Hubbry Logo
Body mass indexBody mass indexMain
Open search
Body mass index
Community hub
Body mass index
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Body mass index
Body mass index
Body mass index
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Body mass index (BMI)
Chart showing body mass index (BMI) for a range of heights and weights in both metric and imperial. Colours indicate BMI categories defined by the World Health Organization; blue: underweight, green: normal weight, yellow: overweight, mango: moderately obese, orange: severely obese and red:very severely obese.
SynonymsQuetelet index
MeSHD015992
MedlinePlus007196
LOINC39156-5
Part of a series on
Human body weight
General concepts
Medical concepts
Measurements
Related conditions
Obesity-associated morbidity
Management of obesity
Social aspects

Body mass index (BMI) is a value derived from the mass (weight) and height of a person. The BMI is defined as the body mass divided by the square of the body height, and is expressed in units of kg/m2, resulting from mass in kilograms (kg) and height in metres (m).

The BMI may be determined first by measuring its components by means of a weighing scale and a stadiometer. The multiplication and division may be carried out directly, by hand or using a calculator, or indirectly using a lookup table (or chart).[1] The table displays BMI as a function of mass and height and may show other units of measurement (converted to metric units for the calculation).[a] The table may also show contour lines or colours for different BMI categories.

The BMI is a convenient rule of thumb used to broadly categorize a person as based on tissue mass (muscle, fat, and bone) and height. Major adult BMI classifications are underweight (under 18.5 kg/m2), normal weight (18.5 to 24.9), overweight (25 to 29.9), and obese (30 or more).[2] When used to predict an individual's health, rather than as a statistical measurement for groups, the BMI has limitations that can make it less useful than some of the alternatives, especially when applied to individuals with abdominal obesity, short stature, or high muscle mass.

BMIs under 20 and over 25 have been associated with higher all-cause mortality, with the risk increasing with distance from the 20–25 range.[3]

History

[edit]
Obesity and BMI

Adolphe Quetelet, a Belgian astronomer, mathematician, statistician, and sociologist, devised the basis of the BMI between 1830 and 1850 as he developed what he called "social physics".[4] Quetelet himself never intended for the index, then called the Quetelet Index, to be used as a means of medical assessment. Instead, it was a component of his study of l'homme moyen, or the average man. Quetelet thought of the average man as a social ideal, and developed the body mass index as a means of discovering the socially ideal human person.[5] According to Lars Grue and Arvid Heiberg in the Scandinavian Journal of Disability Research, Quetelet's idealization of the average man would be elaborated upon by Francis Galton a decade later in the development of eugenics.[6]

The modern term "body mass index" (BMI) for the ratio of human body weight to squared height was coined in a paper published in the July 1972 edition of the Journal of Chronic Diseases by Ancel Keys and others. In this paper, Keys argued that what he termed the BMI was "if not fully satisfactory, at least as good as any other relative weight index as an indicator of relative obesity".[7][8][9]

The interest in an index that measures body fat came with observed increasing obesity in prosperous Western societies. Keys explicitly judged BMI as appropriate for population studies and inappropriate for individual evaluation. Nevertheless, due to its simplicity, it has come to be widely used for preliminary diagnoses.[10] Additional metrics, such as waist circumference, can be more useful.[11]

The BMI is expressed in kg/m2, resulting from mass in kilograms and height in metres. If pounds and inches are used, a conversion factor of 703 (kg/m2)/(lb/in2) is applied. (If pounds and feet are used, a conversion factor of 4.88 is used.) When the term BMI is used informally, the units are usually omitted.

BMI provides a simple numeric measure of a person's thickness or thinness, allowing health professionals to discuss weight problems more objectively with their patients. BMI was designed to be used as a simple means of classifying average sedentary (physically inactive) populations, with an average body composition.[12] For such individuals, the BMI value recommendations as of 2014 are as follows: 18.5 to 24.9 kg/m2 may indicate optimal weight, lower than 18.5 may indicate underweight, 25 to 29.9 may indicate overweight, and 30 or more may indicate obese.[10][11] Lean male athletes often have a high muscle-to-fat ratio and therefore a BMI that is misleadingly high relative to their body-fat percentage.[11]

Categories

[edit]

A common use of the BMI is to assess how far an individual's body weight departs from what is normal for a person's height. The weight excess or deficiency may, in part, be accounted for by body fat (adipose tissue) although other factors such as muscularity also affect BMI significantly (see discussion below and overweight).[13]

The WHO regards an adult BMI of less than 18.5 as underweight and possibly indicative of malnutrition, an eating disorder, or other health problems, while a BMI of 25 or more is considered overweight and 30 or more is considered obese.[2] In addition to the principle, international WHO BMI cut-off points (16, 17, 18.5, 25, 30, 35 and 40), four additional cut-off points for at-risk Asians were identified (23, 27.5, 32.5 and 37.5).[14] These ranges of BMI values are valid only as statistical categories.

BMI, basic categories
Category BMI (kg/m2)[b] BMI Prime[b]
Underweight (Severe thinness) < 16.0 < 0.64
Underweight (Moderate thinness) 16.0–17.0 0.64–0.68
Underweight (Mild thinness) 17.0–18.5 0.68–0.74
Normal range 18.5–25.0 0.74–1.00
Overweight (Pre-obese) 25.0–30.0 1.00–1.20
Obese (Class I) 30.0–35.0 1.20–1.40
Obese (Class II) 35.0–40.0 1.40–1.60
Obese (Class III) ≥ 40.0 ≥ 1.60

Children and youth

[edit]
BMI for age percentiles for boys 2 to 20 years of age
BMI for age percentiles for girls 2 to 20 years of age

BMI is used differently for people aged 2 to 20. It is calculated in the same way as for adults but then compared to typical values for other children or youth of the same age. Instead of comparison against fixed thresholds for underweight and overweight, the BMI is compared against the percentiles for children of the same sex and age.[15]

A BMI that is less than the 5th percentile is considered underweight and above the 95th percentile is considered obese. Children with a BMI between the 85th and 95th percentile are considered to be overweight.[16]

Studies in Britain from 2013 have indicated that females between the ages 12 and 16 had a higher BMI than males of the same age by 1.0 kg/m2 on average.[17]

International variations

[edit]

These recommended distinctions along the linear scale may vary from time to time and country to country, making global, longitudinal surveys problematic. People from different populations and descent have different associations between BMI, percentage of body fat, and health risks, with a higher risk of type 2 diabetes mellitus and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease at BMIs lower than the WHO cut-off point for overweight, 25 kg/m2, although the cut-off for observed risk varies among different populations. The cut-off for observed risk varies based on populations and subpopulations in Europe, Asia and Africa.[18][19]

Hong Kong

[edit]

The Hospital Authority of Hong Kong recommends the use of the following BMI ranges:[20]

BMI in Hong Kong
Category BMI (kg/m2)[b]
Underweight (Unhealthy) < 18.5
Normal range (Healthy) 18.5–22.9
Overweight I (At risk) 23.0–24.9
Overweight II (Moderately obese) 25.0–29.9
Overweight III (Severely obese) ≥ 30.0

Japan

[edit]

A 2000 study from the Japan Society for the Study of Obesity (JASSO) presents the following table of BMI categories:[21][22][23]

BMI in Japan
Category BMI (kg/m2)[b]
Underweight (Thin) < 18.5
Normal weight 18.5–24.9
Obesity (Class 1) 25.0–29.9
Obesity (Class 2) 30.0–34.9
Obesity (Class 3) 35.0–39.9
Obesity (Class 4) ≥ 40.0

Singapore

[edit]

In Singapore, the BMI cut-off figures were revised in 2005 by the Health Promotion Board (HPB), motivated by studies showing that many Asian populations, including Singaporeans, have a higher proportion of body fat and increased risk for cardiovascular diseases and diabetes mellitus, compared with general BMI recommendations in other countries. The BMI cut-offs are presented with an emphasis on health risk rather than weight.[24]

BMI in Singapore
Category BMI (kg/m2)[b] Health risk
Underweight < 18.5 Possible nutritional deficiency and osteoporosis.
Normal 18.5–22.9 Low risk (healthy range).
Mild to moderate overweight 23.0–27.4 Moderate risk of developing heart disease, high blood pressure, stroke, diabetes mellitus.
Very overweight to obese ≥ 27.5 High risk of developing heart disease, high blood pressure, stroke, diabetes mellitus. Metabolic syndrome.

United Kingdom

[edit]

In the UK, NICE guidance recommends prevention of type 2 diabetes should start at a BMI of 30 in White and 27.5 in Black African, African-Caribbean, South Asian, and Chinese populations.[25]

Research since 2021 based on a large sample of almost 1.5 million people in England found that some ethnic groups would benefit from prevention at or above a BMI of (rounded):[26][27]

  • 30 in White
  • 28 in Black
    • just below 30 in Black British
    • 29 in Black African
    • 27 in Black Other
    • 26 in Black Caribbean
  • 27 in Arab and Chinese
  • 24 in South Asian
    • 24 in Pakistani, Indian and Nepali
    • 23 in Tamil and Sri Lankan
    • 21 in Bangladeshi

United States

[edit]

In 1998, the U.S. National Institutes of Health brought U.S. definitions in line with World Health Organization guidelines, lowering the normal/overweight cut-off from a BMI of 27.8 (men) and 27.3 (women) to a BMI of 25. This had the effect of redefining approximately 25 million Americans, previously healthy, to overweight.[28][29]

This can partially explain the increase in the overweight diagnosis in the past 20 years,[when?] and the increase in sales of weight loss products during the same time. WHO also recommends lowering the normal/overweight threshold for southeast Asian body types to around BMI 23, and expects further revisions to emerge from clinical studies of different body types.[30]

A survey in 2007 showed 63% of Americans were then overweight or obese, with 26% in the obese category (a BMI of 30 or more). By 2014, 37.7% of adults in the United States were obese, 35.0% of men and 40.4% of women; class 3 obesity (BMI over 40) values were 7.7% for men and 9.9% for women.[31] The U.S. National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey of 2015–2016 showed that 71.6% of American men and women had BMIs over 25.[32] Obesity—a BMI of 30 or more—was found in 39.8% of the US adults.

