure can put you at risk for heart disease, type II diabetes, and even some cancers.

But BMI doesn't work well for individual people. One of the formula's obvious flaws, explains Alan Aragon, the Men's Health Weight Loss Coach and a nutritionist in California, is that it has no way of discriminating between fat and muscle -- which is the case with Peterson.

Want to burn fat fast? Check out The Lean Belly Prescription, a revolutionary new weight-loss program from Dr. Travis Stork.

Part of the problem is that BMI was never designed as a tool for judging any individual person's weight -- either by physicians or the general public, says Timothy Church, a professor of health at Pennington Biomedical Research Center. In fact, the formula was originally intended to measure the collective weight of an entire population, but because of its straightforward math and distinctive categories (i.e., if you score a 25 on the BMI scale, you're overweight), it soon also took off.

Here's how BMI was born: In the early part of the 20th century, medical studies began to show a link between excess weight and an early death. So doctors and insurance companies started to seek out an easy method to determine a person's body-fat percentage. Insurance companies were especially concerned with this task, and devoted portions of their budget to discovering an obesity-determining calculation.

It wasn't, however, until physiology researcher Ancel Keys published a study in 1972 called "Indices of Relative Weight and Obesity," that the modern version of BMI came about. Keys conducted a series of studies on male populations in order to test if any pre-existing mathematical equations could measure a group's relative amount of body-fat. Fortunately for him, one did. The "Quetelet Index," (a.k.a., weight divided by height, squared) which was developed by Belgian statistician Adolphe Quetelet in the mid-1800s, proved to be successful.

To Keys' credit, he never intended for physicians or insurance companies to use this equation -- but BMI was just too perfect. Because it was simply a math equation, it was quicker, easier, and cheaper to use than more direct and accurate measures -- like the underwater weighing test, which measures how much you weigh by how much water you displace, and the skin fold measurements, which calculates how much fat you have beneath your skin.

"BMI was really pushed by [companies like] Metropolitan Life," Church said. "It was meant to give them an excuse to charge [their clients] more."

The formula received its official stamp of approval in 1985, when the NIH cited it as the index of obesity, Ever since then, BMI has gradually become more and more accepted -- now it's the standard, go-to formula for determining what makes a healthy weight, even among regular people, says Frank Hu, Ph.D., professor of health and nutrition at the Harvard School for Public Health.

Another issue is gender. The Quetelet Index -- and corresponding Keys study -- were both created from research on male populations. An entirely different formula was originally used for determining obesity in female populations, and yet, doctors use the same equation for both genders, says Church. In the beginning, the NIH differentiated between men and women by establishing different "thresholds" for one's BMI, to account for the variance between men and women in the equation. But even that difference dissolved in 1998. When pressed for the reasons why, an NIH spokesperson declined to comment.

So why has no one tried to change the system? One reason is that imprecise numbers from BMI aren't dangerous, says Hu. And besides, doctors are able to determine risk factors using other measurements.

Still, the alternatives to BMI aren't perfect either. The most common of which is the waist circumference test, which measures abdominal obesity (a.k.a., the fat around your stomach). It's slightly better than BMI at measuring someone's risk for illnesses like heart disease and diabetes, say our experts, because it measures fat specifically, instead of taking into account the weight of a person's muscle mass.

The truth is, people know if they're overweight -- so be your own judge. Look in the mirror, monitor your jean size, and talk to your doctor. But don't rely on a flawed formula to determine your health status.

For guaranteed weight-loss results, try these 9 weight-loss rules that work.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST HEALTH

The next time you happen to catch a Minnesota Vikings game, take a look at Adrian Peterson, the team's 6'1, 217-pound running back. Now ask yourself: what kind of physical characteristics would yo...
The next time you happen to catch a Minnesota Vikings game, take a look at Adrian Peterson, the team's 6'1, 217-pound running back. Now ask yourself: what kind of physical characteristics would yo...
Filed by Meghan Neal  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 54
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3  Next ›  Last »  (3 total)
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
10:06 PM on 01/25/2011
Thank-you very much, finally someone posts some sense about BMI. I am a woman with a tremendous amount of muscle, and I am 5"11". BMI is not an accurate measure of my health. All my kids are extremely well muscled as well because I happen to have a husband who is very muscled. Large bones make a difference in the BMI as well.
04:44 AM on 01/08/2011
Well, for those struggling with their weight and its affecting their BMI, I suggest you try the Flex Belt, an FDA approved ab workout machine that helps you to lose weight in about 3 to 6 weeks. For more details visit: http://flexbeltrevealed.com
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
GreenKate
10:06 AM on 01/07/2011
Silly for the public to use BMI. All you end up with is a weight range based on height, just like the tables we had back in the 60s. Why do all the math. This reminds me of the Zone Diet. The eating concepts are OK on Zone but the math used to derive your target protein etc is a joke. All it does is put you on a low calorie diet. Rather than losing weight b/c you are "in the zone" you lose weight b/c you are eating 1,200 calories a day. All this math is just a way to sell books by making their diet seem different and more scientific. Americans were much thinner when all we had was the 4 food groups, the height and weight table and a calorie book. Oh, and we ate 3 meals a day, instead of 24/7.
01:13 PM on 12/22/2010
Gee, well who would've thunk it?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ras121s
Bark less, wag more.
04:36 PM on 12/21/2010
BMI couldn't be any more off base. Right now at 5'7" and 165lbs I am just barely into the overweight category (which is quite honestly about right - I need to lose a few, but I'm not unhealthy). It also says I could weigh 118 and still be healthy - WRONG! When I was my thinnest at 135lbs I was too thin. If I were 118lbs, I'd look anorexic and horribly unhealthy. How can my "healthy" weight consist of a range of 40+ pounds??
03:09 PM on 12/21/2010
Thank you for this. I am 5' 5" and weigh 107 pounds. I am not skinny but have small bones and a slender build. I am also an avid exerciser, have been all my life. Out of curiosity, I recently had my BMI tested and it was 26! A trainer at my gym used calipers and measured flesh at different parts of my body. He twisted and plucked and pulled parts of my flesh around so hard to measure, it actually hurt. I suppose that was a skin fold test, but it seemed so primitive. I love to tell people who comment on my slender build that, to the contrary, I am quite overweight, according to my BMI.
04:04 AM on 12/22/2010
Your BMI is 17.81- underweight! Your BMI of 26 was a serious error. You would have to weigh 157 pounds for your BMI to be 26 at your height.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
alieninvader
10:06 AM on 01/07/2011
The trainer measured your body f@t percentage, not your BMI. Your body f@t percentage is within the normal range. BMI is simply a ratio of weight to height. Your trainer should have explained it to you.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
CHMB
What's long and brown and sticky? A Stick.
10:15 AM on 12/21/2010
The BMI is rather useless.

