Top 10 Reasons Why The BMI Is Bogus

Options
I know many of us already know why, but there are still some of you out there who are hung up on these numbers.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=106268439


And here is the text for the "link-phobic"

1. The person who dreamed up the BMI said explicitly that it could not and should not be used to indicate the level of fatness in an individual.

The BMI was introduced in the early 19th century by a Belgian named Lambert Adolphe Jacques Quetelet. He was a mathematician, not a physician. He produced the formula to give a quick and easy way to measure the degree of obesity of the general population to assist the government in allocating resources. In other words, it is a 200-year-old hack.

2. It is scientifically nonsensical.

There is no physiological reason to square a person's height (Quetelet had to square the height to get a formula that matched the overall data. If you can't fix the data, rig the formula!). Moreover, it ignores waist size, which is a clear indicator of obesity level.

3. It is physiologically wrong.

It makes no allowance for the relative proportions of bone, muscle and fat in the body. But bone is denser than muscle and twice as dense as fat, so a person with strong bones, good muscle tone and low fat will have a high BMI. Thus, athletes and fit, health-conscious movie stars who work out a lot tend to find themselves classified as overweight or even obese.

4. It gets the logic wrong.

The CDC says on its Web site that "the BMI is a reliable indicator of body fatness for people." This is a fundamental error of logic. For example, if I tell you my birthday present is a bicycle, you can conclude that my present has wheels. That's correct logic. But it does not work the other way round. If I tell you my birthday present has wheels, you cannot conclude I got a bicycle. I could have received a car. Because of how Quetelet came up with it, if a person is fat or obese, he or she will have a high BMI. But as with my birthday present, it doesn't work the other way round. A high BMI does not mean an individual is even overweight, let alone obese. It could mean the person is fit and healthy, with very little fat.

5. It's bad statistics.

Because the majority of people today (and in Quetelet's time) lead fairly sedentary lives and are not particularly active, the formula tacitly assumes low muscle mass and high relative fat content. It applies moderately well when applied to such people because it was formulated by focusing on them. But it gives exactly the wrong answer for a large and significant section of the population, namely the lean, fit and healthy. Quetelet is also the person who came up with the idea of "the average man." That's a useful concept, but if you try to apply it to any one person, you come up with the absurdity of a person with 2.4 children. Averages measure entire populations and often don't apply to individuals.

6. It is lying by scientific authority.

Because the BMI is a single number between 1 and 100 (like a percentage) that comes from a mathematical formula, it carries an air of scientific authority. But it is mathematical snake oil.

7. It suggests there are distinct categories of underweight, ideal, overweight and obese, with sharp boundaries that hinge on a decimal place.

That's total nonsense.

8. It makes the more cynical members of society suspect that the medical insurance industry lobbies for the continued use of the BMI to keep their profits high.

Insurance companies sometimes charge higher premiums for people with a high BMI. Among such people are all those fit individuals with good bone and muscle and little fat, who will live long, healthy lives during which they will have to pay those greater premiums.

9. Continued reliance on the BMI means doctors don't feel the need to use one of the more scientifically sound methods that are available to measure obesity levels.

Those alternatives cost a little bit more, but they give far more reliable results.

10. It embarrasses the U.S.

It is embarrassing for one of the most scientifically, technologically and medicinally advanced nations in the world to base advice on how to prevent one of the leading causes of poor health and premature death (obesity) on a 200-year-old numerical hack developed by a mathematician who was not even an expert in what little was known about the human body back then.

Replies

  • Uptopargolf
    Options
    Really great post!
  • CoryIda
    CoryIda Posts: 7,887 Member
    Options
    Great post!
  • Uptopargolf
    Options
    I do however think, that with the continued concern of the American public on the issue of obesity in society that the BMI will be render useless. Just a few years ago half the public didn't even know what BMI was. Now I would bet that 80% of people have heard the term and understand its use. It is just a matter of time before it is shown how unreliable it really is.
  • juday3
    juday3 Posts: 78 Member
    Options
    Very interesting article! I do believe the BMI is BS anyway. I have a friend who is physically healthy and works out everyday for hours yet his BMI is considered "overweight". Just by looking at him you can tell there is no sign of flab on his body, just ripped muscle.
  • posherspice
    posherspice Posts: 15 Member
    Options
    Clearly something that is designed for whole populations can give wrong answers for individuals - but that doesn't invalidate its use as a general tool (one among many) for assessing what you should aim to weigh. And after all, it does allow for pretty big variations - around 30lb for someone of my height - so it takes into account different body types. Only a small number of individuals will fall outside the guidelines and still be in optimum condition.