Body mass index values (kg/m2) for males aged 20 and over, and selected percentiles by age: United States, 2011–2014[33]
Age Percentile
5th 10th 15th 25th 50th 75th 85th 90th 95th
≥ 20 (total) 20.7 22.2 23.0 24.6 27.7 31.6 34.0 36.1 39.8
20–29 19.3 20.5 21.2 22.5 25.5 30.5 33.1 35.1 39.2
30–39 21.1 22.4 23.3 24.8 27.5 31.9 35.1 36.5 39.3
40–49 21.9 23.4 24.3 25.7 28.5 31.9 34.4 36.5 40.0
50–59 21.6 22.7 23.6 25.4 28.3 32.0 34.0 35.2 40.3
60–69 21.6 22.7 23.6 25.3 28.0 32.4 35.3 36.9 41.2
70–79 21.5 23.2 23.9 25.4 27.8 30.9 33.1 34.9 38.9
≥ 80 20.0 21.5 22.5 24.1 26.3 29.0 31.1 32.3 33.8
Body mass index values (kg/m2) for females aged 20 and over, and selected percentiles by age: United States, 2011–2014[33]
Age Percentile
5th 10th 15th 25th 50th 75th 85th 90th 95th
≥ 20 (total) 19.6 21.0 22.0 23.6 27.7 33.2 36.5 39.3 43.3
20–29 18.6 19.8 20.7 21.9 25.6 31.8 36.0 38.9 42.0
30–39 19.8 21.1 22.0 23.3 27.6 33.1 36.6 40.0 44.7
40–49 20.0 21.5 22.5 23.7 28.1 33.4 37.0 39.6 44.5
50–59 19.9 21.5 22.2 24.5 28.6 34.4 38.3 40.7 45.2
60–69 20.0 21.7 23.0 24.5 28.9 33.4 36.1 38.7 41.8
70–79 20.5 22.1 22.9 24.6 28.3 33.4 36.5 39.1 42.9
≥ 80 19.3 20.4 21.3 23.3 26.1 29.7 30.9 32.8 35.2

Consequences of elevated level in adults

[edit]

The BMI ranges are based on the relationship between body weight and disease and death.[12] Overweight and obese individuals are at an increased risk for the following diseases:[34]

Among people who have never smoked, overweight/obesity is associated with 51% increase in mortality compared with people who have always been a normal weight.[37]

Applications

[edit]

Public health

[edit]

The BMI is generally used as a means of correlation between groups related by general mass and can serve as a vague means of estimating adiposity. The duality of the BMI is that, while it is easy to use as a general calculation, it is limited as to how accurate and pertinent the data obtained from it can be. Generally, the index is suitable for recognizing trends within sedentary or overweight individuals because there is a smaller margin of error.[38] The BMI has been used by the WHO as the standard for recording obesity statistics since the early 1980s.

This general correlation is particularly useful for consensus data regarding obesity or various other conditions because it can be used to build a semi-accurate representation from which a solution can be stipulated, or the RDA for a group can be calculated. Similarly, this is becoming more and more pertinent to the growth of children, since the majority of children are sedentary.[39] Cross-sectional studies indicated that sedentary people can decrease BMI by becoming more physically active. Smaller effects are seen in prospective cohort studies which lend to support active mobility as a means to prevent a further increase in BMI.[40]

Legislation

[edit]

In France, Italy, and Spain, legislation has been introduced banning the usage of fashion show models having a BMI below 18.[41] In Israel, a model with BMI below 18.5 is banned.[42] This is done to fight anorexia among models and people interested in fashion.

Relationship to health

[edit]

A study published by Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) in 2005 showed that overweight people had a death rate similar to normal weight people as defined by BMI, while underweight and obese people had a higher death rate.[43]

A study published by The Lancet in 2009 involving 900,000 adults showed that overweight and underweight people both had a mortality rate higher than normal weight people as defined by BMI. The optimal BMI was found to be in the range of 22.5–25.[44] The average BMI of athletes is 22.4 for women and 23.6 for men.[45]

High BMI is associated with type 2 diabetes only in people with high serum gamma-glutamyl transpeptidase.[46]

In an analysis of 40 studies involving 250,000 people, patients with coronary artery disease with normal BMIs were at higher risk of death from cardiovascular disease than people whose BMIs put them in the overweight range (BMI 25–29.9).[47]

One study found that BMI had a good general correlation with body fat percentage, and noted that obesity has overtaken smoking as the world's number one cause of death. But it also notes that in the study 50% of men and 62% of women were obese according to body fat defined obesity, while only 21% of men and 31% of women were obese according to BMI, meaning that BMI was found to underestimate the number of obese subjects.[48]

A 2010 study that followed 11,000 subjects for up to eight years concluded that BMI is not the most appropriate measure for the risk of heart attack, stroke or death. A better measure was found to be the waist-to-height ratio.[49] A 2011 study that followed 60,000 participants for up to 13 years found that waist–hip ratio was a better predictor of ischaemic heart disease mortality.[50]

Limitations

[edit]
This graph shows the correlation between body mass index (BMI) and body fat percentage (BFP) for 8550 men in NCHS' NHANES 1994 data. Data in the upper left and lower right quadrants suggest the limitations of BMI.[48]

The medical establishment[51] and statistical community[52] have both highlighted the limitations of BMI.

Racial and gender differences

[edit]

Part of the statistical limitations of the BMI scale is the result of Quetelet's original sampling methods.[53] As noted in his primary work, A Treatise on Man and the Development of His Faculties, the data from which Quetelet derived his formula was taken mostly from Scottish Highland soldiers and French Gendarmerie.[5] The BMI was always designed as a metric for European men. For women, and people of non-European origin, the scale is often biased. As noted by sociologist Sabrina Strings, the BMI is largely inaccurate for black people especially, disproportionately labelling them as overweight even for healthy individuals.[53][verification needed] A 2012 study of BMI in an ethnically diverse population showed that "adult overweight and obesity were associated with an increased risk of mortality ... across the five racial/ethnic groups".[54]

Scaling

[edit]

The BMI depends upon weight and the square of height. Since mass increases to the third power of linear dimensions, taller individuals with exactly the same body shape and relative composition have a larger BMI.[55] BMI is proportional to the mass and inversely proportional to the square of the height. So, if all body dimensions double, and mass scales naturally with the cube of the height, then BMI doubles instead of remaining the same. This results in taller people having a reported BMI that is uncharacteristically high, compared to their actual body fat levels. In comparison, the Ponderal index is based on the natural scaling of mass with the third power of the height.[56]

However, many taller people are not just "scaled up" short people but tend to have narrower frames in proportion to their height.[57] Carl Lavie has written that "The B.M.I. tables are excellent for identifying obesity and body fat in large populations, but they are far less reliable for determining fatness in individuals."[58]

For US adults, exponent estimates range from 1.92 to 1.96 for males and from 1.45 to 1.95 for females.[59][60]

Physical characteristics

[edit]

The BMI overestimates roughly 10% for a large (or tall) frame and underestimates roughly 10% for a smaller frame (short stature). In other words, people with small frames would be carrying more fat than optimal, but their BMI indicates that they are normal. Conversely, large framed (or tall) individuals may be quite healthy, with a fairly low body fat percentage, but be classified as overweight by BMI.[61]

For example, a height/weight chart may say the ideal weight (BMI 21.5) for a 1.78-metre-tall (5 ft 10 in) man is 68 kilograms (150 lb). But if that man has a slender build (small frame), he may be overweight at 68 kg or 150 lb and should reduce by 10% to roughly 61 kg or 135 lb (BMI 19.4). In the reverse, the man with a larger frame and more solid build should increase by 10%, to roughly 75 kg or 165 lb (BMI 23.7). If one teeters on the edge of small/medium or medium/large, common sense should be used in calculating one's ideal weight. However, falling into one's ideal weight range for height and build is still not as accurate in determining health risk factors as waist-to-height ratio and actual body fat percentage.[62]

Accurate frame size calculators use several measurements (wrist circumference, elbow width, neck circumference, and others) to determine what category an individual falls into for a given height.[63] The BMI also fails to take into account loss of height through ageing. In this situation, BMI will increase without any corresponding increase in weight.

Muscle versus fat

[edit]

Assumptions about the distribution between muscle mass and fat mass are inexact. BMI generally overestimates adiposity on those with leaner body mass (e.g., athletes) and underestimates excess adiposity on those with fattier body mass.