My doctor has informed me of the same.
04:04 AM on 12/21/2010
I've heard people recommend using athletes, who often do have this informatio­n over time. But they're at an extreme end for the most part, you won't have a decent pool for a comparator group, and they tend to abuse the heck out of their bodies for the sake of their sport and thus have other co-factors­. For instance, if we used NFL players, we'd probably find that people with low body-fat percentage­s die at a relatively young age. I don't think that would make sense. I'd rather have no research than bad research.
http://www.articlesmoz.com/extenze-male-enhancement
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
texlib2112
Arsenal - Gooners Forever
07:37 PM on 12/20/2010
I don't like BMI because if you were to check my height and weight you would say that I am obese where in fact my weight is mainly from muscle and I have gone down two pants size. I think the best way to check is by how your clothes fit the looser the better and the tighter the not so better.

Maybe the BMI was designed for those who do not exercise as much and just the average everyday Joe.

If I am wrong then I hope someone out there will correct me. This is a subject I am very interested in learning more.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jgarma
05:20 PM on 12/20/2010
Yep, this info is spot on, and this has been clear as a bell with every athlete (or former one) that had to condition his/her body with resistance training -- meaning, developing muscle.

But I don't know what the confusion is all about.

Do you really need the BMI to tell you that you're overweight?

Why not just grab your gut. If there's a handful, perhaps a diet is in order. If you do resistance training and you're above the BMI for normal but the waist line is less than 2x your height in inches, then you're probably OK.

Hey, get naked and look in a mirror. Be objective. You'll get the right message.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
sunnybunny
05:17 PM on 12/20/2010
I'm a woman with a small frame so for me it is exactly accurate. Obviously though, this means it can't possibly be accurate for other people.We don't all have the same body type, and males usually weigh more than females because they are denser just for starters.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
BruntLIVE
Deal with my fullboreness
03:56 PM on 12/20/2010
bMi was created for European men
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
healthy blogging
02:53 PM on 12/20/2010
This was a very informative article but I disagree with this statement: "The truth is, people know if they're overweight -- so be your own judge. Look in the mirror, monitor your jean size, ..." People are not always objective enough to know whether or not they are overweight. Or they may appear to be of healthy weight but still have a higher fat to lean mass ratio than is healthy for their age, height and lifestyle. Finally, people are often influenced by their surroundings i.e. social proof and validation wherein they may base their conclusions about obesity/healthy weight on others in their environment. In other words, if everyone with whom they associate is of a similar body type, they may adjust themselves accordingly or maintain their present body type.

BMI is an outdated tool for obesity measurement. Skin fold testing, waist circumference testing and even to a much lesser extent bioelectrical impediment analysis (measuring lean mass and amount of water in the body) is better than the body mass index. As I pointed out in the previous paragraph, people may appear thin to average weight but actually have much higher fat to lean mass ratio, and simply looking yourself in the mirror won't help you. As a general rule, do a waist circumference test and consult your MD to learn healthy weight.

-healthy_blogging

Living Fit, Healthy and Happy
THE health & wellness website committed to helping you live a healthy life!
http://www.livingfithealthyandhappy.com
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
onionboy
Blessed are the Cheese Makers
02:49 PM on 12/20/2010
BMI sucks. If you have any significant musculature, it's going to say that you're overweight or obese. It's also going to make extremely unfit people think that they're healthy.

It will continue to be cited, though, because most of the research on lifespan and morbidities has been done using BMI and without body-fat measurement. Height and weight is easy information to get. It's done every time we go to the doctor. Body-fat measurements would require a large prospective long-term study...and nobody wants to pay for that. Plus, you'd need to get everyone to agree on what body-fat measurement to use. The one that's easiest, skin-fold, would also require some consistency in training.

I've heard people recommend using athletes, who often do have this information over time. But they're at an extreme end for the most part, you won't have a decent pool for a comparator group, and they tend to abuse the heck out of their bodies for the sake of their sport and thus have other co-factors. For instance, if we used NFL players, we'd probably find that people with low body-fat percentages die at a relatively young age. I don't think that would make sense. I'd rather have no research than bad research.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
phishphan
11:20 AM on 12/20/2010
BMI is a joke. BF% IMO is the best way to go and getting your waist under 40" if you're a male.

I'm 6'2 and 201 with 17.5% body fat. My BMI says I'm still overweight. I'm clearly not. I was 283 at one point.....yikes.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
10:11 PM on 01/25/2011
My son was about 270 during his college football days as a defensive end. At 6'3" and a half he was in terrific shape with a ton of muscle.