    So don't be ruled by BMI, but do be guided by it. Then look at your own body / circumstances and then decide whether it is helpful for you. Chances are it will be.
  • Panda86
    Panda86 Posts: 873
    Options
    Love it! That pretty much sums it up!
  • AnnaPixie
    AnnaPixie Posts: 7,439 Member
    Options
    I've been saying this for years, but not quite so eloquently! :laugh:

    Being a short pear, i am not average at all. I'm naturally muscular and well, not sure about the strength of my bones, but I've never broken one :laugh: . I've been slender and still 'obese' in BMI terms............load of BS!!

    Glad its coming to light now and hopefully people will stop starving themselves to death to meet this fictitious number!

    Hoorah! :bigsmile:
  • Egger29
    Egger29 Posts: 14,741 Member
    Options
    Awesome Post!
  • NoAdditives
    NoAdditives Posts: 4,251 Member
    Options
    Thus, athletes and fit, health-conscious movie stars who work out a lot tend to find themselves classified as overweight or even obese.

    I seriously doubt many celebrities have a BMI that puts them in the overweight or obese category. Some men perhaps, but not women. Have you seen actresses today?

    5. It's bad statistics.

    Because the majority of people today (and in Quetelet's time) lead fairly sedentary lives and are not particularly active, the formula tacitly assumes low muscle mass and high relative fat content. It applies moderately well when applied to such people because it was formulated by focusing on them. But it gives exactly the wrong answer for a large and significant section of the population, namely the lean, fit and healthy. Quetelet is also the person who came up with the idea of "the average man." That's a useful concept, but if you try to apply it to any one person, you come up with the absurdity of a person with 2.4 children. Averages measure entire populations and often don't apply to individuals.

    If it applies to people with high body fat and low muscle mass, essentially overweight or obese people, it applies to 65.2% of the American population.
    10. It embarrasses the U.S.

    It is embarrassing for one of the most scientifically, technologically and medicinally advanced nations in the world to base advice on how to prevent one of the leading causes of poor health and premature death (obesity) on a 200-year-old numerical hack developed by a mathematician who was not even an expert in what little was known about the human body back then.

    I think the obesity rate in this country embarrasses us more. I think the quantities of fast food, junk food, sugar, salt, soda, etc. embarrass us more. I think the fact that the government is having to step in to create laws about what we can and cannot have in our foods embarrasses us more.


    Don't get me wrong, I don't think that the BMI is accurate for every single person. I do think they are helpful for some people. But these "reasons" why the BMI calculation is wrong are just ridiculous.
  • Ms_Natalie
    Ms_Natalie Posts: 1,030 Member
    Options
    Good post :flowerforyou:

    However, it made me accountable when losing weight...I was devastated to see I was nearly in the clinically obese range and this made me choose my new lifestyle very quickly.

    It is a good tool to show people who are overweight that something needs to be done. It has been acknowledged that it cannot account for all individuals...but this is the same as most dietary tools. I think fat mass is far more reliable to gain an idea on whether you are healthy or whether something needs to be done.

    I believe that waist size is also a good indicator of health...however, I have friends who are typically hour glass shaped but carry plenty of weight in their legs, hips and chest..and one of them has been advised to lose weight by a GP. This once again shows that individual differences will always dictate the reliability of a test.

    Very informative post however, thanks :flowerforyou:
  • Ms_Natalie
    Ms_Natalie Posts: 1,030 Member
    Options
    Clearly something that is designed for whole populations can give wrong answers for individuals - but that doesn't invalidate its use as a general tool (one among many) for assessing what you should aim to weigh. And after all, it does allow for pretty big variations - around 30lb for someone of my height - so it takes into account different body types. Only a small number of individuals will fall outside the guidelines and still be in optimum condition.