A study in June 2008 by Romero-Corral et al. examined 13,601 subjects from the United States' third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES III) and found that BMI-defined obesity (BMI ≥ 30) was present in 21% of men and 31% of women. Body fat-defined obesity was found in 50% of men and 62% of women. While BMI-defined obesity showed high specificity (95% for men and 99% for women), BMI showed poor sensitivity (36% for men and 49% for women). In other words, the BMI will be mostly correct when determining a person to be obese, but can err quite frequently when determining a person not to be. Despite this undercounting of obesity by BMI, BMI values in the intermediate BMI range of 20–30 were found to be associated with a wide range of body fat percentages. For men with a BMI of 25, about 20% have a body fat percentage below 20% and about 10% have body fat percentage above 30%.[48]

Body composition for athletes is often better calculated using measures of body fat, as determined by such techniques as skinfold measurements or underwater weighing and the limitations of manual measurement have also led to alternative methods to measure obesity, such as the body volume indicator.[64]

Variation in definitions of categories

[edit]

It is not clear where on the BMI scale the threshold for overweight and obese should be set. Because of this, the standards have varied over the past few decades. Between 1980 and 2000 the U.S. Dietary Guidelines have defined overweight at a variety of levels ranging from a BMI of 24.9 to 27.1. In 1985, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) consensus conference recommended that overweight BMI be set at a BMI of 27.8 for men and 27.3 for women.

In 1998, an NIH report concluded that a BMI over 25 is overweight and a BMI over 30 is obese.[28] In the 1990s the World Health Organization (WHO) decided that a BMI of 25 to 30 should be considered overweight and a BMI over 30 is obese, the standards the NIH set. This became the definitive guide for determining if someone is overweight.

One study found that the vast majority of people labelled 'overweight' and 'obese' according to current definitions do not in fact face any meaningful increased risk for early death. In a quantitative analysis of several studies, involving more than 600,000 men and women, the lowest mortality rates were found for people with BMIs between 23 and 29; most of the 25–30 range considered 'overweight' was not associated with higher risk.[65]

Alternatives

[edit]

Corpulence index (exponent of 3)

[edit]

The corpulence index uses an exponent of 3 rather than 2. The corpulence index yields valid results even for very short and very tall people,[66] which is a problem with BMI. For example, a 152.4 cm (5 ft 0 in) tall person at an ideal body weight of 48 kg (106 lb) gives a normal BMI of 20.74 and CI of 13.6, while a 200 cm (6 ft 7 in) tall person with a weight of 100 kg (220 lb) gives a BMI of 24.84, very close to an overweight BMI of 25, and a CI of 12.4, very close to a normal CI of 12.[67]

New BMI (exponent of 2.5)

[edit]

A study found that the best exponent E for predicting the fat percent would be between 2 and 2.5 in .[68]

An exponent of 5/2 or 2.5 was proposed by Quetelet in the 19th century:[5]

In general, we do not err much when we assume that during development the squares of the weight at different ages are as the fifth powers of the height

This exponent of 2.5 is used in a revised formula for Body Mass Index, proposed by Nick Trefethen, Professor of numerical analysis at the University of Oxford,[69] which minimizes the distortions for shorter and taller individuals resulting from the use of an exponent of 2 in the traditional BMI formula:

The scaling factor of 1.3 was determined to make the proposed new BMI formula align with the traditional BMI formula for adults of average height, while the exponent of 2.5 is a compromise between the exponent of 2 in the traditional formula for BMI and the exponent of 3 that would be expected for the scaling of weight (which at constant density would theoretically scale with volume, i.e., as the cube of the height) with height. In Trefethen's analysis, an exponent of 2.5 was found to fit empirical data more closely with less distortion than either an exponent of 2 or 3.

BMI prime (exponent of 2, normalization factor)

[edit]

BMI Prime, a modification of the BMI system, is the ratio of actual BMI to upper limit optimal BMI (currently defined at 25 kg/m2), i.e., the actual BMI expressed as a proportion of upper limit optimal. BMI Prime is a dimensionless number independent of units. Individuals with BMI Prime less than 0.74 are underweight; those with between 0.74 and 1.00 have optimal weight; and those at 1.00 or greater are overweight. BMI Prime is useful clinically because it shows by what ratio (e.g. 1.36) or percentage (e.g. 136%, or 36% above) a person deviates from the maximum optimal BMI.

For instance, a person with BMI 34 kg/m2 has a BMI Prime of 34/25 = 1.36, and is 36% over their upper mass limit. In South East Asian and South Chinese populations (see § international variations), BMI Prime should be calculated using an upper limit BMI of 23 in the denominator instead of 25. BMI Prime allows easy comparison between populations whose upper-limit optimal BMI values differ.[70]

Waist circumference

[edit]
Main articles: Waist-to-height ratio and Waist-to-hip ratio

Waist circumference is a good indicator of visceral fat, which poses more health risks than fat elsewhere. According to the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH), waist circumference in excess of 1,020 mm (40 in) for men and 880 mm (35 in) for (non-pregnant) women is considered to imply a high risk for type 2 diabetes, dyslipidemia, hypertension, and cardiovascular disease CVD. Waist circumference can be a better indicator of obesity-related disease risk than BMI. For example, this is the case in populations of Asian descent and older people.[71] 940 mm (37 in) for men and 800 mm (31 in) for women has been stated to pose "higher risk", with the NIH figures "even higher".[72]

Waist-to-hip circumference ratio has also been used, but has been found to be no better than waist circumference alone, and more complicated to measure.[73]

A related indicator is waist circumference divided by height. A 2013 study identified critical threshold values for waist-to-height ratio according to age, with consequent significant reduction in life expectancy if exceeded. These are: 0.5 for people under 40 years of age, 0.5 to 0.6 for people aged 40–50, and 0.6 for people over 50 years of age.[74]

Surface-based body shape index

[edit]

The Surface-based Body Shape Index (SBSI) is far more rigorous and is based upon four key measurements: the body surface area (BSA), vertical trunk circumference (VTC), waist circumference (WC) and height (H). Data on 11,808 subjects from the National Health and Human Nutrition Examination Surveys (NHANES) 1999–2004, showed that SBSI outperformed BMI, waist circumference, and A Body Shape Index (ABSI), an alternative to BMI.[75][76]

A simplified, dimensionless form of SBSI, known as SBSI*, has also been developed.[76]

Modified body mass index

[edit]

Within some medical contexts, such as familial amyloid polyneuropathy, serum albumin is factored in to produce a modified body mass index (mBMI). The mBMI can be obtained by multiplying the BMI by serum albumin, in grams per litre.[77]

See also

[edit]

Explanatory notes

[edit]

References

[edit]

Further reading

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Body mass index

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia

Body mass index (BMI) is a value derived from the weight and height of an adult, serving as an indirect screening tool for body fatness and potential weight-related health conditions. It is calculated using the formula BMI=weight (kg)height (m)2\mathrm{BMI} = \frac{\mathrm{weight\ (kg)}}{\mathrm{height\ (m)}^2}, or in as BMI=weight (lb)height (in)2×703\mathrm{BMI} = \frac{\mathrm{weight\ (lb)}}{\mathrm{height\ (in)}^2} \times 703. This metric, originally termed the Quetelet Index, was developed in the 1830s by Belgian mathematician, astronomer, and statistician to describe the "average man" in population studies rather than for individual . BMI categorizes adults as (less than 18.5), normal weight (18.5–24.9), (25.0–29.9), or obese (30.0 or higher), with higher values generally indicating greater risks of conditions such as , , and certain cancers. Large-scale meta-analyses of individual participant data have demonstrated a J-shaped relationship between BMI and all-cause mortality, with the lowest risks typically in the normal weight range (around 22.5–25 kg/m² among never-smokers), increasing risks for both and /obese categories, though the association for overweight is less pronounced than for obesity.30175-1/fulltext) Despite its widespread adoption in clinical practice and public health surveillance for its simplicity and cost-effectiveness, BMI has significant limitations as a measure of adiposity or health. It fails to differentiate between lean mass and fat mass, often misclassifying muscular individuals like athletes as overweight or obese. For example, athletic men 185 cm (1.85 m) tall commonly have weights in the 86–102 kg range, corresponding to a BMI of 25–29.9 (classified as overweight), despite having low body fat and good health, whereas the healthy weight range of 63–85 kg for that height corresponds to a BMI of 18.5–24.9; similarly, for a man 205 cm (2.05 m) tall, the healthy weight range is approximately 78–105 kg, corresponding to a BMI of 18.5–24.9 (WHO/CDC standards); for a 6'3" (75 inches or 190.5 cm) adult man, the recommended healthy weight range is approximately 152 to 199 pounds (69 to 90 kg), corresponding to a BMI of 19 to 24 per standard NIH charts, though the official healthy BMI range of 18.5–24.9 extends slightly lower to about 148 pounds. BMI is a general screening tool and does not account for muscle mass, bone density, or individual factors; consult a doctor for personalized advice. BMI also does not account for fat distribution (e.g., visceral vs. subcutaneous), age, sex, ethnicity, or frame size, which can lead to inaccuracies in assessing individual health risks. Systematic reviews highlight that while BMI correlates moderately with body fat at the population level, its utility diminishes for personalized assessments, prompting calls for complementary measures like waist circumference or body composition analysis. Nonetheless, empirical evidence from prospective cohorts underscores BMI's value in predicting population-level mortality and morbidity trends, even amid these flaws.

