Why BMI is Misleading: The Truth About Weight, Obesity, and Fitness

This thread is for the general discussion of the Article Why BMI is Misleading: The Truth About Weight, Obesity, and Fitness. Discuss.
It's great that we're discussing this topic. The article raises an important point about BMI being a simplistic measure that doesn't account for varying body compositions. For example, athletes often have higher muscle mass, which can skew their BMI to indicate they are "overweight" or "obese," even when their body fat percentage is low. It seems like there could be better indicators of health and fitness, such as body fat percentage, waist-to-hip ratio, or other personalized metrics. What alternative measures do you all think are more effective for assessing health and fitness?
 
Are any of the findings discussed in this literature review actually new? It seems to me that I have been reading this same critique of BMI with little new "bite" to it since the 1990s. I was definitely taught, in physical education classes with a curriculum set by the government, that BMI was not a good standard. Are their researchers who do not acknowledge what a poor metric it is? Clinicians? Is the problem that the general public does not recognize what a bad standard it is or that we still have yet to develop a better alternative that doesn't require the "personalisation" only available through the expensive, specialised services of an accredited professional using high-tech, specialised equipment? And if the latter, why?
 
Are any of the findings discussed in this literature review actually new? It seems to me that I have been reading this same critique of BMI with little new "bite" to it since the 1990s. I was definitely taught, in physical education classes with a curriculum set by the government, that BMI was not a good standard. Are their researchers who do not acknowledge what a poor metric it is? Clinicians? Is the problem that the general public does not recognize what a bad standard it is or that we still have yet to develop a better alternative that doesn't require the "personalisation" only available through the expensive, specialised services of an accredited professional using high-tech, specialised equipment? And if the latter, why?
The critique of BMI as a flawed measure has been around for quite some time. Many healthcare professionals and researchers are aware of its limitations, yet it's still widely used because it's a simple, quick, and cost-effective tool. The truth is those who care enough (and can afford) will pay for DEXA and body analysis scans where health services funded by the state like the NHS simply cannot afford to measure statistics like that for all.

The USA is where it is interesting because the healthcare industry has an active interest in you becoming unhealthy via obesity and diabetes but living for a long enough time... (whether or not healthcare bosses are ethical enough to pursue this interest, I couldn't possibly comment on 😏).
 
It's great that we're discussing this topic. The article raises an important point about BMI being a simplistic measure that doesn't account for varying body compositions. For example, athletes often have higher muscle mass, which can skew their BMI to indicate they are "overweight" or "obese," even when their body fat percentage is low. It seems like there could be better indicators of health and fitness, such as body fat percentage, waist-to-hip ratio, or other personalized metrics. What alternative measures do you all think are more effective for assessing health and fitness?
Thank you for such an insightful comment! I completely agree—BMI often fails to account for individual differences, like athletes' higher muscle mass or varying body compositions. Alternatives like body fat percentage, waist-to-hip ratio, or even advanced metrics like DEXA scans provide more accurate health assessments. However, accessibility remains a key issue. Personalised tools and specialised equipment aren't always feasible for large-scale use. For now, a combination of simpler metrics—like waist circumference and physical fitness tests—might bridge the gap between affordability and precision.
 
You raise excellent points, Heather, and I really appreciate your critical perspective. While the critique of BMI is far from new, its persistent use in both clinical and non-clinical settings highlights a significant disconnect between awareness and actionable change. As Mr. Ferdinand has highlighted, BMI remains widely used because it's simple, quick, and cost-effective—qualities that make it appealing to large institutions and public health systems, even though its limitations are well-documented.

What's emphasised in this article is how recent studies and alternative approaches are gaining traction, though they are still far from mainstream. Public health campaigns and policies often rely on BMI simply because it's accessible and easy to standardise, despite its known flaws. Meanwhile, the general public continues to view BMI as a definitive health measure, influenced by its widespread presence in schools, gyms, social media campaigns, and even fitness apps.

The real challenge lies in bridging the gap between what researchers and clinicians understand and what the public perceives. This means not only advocating for more accurate and accessible alternatives but also addressing the systemic and financial barriers to implementing those alternatives on a larger scale. I hope this article and the conversations it's sparking can contribute to pushing this dialogue forward.
Are any of the findings discussed in this literature review actually new? It seems to me that I have been reading this same critique of BMI with little new "bite" to it since the 1990s. I was definitely taught, in physical education classes with a curriculum set by the government, that BMI was not a good standard. Are their researchers who do not acknowledge what a poor metric it is? Clinicians? Is the problem that the general public does not recognize what a bad standard it is or that we still have yet to develop a better alternative that doesn't require the "personalisation" only available through the expensive, specialised services of an accredited professional using high-tech, specialised equipment? And if the latter, why?
 
The critique of BMI as a flawed measure has been around for quite some time. Many healthcare professionals and researchers are aware of its limitations, yet it's still widely used because it's a simple, quick, and cost-effective tool. The truth is those who care enough (and can afford) will pay for DEXA and body analysis scans where health services funded by the state like the NHS simply cannot afford to measure statistics like that for all.

The USA is where it is interesting because the healthcare industry has an active interest in you becoming unhealthy via obesity and diabetes but living for a long enough time... (whether or not healthcare bosses are ethical enough to pursue this interest, I couldn't possibly comment on 😏).
You're spot on, Mr. Ferdinand. The challenge lies in breaking BMI's familiarity as the default and pushing for accessible, scalable alternatives. Hopefully, discussions like these can help drive that shift.
 
Back
Top