    So don't be ruled by BMI, but do be guided by it. Then look at your own body / circumstances and then decide whether it is helpful for you. Chances are it will be.

    I agree :flowerforyou:
  • seemichellerun
    Options
    It's totally fine if you want to use BMI as a guideline for your own personal fitness, however it's total crap for employers and insurance companies to use it as a means to punish/over charge people.
  • juday3
    juday3 Posts: 78 Member
    Options
    It's totally fine if you want to use BMI as a guideline for your own personal fitness, however it's total crap for employers and insurance companies to use it as a means to punish/over charge people.

    I totally agree with you on that!
  • CoryIda
    CoryIda Posts: 7,887 Member
    Options
    I have to chime in again - I love the post, totally agree (my goal weight of 180 lbs still would be about 5 pounds above the "normal" BMI range), and yet I'm not sure I agree with the body fat calculator entirely either.
    I am a 5'10" 26 year old woman and weigh 246 pounds currently - clearly in the obese category still by any standard. However, I have a proportionately tiny waist - hips are 48, chest is 50, but waist is only 36 inches. According to the body fat calculator, my body fat % is around 34%, which is just one percentage point higher than in the "acceptable" category for my age range. That doesn't quite make sense either, because I am clearly nowhere near an "acceptable" weight or size. I am, however, sure that it helps with being less likely to have diabetes, heart issues, etc. -- but it's still a little flawed.
  • billtonkin
    Options
    Body fat percentage is the best way to go. There are many options.

    Measuring Body Fat %
    There are many, many ways to find out your body fat percentage, and these all vary in accuracy and availability. Generally speaking - the more accurate the method, the more expensive and 'unobtainable' it is. Going from MOST accurate to LEAST accurate:

    * DEXA scan – This involves a full body x-ray like that used for bone density scans. It is very accurate (although there WILL be a variation between machines - so best to get it done on the same machine by the same technician). There IS also a radiation factor (something to consider if getting multiple scans).
    * Underwater/ Hydrostatic Weighing (also called water displacement) – An individual is submerged and weighed under water, with all the air blown out of their lungs and a percentage of fat and fat-free weight is calculated from body density. Very accurate when done professionally but not widely available.
    * The Bod Pod - Similar concept to underwater weight, but the individual is placed into a small chamber and the amount of air displaced is measured by sensors and calculated into a BF %. Also accurate, but not widely available.
    * Skin-fold measurements/ calipers – Folds of skin are measured with a caliper (pinching tool). The measurements are used in equations that link the thickness of skinfolds to percent body fat calculations. It can be done via '3 sites', '4 sites' and '7 sites'. The more measurements made, the more accurate the estimate. It is simple and available, but needs to be done by someone who is trained and there are wide variations in accuracy.
    * Bioelectrical Impedance (BIA) – These are scales or hand-held devises that run an electrical current through the body to determine water content. They vary in accuracy according to the specific device (some brands are better than others), the number of attachment points (foot and hand electrodes are more accurate than hand held or scale devises), and the user. Example: if you use a SCALE only - the electrical impulse takes the path of least resistance - so travels up one leg, and straight down the other. Thus, it basically measures LOWER body %. If you use a hand held device, it only measures UPPER body %. Similarly - As they are based on WATER content - fluctuations in hormones/ hydration throw values out. So - the best results are obtained first thing in the morning after emptying bladder/ bowels, with no alcohol consumed for 2 days prior, and no exercise the night before, and - hormone free.
    * Tape measure method - There are a number of formula based on several body measurements taken with a tape measure. It can be roughly accurate, but it does depend upon your ability to accurately measure as well as body shape/ type. Although LEAST accurate - it is especially useful for tracking yourself over time as it is readily available.
  • CinderellaManJJ
    CinderellaManJJ Posts: 1 Member
    Options
    @ seemichellerun, tanks for the informative post.
  • Alioth
    Alioth Posts: 571 Member
    Options
    Huhn. The article sounds reasonable but it doesn't list any figures or show any contrary evidence, or any evidence at all. But the historical perspective is interesting.