Definition and Calculation

Mathematical Formula

The body mass index (BMI) is computed as body mass in kilograms divided by the square of stature in meters, yielding units of kg/m². This formula, originally termed the Quetelet Index, was formulated by Belgian astronomer and in 1832 to quantify characteristics of l'homme moyen ("the average man") in adult populations. Quetelet derived the height-squared denominator from empirical observations that, among adults of varying statures, body weight tends to scale proportionally to the square of rather than the cube anticipated under strict geometric similarity assumptions for scaled volumes. For example, using the imperial formula, a weight of 115 pounds at 5 feet 5 inches (65 inches) yields the same BMI as approximately 108 pounds at 5 feet 3 inches (63 inches), obtained by scaling weight by the square of the height ratio: 115 × (63/65)² ≈ 108. For instance, the BMI for a 5 foot 10 inch (70 inches) individual weighing 190 pounds is calculated as (190 × 703) / (70²) = 27.3; this calculation is the same for men and women. Similarly, for a height of 5 feet 5 inches (65 inches) and weight of 169 pounds, BMI = (169 × 703) / (65²) = 28.1, falling in the overweight category (BMI 25.0–29.9). For a person who is 5'2" (157.48 cm or 1.5748 m) tall and weighs 69 kg, the BMI is 27.8, calculated as 69 / (1.5748)^2, falling in the overweight category (25.0–29.9); this calculation is the same for men and women. Similarly, for a height of 146 cm (1.46 m) and weight of 30 kg, the BMI is approximately 14.07, calculated as 30 / (1.46)^2; for adults (20+ years), this falls in the underweight category, specifically severe thinness (BMI <16) per WHO classifications. For an adult 5 feet 1 inch (61 inches) tall, the healthy weight range corresponding to a BMI of 18.5 to 24.9 is approximately 100 to 132 pounds, calculated using the imperial formula; this serves as a general screening tool applicable equally to men and women, though individual assessments should consider factors such as muscle mass, age, and body composition. For an adult woman who is 4'9" (57 inches) tall, the healthy weight range corresponding to a BMI of 18.5 to 24.9 is approximately 88 to 118 pounds. BMI is a screening tool and does not account for muscle mass, bone density, or body composition; consult a healthcare provider for personalized advice. For women 5 feet 5 inches (65 inches) tall, the corresponding healthy weight range is 114 to 149 pounds; however, there is no single average weight reported specifically for this height in official U.S. population data, as averages are typically reported overall or by age rather than precise height, with the overall average for U.S. adult women (aged 20+) being 171.8 pounds at an average height of 63.5 inches. Similarly, for a 57-year-old woman who is 5 feet 4 inches (64 inches) tall, the healthy weight range corresponding to a BMI of 18.5–24.9 is approximately 110 to 144 pounds, calculated using the imperial formula; standard guidelines apply the same BMI categories to adults aged 20 and older, including at age 57, though some studies suggest that for older adults (often 65+), a slightly higher BMI of 25 to 27 (about 145 to 157 pounds for this height) may be associated with lower mortality risk. Similarly, for a 50-year-old male who is 6 feet (72 inches) tall, the healthy weight range based on BMI (18.5–24.9) is approximately 137 to 184 pounds (62 to 83 kg). Standard adult BMI categories do not adjust for age or gender. This scaling reflects average across populations, where taller individuals exhibit relatively slimmer builds, stabilizing the index for comparative purposes in statistical analysis. The index thus serves as a height-normalized descriptor of distribution, independent of individual growth trajectories. In prevalent in the United States, BMI is equivalently calculated as 703 multiplied by body weight in pounds divided by the square of in inches. This conversion factor arises from unit equivalences: 1 kg ≈ 2.20462 lb and 1 m ≈ 39.3701 in, ensuring numerical consistency with the metric formulation. Quetelet's approach prioritized population-level averages over individual , positioning BMI as a tool for aggregate human variation rather than personalized assessment.

Categorical Interpretation

The (WHO) established standard BMI categories in the 1990s to classify body weight relative to height based on population-level data associating BMI ranges with health risks. These include (BMI < 18.5), normal weight (BMI 18.5–24.9), overweight (BMI 25.0–29.9), and obesity (BMI ≥ 30.0). The thresholds were derived from actuarial data and epidemiological studies linking BMI distributions to morbidity and mortality patterns in Western populations, serving as statistical cutoffs rather than precise indicators of individual health status. These categories function as proxies for excess adiposity and associated risks, but BMI does not directly measure body fat percentage or composition, limiting its diagnostic utility. Large cohort studies have shown that BMI values above 25 are correlated with increased all-cause mortality, with risks escalating progressively in the obese range, though interpretations must account for confounders like smoking, preexisting conditions, and muscle mass. Thus, categorical interpretations emphasize screening for further assessment rather than standalone diagnoses, as BMI misclassifies adiposity in athletes, elderly individuals, or those with atypical fat distribution. In 2025, expert proposals advanced a revised framework for obesity diagnosis, incorporating waist circumference alongside BMI, effectively reclassifying many in the overweight range (25–<30) as obese if central adiposity is elevated. This shift would increase the proportion of U.S. adults categorized as obese by approximately 18.8%, highlighting ongoing debates over BMI's sufficiency as a sole metric and pushing toward multidimensional risk evaluation grounded in causal adiposity measures. Such adjustments reflect empirical refinements to better align categories with observed metabolic and cardiovascular outcomes in diverse cohorts.

History

Origins in Statistics

The body mass index originated as the Quetelet index, formulated by Belgian astronomer and statistician Lambert Adolphe Jacques Quetelet in the early 1830s as part of his efforts to quantify the "average man" in the field of social physics. Quetelet introduced the index in correspondence in 1832 and elaborated on it in his 1835 treatise Sur l'homme et le développement de ses facultés, ou Essai de physique sociale, where he analyzed body proportions to describe typical human development across populations. His work drew on anthropometric data from European civilians and soldiers, primarily French and Scottish cohorts, to establish empirical norms for height and weight variation without any intent to assess individual health or pathology. Quetelet derived the formula—mass in kilograms divided by the square of height in meters—through algebraic examination of how weight scales with height in adults of similar build, assuming geometric similarity where volume (and thus mass) increases with the square of linear dimensions. This normalization addressed the non-linear relationship observed in his datasets, yielding a dimensionless ratio that minimized variation attributable to stature alone and highlighted deviations from population means. The approach was rooted in descriptive statistics rather than causal inference, aiming to identify l'homme moyen (the average man) as a benchmark for social and demographic analysis. Prior to the 20th century, the Quetelet index served exclusively as a tool in anthropometry and demography for population-level descriptions, such as charting average physique across ages and regions in European samples. It found application in statistical surveys of physical development but made no claims about health outcomes, disease risk, or medical intervention, reflecting Quetelet's focus on probabilistic laws governing human aggregates over individual diagnostics. Medical professionals largely overlooked it during this period, as clinical practice emphasized direct vital signs and symptoms rather than abstracted indices derived from non-clinical data.

Adoption as Health Indicator

In 1972, physiologist revived interest in BMI through the paper "Indices of Relative Weight and Obesity," which evaluated multiple weight-for-height indices across diverse populations and promoted BMI for its simplicity, correlation with body fat percentage, and applicability to epidemiological assessments of health risks, including cardiovascular disease. Keys' analysis, informed by longitudinal studies like the that established excess weight as an independent predictor of coronary events, positioned BMI as a practical proxy for relative adiposity at the population level rather than for individual diagnostics. The World Health Organization formalized BMI's role in health monitoring during the 1990s, with a 1997 expert consultation establishing standardized cutoffs—BMI of 25–29.9 kg/m² for overweight and ≥30 kg/m² for obesity—to enable consistent global tracking of trends linked to elevated morbidity and mortality. This endorsement drew on meta-analytic evidence associating BMI ≥30 with approximately 1.5- to 2-fold higher all-cause mortality risk relative to normal weight (BMI 18.5–24.9 kg/m²), primarily through comorbidities like hypertension and type 2 diabetes, though effect sizes varied by age and smoking status.30288-2/fulltext) Population data underscored BMI's utility for surveillance, as rising averages correlated with epidemic-level increases in obesity-related burdens across industrialized nations. Following 2000, BMI integrated into major guidelines, such as the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's adult obesity definitions and the UK's National Institute for Health and Care Excellence recommendations for risk stratification in primary care. Despite 2020s critiques emphasizing BMI's insensitivity to muscle mass, fat distribution, or fitness—evident in studies showing misclassification for athletes or the elderly—empirical validations reaffirm its effectiveness for aggregate monitoring of obesity epidemics, where U.S. adult prevalence exceeded 40% (BMI ≥30 kg/m²) by 2023 amid stable or rising trends. This persistence reflects causal links from excess adiposity to systemic inflammation and metabolic dysregulation, observable in large cohorts despite individual variances.

Classification Systems

Adult Thresholds

The World Health Organization (WHO) defines adult BMI categories as underweight (<18.5 kg/m²), normal weight (18.5–24.9 kg/m²), overweight (25–29.9 kg/m²), and obesity subdivided into class I (30–34.9 kg/m²), class II (35–39.9 kg/m²), and class III (≥40 kg/m²), with health risks escalating from normal weight as the reference for lowest population-level morbidity and mortality. These thresholds stem from actuarial analyses of large cohorts revealing a J-shaped mortality curve, where all-cause death rates rise below BMI 18.5 kg/m² due to frailty and malnutrition, remain minimal in the normal range, and increase progressively in overweight and obese categories from heightened cardiovascular, metabolic, and cancer risks. Longitudinal studies of never-smokers confirm the nadir of mortality risk at BMI 23–24 kg/m², aligning the upper normal weight segment with optimal longevity in populations free of smoking-related confounders. WHO standards serve as the global benchmark for adult screening, applied across diverse healthcare systems despite critiques that BMI overlooks body composition nuances. In 2025, emerging evidence prompted calls to supplement or replace BMI with body fat percentage metrics, which demonstrate superior prediction of cardiometabolic outcomes in validation cohorts, potentially reclassifying substantial adult populations.

Pediatric and Youth Adjustments

Unlike in adults, where fixed BMI thresholds apply, pediatric assessments require age- and sex-specific adjustments to account for rapid growth phases, including height velocity peaks during puberty that temporarily elevate BMI before stabilization. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) provides BMI-for-age growth charts for U.S. children and adolescents aged 2 to 20 years, derived from National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) data collected between 1963 and 1994, with updates incorporating later measurements. These charts plot BMI against age, using percentile curves to classify weight status: below the 5th percentile indicates underweight, the 5th to less than the 85th percentile healthy weight, the 85th to less than the 95th percentile overweight, and at or above the 95th percentile obesity, with extended charts for severe obesity beyond the 97th percentile employing modified z-score calculations. The World Health Organization (WHO) offers complementary BMI-for-age standards for children aged 5 to 19 years, based on longitudinal data from diverse populations emphasizing breastfed infants and healthy growth patterns, utilizing z-scores where values between -2 and +1 standard deviations (SD) denote normal range, above +1 SD overweight, and above +2 SD obesity. Both systems employ the LMS (lambda-mu-sigma) method to transform raw BMI values into percentiles or z-scores, enabling precise tracking of deviations from population norms while adjusting for skewed distributions in higher ranges. Applying adult cutoffs, such as 25 kg/m² for overweight, would misclassify many healthy growing children, particularly during adolescent growth spurts when BMI naturally fluctuates upward before declining. Furthermore, BMI does not differentiate muscle from fat mass, potentially misclassifying athletic adolescents, such as active girls, as overweight despite healthy body compositions; conversely, low BMI values, as in a 17-year-old male at 166.5 cm and 47 kg (BMI ≈17, below the 5th percentile on CDC charts), may coincide with visible abs indicating low body fat, yet signal insufficient muscle mass and health risks rather than an optimal physique, with pediatric assessments prioritizing percentiles over adult ranges (approximately 51-69 kg or BMI 18.5-24.9 for this height). It also serves as a poor individual-level predictor of body fat percentage in some cases and overlooks factors like waist circumference and fitness levels. Empirical data underscore the value of longitudinal percentile tracking, as childhood overweight or obesity exhibits persistence into adulthood, with studies reporting tracking coefficients indicating stability; for instance, obese children aged 3 to 12 years face a 50% to 80% likelihood of adult obesity, rising with parental obesity and decreasing slightly with younger onset age. Recent disruptions, such as COVID-19 lockdowns, accelerated BMI trajectories, with cross-sectional analyses showing average z-score increases of 0.19 to 0.22 in youth, translating to BMI rises of approximately 1 to 2 kg/m², particularly in ages 2 to 11 years, due to reduced physical activity and altered eating patterns. These shifts highlight the utility of percentile monitoring for early detection of adverse trajectories, supporting targeted interventions grounded in observed growth patterns rather than static thresholds.

Ethnic and Regional Variations

The World Health Organization's 2004 expert consultation recommended lower BMI thresholds for Asian populations, classifying overweight as 23–27.5 kg/m² and obesity as ≥27.5 kg/m², due to evidence of elevated risks of type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and hypertension at BMIs below the standard 25 kg/m² threshold, attributed to higher visceral fat accumulation relative to subcutaneous fat despite lower overall body weight. Specific classifications adopted in many Asia-Pacific countries, including Indonesia and Vietnam, define underweight as <18.5 kg/m², normal as 18.5–22.9 kg/m², overweight as 23–24.9 kg/m², and obesity as ≥25 kg/m²; for example, the minimum healthy weight for a woman who is 5 feet 1 inch (155 cm) tall and of Asian ethnicity is approximately 100 pounds (45 kg), corresponding to a BMI of 18.5 kg/m², the lower end of the healthy range for Asian adults (18.5–22.9 kg/m²), with values below 18.5 considered underweight. Similarly, for Vietnamese adults with a height of 163 cm (1.63 m), the standard or ideal weight range is approximately 49-61 kg based on the normal BMI range of 18.5-22.9 as adapted by Vietnam's Ministry of Health, with many reference tables indicating about 49-60 kg for women and 53-65 kg for men, and an ideal midpoint often around 58 kg (BMI ≈22). In China, according to guidelines from the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention, normal BMI for adults is 18.5–23.9 kg/m², overweight is 24.0–27.9 kg/m², and obesity is ≥28.0 kg/m². For example, a 173 cm tall male weighing 56 kg has a BMI of approximately 18.7 kg/m², which falls within the normal range per both WHO standards (18.5–24.9 kg/m²) and Chinese guidelines, though on the lower end near the underweight threshold of 18.5 kg/m²; body composition factors such as muscle mass and fat percentage should be considered for overall health assessment. These adjusted ranges reflect heightened health risks, such as diabetes and cardiovascular disease, at BMI levels considered normal by Western standards, consistent with WHO guidelines for the region. This adjustment reflects data from multiple Asian cohorts showing risk equivalence to Western populations at standard cutoffs, with observed morbidity rising from BMIs as low as 22 kg/m² in some groups. In Japan, the Japan Society for the Study of Obesity defines obesity as BMI ≥25 kg/m², based on national surveys linking this level to increased metabolic syndrome prevalence, diverging from global norms to account for population-specific fat distribution patterns. Similarly, Singapore's Ministry of Health guidelines adopt overweight as 23.0–27.4 kg/m² and obesity as ≥27.5 kg/m², supported by local studies correlating these levels with higher body fat percentages and diabetes incidence compared to Caucasians at equivalent BMIs. For South Asians, particularly in the UK, ethnicity-specific adjustments propose obesity thresholds around 27.5 kg/m², as standard BMI underestimates diabetes risk; a 2021 analysis of data estimated equivalent risk cutoffs at 23–27.5 kg/m² for overweight and ≥27.5 kg/m² for obesity, potentially misclassifying up to 1 million individuals without ethnic tailoring. In contrast, African Americans exhibit higher lean muscle mass and lower percentage body fat at the same BMI as Caucasians, leading to potential overestimation of obesity risk; NHANES data indicate ~5% lower predicted fat mass in Black adults at BMI 25 kg/m², though overall adiposity-related comorbidities remain elevated due to other factors like insulin resistance. Meta-analyses confirm ethnic variations in BMI-health outcome associations, with Asians facing 10–20% higher relative risks of per BMI unit increase compared to Europeans, underscoring the need for adjusted thresholds to avoid under-detection in high-risk groups. A 2025 study further highlighted racial/ethnic-specific BMI cutoffs for metabolic outcomes, revealing substantial differences (e.g., lower values for Asians and Hispanics predicting equivalent risks to Caucasians), cautioning against universal Western-derived norms that may propagate assessment biases.

Empirical Health Associations

The association between body mass index (BMI) and all-cause mortality follows a J- or U-shaped pattern in large prospective cohort studies and meta-analyses involving millions of participants, with elevated risks at both underweight (BMI <18.5 kg/m²) and obese (BMI ≥30 kg/m²) extremes after adjustment for confounders such as age, smoking, and preexisting conditions. The nadir of mortality risk is generally observed in the normal weight range of 22.5–25 kg/m² among never-smokers and healthy populations, while obesity confers a 20–50% higher risk relative to this reference, as evidenced by dose-response analyses pooling over 230 observational studies. For instance, a 2016 systematic review and meta-analysis reported hazard ratios of 1.18 for BMI 30–35 kg/m² and up to 1.34 for BMI ≥35 kg/m², reflecting progressive increases driven by adiposity-related complications. Some meta-analyses, including a 2024 review of general adult populations, indicate the lowest mortality at BMI 25–30 kg/m² (overweight range), potentially attributable to methodologic factors like reverse causation in sicker individuals or underascertainment of early-life obesity effects, though this finding contrasts with never-smoker subgroups where risks rise modestly above 25 kg/m². Confounder-adjusted models affirm causal contributions from excess adiposity, including visceral fat-mediated inflammation and metabolic dysregulation, which exacerbate cardiovascular and respiratory strain independent of behavioral covariates. Regarding morbidity, obesity (BMI ≥30 kg/m²) approximately doubles the relative risk for major conditions such as cardiovascular disease (CVD), type 2 diabetes, and site-specific cancers compared to normal BMI, based on pooled data from prospective studies tracking incident events. A meta-analysis of over 300,000 adults linked obese BMI categories to elevated coronary artery disease incidence, while similar analyses show risk onset for diabetes accelerating above BMI 25 kg/m² and persisting after multivariable adjustment for lifestyle factors. Cancer risks for obesity-associated types (e.g., endometrial, colorectal) exhibit relative risks of 1.5–2.0, mediated by hyperinsulinemia and adipokine imbalances. In Canada, obesity prevalence rose from 25% in 2009 to 32.7% in 2023, correlating temporally with heightened comorbidity burdens like CVD and diabetes, underscoring population-level impacts.

Evidence from Meta-Analyses

A 2024 meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies involving over 3.9 million adults found a U-shaped association between BMI and all-cause mortality, with the nadir of risk occurring in the overweight range of 25–30 kg/m², and elevated risks both below 18.5 kg/m² and above 30 kg/m², indicating a nonlinear dose-response where deviations from this range independently predict higher mortality after adjusting for confounders like smoking and preexisting conditions. This pattern held across diverse populations, though low BMI risks were partly attributable to reverse causation from smoking and chronic illness, while high BMI risks persisted even after excluding early deaths. Meta-analyses on BMI and COVID-19 outcomes, including an updated 2021 systematic review, consistently link obesity (BMI ≥30 kg/m²) to increased severity, with odds ratios for severe disease or mortality ranging from 1.5 to 2.3 times higher than in normal-weight individuals, driven by mechanisms such as impaired immune response and respiratory mechanics. These findings were robust across hospitalized cohorts globally, with dose-dependent effects showing progressively worse prognosis at BMI levels above 35 kg/m². Subgroup analyses in joint fitness-BMI meta-analyses reveal that cardiorespiratory fitness modifies mortality risks more strongly than BMI alone; a 2025 pooled analysis of over 1 million participants demonstrated that unfit normal-weight individuals (BMI 18.5–24.9 kg/m²) face approximately 1.9-fold higher all-cause mortality compared to fit counterparts, while fit obese individuals (BMI ≥30 kg/m²) exhibit risks comparable to fit normal-weight, underscoring fitness as a dominant predictor independent of adiposity. These associations were consistent across sexes, ages, and follow-up durations exceeding 10 years, with unfit status conferring double the mortality hazard regardless of BMI category. Regarding metabolically healthy obesity (MHO), defined by absence of metabolic syndrome components despite BMI ≥30 kg/m², long-term meta-analyses indicate limited persistence of this phenotype, with over 95% transitioning to metabolically unhealthy states within 10–15 years, accompanied by elevated risks of cardiovascular events (hazard ratio 1.4–1.5) and all-cause mortality compared to metabolically healthy normal-weight individuals. This counters claims of sustained "healthy obesity," as MHO cohorts show dose-response increases in adverse outcomes over extended follow-up, independent of initial metabolic status.

Modifying Influences

Fitness and Activity Levels

Cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF), typically assessed via maximal oxygen uptake (VO2 max), substantially modifies the predictive value of BMI for mortality outcomes, often overriding BMI category in prognostic strength. A 2025 systematic review and meta-analysis published in the British Journal of Sports Medicine examined the joint effects of CRF and BMI on CVD and all-cause mortality across multiple cohorts, finding that higher CRF levels attenuate the elevated risks tied to overweight (BMI 25–29.9 kg/m2) and obesity (BMI ≥30 kg/m2). Specifically, fit overweight and obese individuals showed no statistically significant increase in CVD mortality hazard ratios compared to fit normal-weight (BMI 18.5–24.9 kg/m2) counterparts, while unfit normal-weight individuals exhibited markedly higher risks. This "fitness versus fatness" paradigm is supported by earlier meta-analyses, which report that unfit status doubles all-cause mortality risk irrespective of BMI, whereas fit overweight and obese individuals experience mortality rates akin to fit normal-weight peers—a relative risk reduction of roughly 50% for fit obese versus unfit normal-weight cases in some datasets. For instance, in a cohort of women with suspected ischemic heart disease, physically fit overweight or obese participants faced 40% lower long-term mortality than unfit normal-weight women. These patterns hold across studies like the Aerobics Center Longitudinal Study, where unfit lean men had higher CVD mortality than fit obese men. Mechanistically, elevated VO2 max enhances endothelial function, promoting , reducing , and mitigating atherogenesis, thereby conferring cardioprotection independent of adiposity. Population surveys, including NHANES, reinforce this through objectively measured activity data, showing that higher volumes—particularly vigorous-intensity—diminish the BMI-mortality risk gradient by independently lowering all-cause and CVD event rates, often by 20–50% in adjusted models. Such evidence prioritizes aerobic capacity enhancement over BMI-centric interventions, as sustained activity drives superior outcomes even among those exceeding thresholds.

Body Composition Factors

Visceral adipose tissue, concentrated in android (central) distributions, elevates health risks more than equivalent subcutaneous () fat due to direct drainage into the , delivering free fatty acids and pro-inflammatory cytokines like interleukin-6 to the liver, which induces hepatic and systemic metabolic dysfunction. Waist-to-hip ratio, reflecting this central adiposity, predicts mortality and independently of BMI, with meta-analyses showing elevated ratios associated with odds ratios up to 1.98 for infarction risk. Empirical imaging studies confirm visceral fat's causal role in inflammation-driven complications, as opposed to BMI's aggregate mass metric. Lean body mass confounds BMI interpretations, as high muscle volume can inflate BMI without corresponding fat excess, while sarcopenic obesity—high adiposity paired with low muscle—amplifies mortality risks beyond simple obesity. A June 2025 University of Florida analysis of longitudinal data demonstrated BMI's frequent misclassification of muscular individuals as obese or overweight, emphasizing its failure to parse composition quality over total mass. Dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DEXA) and MRI validations reveal BMI correlates with body fat percentage at approximately 70% accuracy in population cohorts but overlooks muscle-fat partitioning and ectopic fat deposition. Excess adiposity impairs mitochondrial function through lipid overload, elevating and disrupting , which causally propagates and energy inefficiency independent of BMI thresholds. This mechanism underscores why composition-specific metrics outperform BMI in risk stratification, as validated by tissue-level assays showing reduced respiratory capacity in obese adipose depots.

Applications

Clinical Screening

BMI is employed in clinical settings as an initial screening tool to identify individuals at elevated risk for obesity-associated conditions, facilitating and guiding subsequent diagnostic evaluations. Major guidelines, including those from the (AHA) and (ADA), endorse annual BMI assessment for adults to classify (BMI 25.0–29.9 kg/m²) and (BMI ≥30 kg/m²), with elevated values prompting targeted tests such as HbA1c for glycemic control or lipid panels for cardiovascular risk. This approach leverages BMI's simplicity, requiring only and weight measurements without specialized equipment, enabling routine integration into encounters where it is documented for the majority of eligible patients. Empirical correlations substantiate BMI's utility in predicting metabolic derangements; for instance, higher BMI values are positively associated with elevated total cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and triglycerides, while inversely linked to cholesterol. Per-unit increases in BMI correspond to measurable shifts in lipid profiles, such as heightened odds of low (approximately 9% increased probability per unit) and dose-dependent rises in cholesterol, particularly in non-obese ranges. These associations support BMI's role in flagging patients for confirmatory labs, as prevalence escalates with BMI categories. Randomized controlled trials demonstrate that BMI-informed screening enables interventions curbing disease progression, as evidenced by the Diabetes Prevention Program (DPP), which targeted overweight adults (BMI ≥24 kg/m² in certain groups) with and achieved a 58% reduction in incidence through lifestyle modifications yielding ∼4 kg . In this trial, BMI served as a verifiable entry criterion, correlating with improved insulin sensitivity and delayed onset of via sustained behavioral changes. Such outcomes underscore BMI's practical value in clinical , despite its limitations in distinguishing fat from lean mass, by prioritizing actionable risk stratification over precision adiposity metrics.

Public Health Monitoring

Organizations such as the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) utilize BMI as a standardized metric for global and national surveillance of overweight and obesity trends, defining obesity as BMI ≥ 30 kg/m². In Ecuador, the Ministry of Public Health (MSP) promotes the use of BMI calculators aligned with WHO standards for evaluating nutritional status, with online tools available through its Nutrition Unit. The WHO's Global Health Observatory compiles age-standardized prevalence estimates from member states, revealing that adult obesity more than doubled worldwide from 1990 to 2022, enabling identification of regional epidemics driven by shifts in caloric intake and physical inactivity. In the United States, the CDC's National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) provides direct anthropometric measurements, tracking adult obesity prevalence from approximately 34% in 2009–2010 to 40.3% in 2021–2023, a rise of over 6 percentage points that correlates with increased sedentary behavior and processed food consumption. At the population level, BMI's limitations in distinguishing fat from lean mass are mitigated by aggregation effects, where systematic errors in individual classification cancel out, allowing reliable tracking of mean adiposity changes over time. Meta-analyses of cohort studies confirm that population BMI trends align closely with direct measures of body fatness, such as from , supporting causal inferences about environmental drivers like and dietary shifts. This surveillance data underpins policy responses; for instance, the documented U.S. increase has been linked to annual healthcare costs exceeding $173 billion, prompting targeted interventions in labeling and to address root causes. Recent analyses of post-COVID-19 effects, drawing from longitudinal population data, attribute modest BMI elevations—typically 0.1–0.5 kg/m² on average—to disrupted routines, reduced activity, and altered eating patterns, with prevalence increases of 1–3% in affected cohorts. These findings, observed in studies up to 2025, informed reopenings by highlighting the need for sustained monitoring to reverse transient gains and prevent entrenched rises, demonstrating BMI's role in enabling evidence-based attribution of acute disruptions to long-term trends.

Policy and Economic Contexts

In the , enlistment standards incorporate BMI-derived weight limits, with the setting maximum allowable weights by and age that generally cap at BMI values around 30 for younger recruits, such as 212 pounds for a 70-inch-tall individual aged 17-20, to ensure physical readiness. The applies a stricter initial BMI range of 17.5 to 27.5 for applicants, using body composition assessments like tape measurements for those exceeding thresholds to differentiate fat from muscle. These criteria reflect actuarial assessments of obesity-related risks to and , with waivers possible but requiring remediation. Airlines employ average passenger weight assumptions—typically 190-200 pounds including carry-ons—for fuel calculations, derived from periodic surveys correlating with BMI trends, rather than individual BMI mandates. Policies for larger passengers, such as requiring extra seats if encroaching on adjacent space, address operational safety and comfort without direct BMI cutoffs, though debates in the 2020s have explored weight-based pricing to offset fuel costs amid rising average BMIs. Health insurance premiums indirectly scale with BMI through risk pooling, as obesity elevates per-person medical costs by 36-42% compared to normal weight, contributing to higher group rates under frameworks like the , which prohibits explicit surcharges for BMI but allows cost reflections via overall claims data. In some international markets, insurers apply direct loadings of 10-50% for BMI over 30, justified by longitudinal data showing annual cost increases of 69−69-93 per BMI unit. Obesity, often tracked via BMI, imposes economic burdens equivalent to 0.8-2.4% of GDP in studied Western nations as of 2019, encompassing direct medical expenditures and indirect productivity losses, with projections reaching 3% globally by 2035 absent interventions. Policies like sugar-sweetened beverage taxes, implemented in cities such as since 2017, leverage BMI metrics from epidemiological studies to target caloric intake drivers, yielding modest reductions in youth BMI percentiles (e.g., 0.06-0.12 points prevented increases) and slower adult BMI rises. Workplace wellness initiatives addressing high BMI demonstrate ratios of approximately 3:1, driven by reduced and claims from behavior modifications like activity tracking, as evidenced in employer analyses prioritizing cost-benefit over equity. Amid 2020s debates questioning BMI's standalone policy role—such as American Medical Association guidance to supplement it with adiposity measures—empirical savings from BMI-informed mandates persist, countering pushback with data on net fiscal gains.

Limitations

Fat-Muscle Differentiation Issues

Body mass index (BMI) fails to distinguish between and lean mass, leading to systematic misclassification of muscular individuals as or . This issue is pronounced in athletes, where high muscle density elevates BMI without corresponding fat accumulation; for example, for men 185 cm (1.85 m) tall, the standard healthy BMI range of 18.5–24.9 corresponds to weights of approximately 63–85 kg, but athletic or muscular men often have a BMI in the 25–29 range (approximately 86–102 kg) while remaining healthy and lean with low body fat, frequently classifying as "overweight" despite this. Similarly, a male who is 5'7" (170 cm) tall and weighs 162 lbs (73.5 kg) has a BMI of 25.4, falling into the overweight category (25.0–29.9), yet this may reflect a muscular build rather than excess adiposity, as somatotype cannot be determined from height, weight, and BMI alone and requires additional anthropometric measurements such as skinfold thicknesses, bone breadths, and limb circumferences using methods like the Heath-Carter system. Similarly, prospective (NFL) players at the scouting combine had an obesity rate of 53.4% by BMI criteria but only 8.9% when assessed via , demonstrating BMI's propensity to overestimate adiposity in those with elevated lean mass. Similar patterns occur in other athletic cohorts, such as players, where BMI classifies over half as obese despite healthy profiles confirmed by skinfold and measures. Comparisons with gold-standard techniques like (DEXA) reveal BMI's moderate correlation with (typically r = 0.7–0.8 in general populations), accounting for roughly 50–64% of variance in fat mass, but with substantial inaccuracies at compositional extremes. In muscular subgroups, BMI overestimates fat content due to its reliance on total mass relative to height squared, ignoring differences—muscle being denser than —resulting in errors of 10–20% or more in adiposity estimates for athletes. This empirical shortfall highlights BMI's causal irrelevance for health outcomes, as lean mass confers metabolic benefits and reduced mortality risk independent of total weight, whereas fat mass drives and disease pathology. Direct body fat measures superiorly predict morbidity and mortality compared to BMI, with a 2025 cohort analysis of over 4,200 U.S. adults showing as a stronger indicator of 15-year all-cause mortality, particularly by identifying risks obscured in normal-weight high-fat individuals. BMI's diagnostic sensitivity for against DEXA-validated fat thresholds approximates 70% in average populations but declines markedly in high-muscle groups, underscoring its inadequacy for precise fat-muscle partitioning.

Demographic and Physiological Variations

In older adults, the BMI associated with lowest all-cause mortality shifts upward compared to younger populations, often falling in the 23.0–29.9 kg/m² range, reflecting adaptations to —age-related muscle loss that increases frailty risks—and the protective role of fat reserves against catabolic states. Studies indicate that classifying elderly individuals as obese using standard BMI thresholds (≥30 kg/m²) may overlook survival benefits from moderate status, as BMI (<22 kg/m²) correlates with higher mortality in this group. Sex differences further complicate BMI interpretation, as women typically carry 10% more total adipose tissue than men at the same BMI due to lower muscle mass and distinct fat distribution patterns favoring gluteofemoral depots. This leads to systematic underestimation of fatness in men and overestimation in women relative to adiposity levels, with analyses showing BMI's correlation with body fat percentage weakening across sexes when muscle variability is unadjusted. Such discrepancies contribute to misclassification rates in health risk assessments, particularly when BMI proxies for metabolic outcomes without sex-specific calibrations. Ethnic variations highlight BMI's non-universal applicability: for Asian populations, standard overweight thresholds (≥25 kg/m²) underestimate cardiometabolic risks, prompting WHO-endorsed lower cutoffs of ≥23 kg/m² for overweight and ≥27.5 kg/m² for obesity to better align with elevated diabetes and cardiovascular disease incidence at moderate BMIs. Conversely, in African American cohorts, higher BMI often links to paradoxically lower mortality—the "obesity paradox"—observed in studies like the Jackson Heart Study, where overweight and class I obesity (BMI 25–34.9 kg/m²) associated with reduced all-cause death rates compared to normal weight, potentially attributable to genetic protections against cachexia, survivor bias, or unmeasured fitness factors. Physiological states like pregnancy and edema transiently inflate BMI without proportional fat accrual: gestational weight gain averages 11–16 kg, incorporating fetal mass (∼3.5 kg), placenta, amniotic fluid, and expanded maternal blood volume, rendering pre- and post-partum BMI comparisons misleading for adiposity tracking. Edema, prevalent in late pregnancy affecting up to 80% of women via venous compression and hormonal fluid retention, adds extracellular water that elevates BMI independently of caloric surplus, necessitating clinical adjustments to avoid conflating hydration status with obesity. These factors underscore the need for contextual modifiers in BMI application to enhance predictive precision across demographics.

Criticisms and Debates

Overreliance and Misclassification Claims

Critics argue that BMI's categorical thresholds—such as overweight at 25.0–29.9 kg/m² and obesity at ≥30 kg/m²—exacerbate overreliance by imposing arbitrary cutoffs that fail to capture individual variability in body composition, leading to widespread misclassification when compared to direct adiposity measures like dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA). A 2025 debate in the International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity highlighted BMI's feasibility for broad health assessments but questioned the validity of these categories for precise health interpretations, noting their origins in population averages rather than causal mechanisms of disease risk. Empirical evidence supports claims of significant misclassification, particularly in under-detecting excess adiposity among those with normal or overweight BMI. A study of U.S. adults using DXA found that BMI misclassifies at least 50% of individuals with excess body fat as normal weight or merely overweight, potentially overlooking metabolic risks in "normal weight obesity." Similarly, a 2025 University of Florida analysis of young adults demonstrated BMI's inferiority to body fat percentage in predicting 15-year mortality risk, attributing this to BMI's inability to differentiate fat from lean mass, resulting in error rates exceeding 30% for health outcome forecasts. These findings underscore how individual-level application amplifies errors, as muscular individuals are often falsely flagged as obese while sedentary persons with high visceral fat evade detection. Defenders of BMI counter that such misclassifications reflect misuse rather than invalidity, emphasizing its validated population-level utility where correlations with body fat percentage often exceed 0.7, enabling reliable epidemiological tracking without confounding individual outliers. Overreliance arises primarily from neglecting contextual factors like age, ethnicity, and fitness, which BMI was never designed to isolate, rather than from the metric's core formula. Proponents highlight BMI's advantages as a cost-effective, non-invasive screening tool for public health surveillance, where its simplicity facilitates large-scale data collection and risk stratification at minimal expense compared to advanced imaging. This balance suggests BMI remains empirically defensible for aggregate analyses but warrants supplementary measures for clinical decisions to mitigate category-driven errors.

Cultural Narratives on Obesity

The body positivity movement, which emerged prominently in the 2010s and advocates unconditional self-acceptance of larger body sizes, has been critiqued for minimizing the causal health detriments of obesity in favor of psychological affirmation. Proponents frame obesity as a neutral variation akin to height, but detractors contend this narrative sidesteps mechanistic evidence of adipose tissue dysfunction driving inflammation, insulin resistance, and organ strain, thereby eroding incentives for preventive action. Such cultural shifts, amplified by social media and select academic discourse, reflect institutional tendencies toward equity-focused interpretations over rigorous causal analysis. The "fat but fit" concept posits that physical activity can offset obesity's risks, yet cohort studies demonstrate its rarity and impermanence, with metabolically healthy obesity persisting in under 10% of cases beyond a decade due to progressive cardiometabolic deterioration. Media portrayals normalizing obesity often disregard such data, including epidemiology showing a relative risk of approximately 1.5 for obesity-linked cancers like colorectal and endometrial, independent of fitness levels. These omissions prioritize inclusivity narratives, potentially confounding public understanding of modifiable caloric imbalance as the primary driver. Assertions that BMI-related stigma exacerbates obesity by eroding motivation are challenged by observations that frank acknowledgment of risks correlates with higher engagement in lifestyle interventions, fostering agency rather than resignation. Right-leaning commentaries stress personal accountability, attributing obesity predominantly to behavioral choices over systemic victimhood, aligning with causal models where energy surplus directly precipitates fat accumulation. In contrast, stigma-reduction efforts within body positivity frameworks have shown limited efficacy in prompting sustained weight management, sometimes reinforcing avoidance of accountability. Amid 2020s advocacy to diminish BMI's role in guidelines—citing overreliance concerns—subsequent meta-analyses, including those through 2025, have reinforced obesity's independent contribution to cardiovascular mortality and all-cause death, with hazard ratios escalating linearly beyond BMI thresholds of 25. Body positivity's empirical critiques highlight its failure to attenuate these outcomes, as acceptance rhetoric correlates with stalled public health progress against rising adiposity prevalence.

Alternatives

Direct Adiposity Measures

Direct measures of adiposity quantify body fat percentage (BF%) through techniques that differentiate fat mass from lean mass and bone, offering a more precise assessment than BMI by avoiding conflation with muscle or bone density variations. Common methods include dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DEXA), which uses low-dose X-rays to scan and segment body composition with high precision (correlation coefficients of 0.77–0.95 against computed tomography gold standards for fat mass); hydrostatic weighing, which calculates body density via underwater weighing and assumes constant lean tissue density; and bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA), which estimates fat via electrical conductivity differences between tissues but is susceptible to hydration status errors. These methods demonstrate empirical advantages over BMI in predicting health outcomes, particularly cardiovascular disease (CVD) and mortality. A 2025 study of young adults found BF% superior to BMI for forecasting 15-year all-cause mortality risk, with BF% independently associating after adjusting for confounders like age and smoking. Similarly, BF% correlates more strongly with CVD risk factors such as hypertension and dyslipidemia than BMI, as higher BF% signals metabolic dysfunction even at normal BMI levels. For ectopic fat—lipid accumulation in non-adipose tissues like liver and viscera, which causally drives insulin resistance and CVD via lipotoxicity—these measures highlight total adiposity's role, though visceral-specific quantification (approximable via DEXA regional scans) underscores causality beyond mere excess weight. Obesity thresholds based on BF% are approximately 25% for men and 32% for women, reflecting levels where metabolic risks escalate, independent of height-weight ratios. These cutoffs outperform BMI classifications for individuals with high muscle mass, such as athletes, where BMI often overestimates adiposity risk—e.g., a muscular individual with BMI >30 may have BF% <20%, evading false-positive obesity labeling. Despite superior accuracy (DEXA error margins 1–2% vs. BIA's 3–5%), practical drawbacks include high costs (DEXA scans $100–300), limited accessibility, time requirements (hydrostatic trials demand multiple submersions), and contraindications like pregnancy for DEXA due to radiation. BIA offers portability and low cost ($20–50 devices) but lower reliability in dehydrated or elderly populations. Overall, while direct BF% assessments prioritize causal adiposity burdens like ectopic deposition, their clinical adoption lags BMI due to scalability trade-offs, favoring targeted use in research or high-risk screening.

Geometric and Ratio-Based Indices

Geometric and ratio-based indices seek to refine BMI's mass-to-height-squared ratio by incorporating allometric scaling principles or linear body measurements to better approximate adiposity distribution and health risks. These alternatives address BMI's assumption of uniform scaling, which empirical data indicate underperforms for heterogeneous body compositions, as human dimensions do not expand isometrically with growth or across populations. For instance, BMI Prime normalizes an individual's BMI by dividing it by 25 kg/m², the upper threshold of the healthy BMI range, yielding a value of 1.0 at that boundary to quantify deviation from optimal weight-for-height. The waist-to-height ratio (WHtR), calculated as waist circumference divided by height, exemplifies a ratio-based approach prioritizing central adiposity. A WHtR below 0.5 is associated with lower cardiometabolic risk across adults. Meta-analyses demonstrate WHtR's superior predictive power over BMI for incident type 2 diabetes, with summary relative risks per standard deviation increase of 2.81 (95% CI: 2.60–3.04) for WHtR versus 2.23 (2.12–2.35) for BMI. This edge stems from WHtR's sensitivity to visceral fat accumulation, which correlates more strongly with insulin resistance and cardiovascular endpoints than BMI's aggregate mass metric. A Body Shape Index (ABSI), defined as waist circumference divided by (BMI^{2/3} × height^{1/2}), integrates geometric normalization to isolate abdominal shape independent of overall size. Validation in large cohorts shows ABSI predicts all-cause mortality hazard ratios of 1.13–1.50 per standard deviation increase, persisting after adjusting for BMI and outperforming it in risk stratification. The Body Roundness Index (BRI), derived from waist circumference and height by modeling the body as an ellipse to quantify roundness and visceral fat proportion, offers another shape-focused metric. Cohort studies demonstrate BRI's superiority over BMI in predicting atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk and all-cause mortality, with higher hazard ratios per unit increase independent of BMI, due to its emphasis on central fat distribution. Such indices leverage tape-measurable inputs for clinical feasibility while aligning with causal pathways linking ectopic fat to morbidity, offering verifiable improvements over BMI's cubic scaling limitations where mass scales closer to height^{2.5–3} in empirical models.

Technology-Driven Assessments

Technological advancements in body composition assessment have introduced methods that surpass BMI's inability to differentiate fat from lean mass, incorporating bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA) in consumer wearables and AI-enhanced imaging for precise fat distribution mapping. BIA devices, integrated into smart scales and watches, estimate body fat percentage, muscle mass, and visceral fat by measuring electrical conductivity through tissues, with multi-frequency models showing correlations of 0.71 to 0.90 against dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DEXA) and MRI gold standards for fat mass and skeletal muscle. By 2025, home-based BIA systems via smartphone apps and scales have gained traction for accessibility, correlating over 85% with clinical references in population studies while enabling longitudinal tracking of composition changes. AI-driven tools applied to MRI and CT scans provide causal insights into obesity subtypes, such as visceral adipose tissue accumulation linked to metabolic risks independent of total BMI, by automating segmentation of fat depots with precision exceeding manual methods. These systems detect sarcopenic obesity—concurrent muscle loss and fat gain misclassified as healthy by BMI—through volumetric analysis, revealing prevalence rates up to 4.5% in older adults overlooked by BMI thresholds. Wearable BIA further mitigates BMI's fat-muscle conflation errors, offering subtype differentiation like ectopic fat infiltration, with deep learning models from abdominal MRI achieving high accuracy (r > 0.85) for muscle quality and fat tracking over time. Despite these strengths, technology-driven assessments face limitations including cost barriers—MRI/AI scans averaging $500–$1,500 per session versus BMI's negligible expense—and accuracy variability from factors like hydration status affecting BIA by up to 5% in body fat estimates. Consumer devices exhibit moderate agreement with DEXA in individuals (r ≈ 0.80–0.90), but systematic underestimation occurs in athletes or dehydrated states, rendering them supplementary rather than primary for large-scale epidemiological use where BMI's speed persists. Ongoing validation emphasizes their role in clinical precision over population screening, with BIA proposed as a BMI adjunct but not full replacement due to electrode configuration inconsistencies across devices.

References

  1. https://www.cdc.gov/bmi/about/index.html
  2. https://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/calculate-your-bmi
  3. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17890752/
  4. https://www.cdc.gov/bmi/adult-calculator/bmi-categories.html
  5. https://www.bmj.com/content/353/bmj.i2156
  6. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11306271/
  7. https://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/sites/default/files/media/docs/bmi_tbl.pdf
  8. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4890841/
  9. https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/21/6/757
  10. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5362342/
  11. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10321632/
  12. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11611441/
  13. https://www.physiologyweb.com/calculators/body_mass_index_calculator.html
  14. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/body-measurements.htm
  15. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4510467/
  16. https://academic.oup.com/ije/article-abstract/43/3/665/2949550
  17. https://www.calculatorsoup.com/calculators/health/bmi-calculator.php
  18. https://www.theguardian.com/science/the-h-word/2014/jan/16/body-mass-index--discovered-by-a-belgian-astronomer-
  19. https://apps.who.int/nutrition/landscape/help.aspx?menu=0&helpid=420
  20. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK594362/
  21. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140673616301751
  22. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11863867/
  23. https://www.medpagetoday.com/endocrinology/obesity/116400
  24. https://www.medpagetoday.com/primarycare/obesity/113783
  25. https://academic.oup.com/ndt/article-pdf/23/1/47/5422247/gfm517.pdf
  26. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002916523274547
  27. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/obr.13842
  28. https://www.shellsandpebbles.com/2023/10/23/adophe-quetelet-a-statistical-method-for-all/
  29. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-gravity-of-weight/201603/adolphe-quetelet-and-the-evolution-of-body-mass-index-bmi
  30. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10693914/
  31. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/4650929/
  32. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0021968172900276
  33. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4159698/
  34. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002916523068405
  35. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4855514/
  36. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11204233/
  37. https://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data-and-statistics/adult-obesity-prevalence-maps.html
  38. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39808758/
  39. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0287218
  40. https://www.who.int/data/gho/data/themes/topics/topic-details/GHO/body-mass-index
  41. https://www.uptodate.com/contents/image?imageKey=OBGYN%252F97661
  42. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1000367
  43. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/landia/article/PIIS2213-8587%2818%2930288-2/fulltext
  44. https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/obesity-and-overweight
  45. https://www.npr.org/sections/shots-health-news/2025/01/15/nx-s1-5258427/bmi-obesity-definition-health
  46. https://www.massgeneralbrigham.org/en/about/newsroom/press-releases/dramatic-increase-in-adults-who-meet-new-definition-of-obesity
  47. https://www.annfammed.org/content/23/4/337.full
  48. https://www.cdc.gov/growthcharts/cdc-growth-charts.htm
  49. https://www.cdc.gov/growth-chart-training/hcp/overview/bmi-for-age-growth-charts.html
  50. https://www.cdc.gov/bmi/child-teen-calculator/bmi-categories.html
  51. https://www.cdc.gov/growthcharts/extended-bmi.htm
  52. https://www.who.int/toolkits/child-growth-standards/standards/body-mass-index-for-age-bmi-for-age
  53. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2636412/
  54. https://www.cdc.gov/growth-chart-training/hcp/computer-programs/sas.html
  55. https://www.cdc.gov/bmi/child-teen-calculator/index.html
  56. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5457636/
  57. https://bmcpediatr.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12887-016-0599-5
  58. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199709253371301
  59. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10628554/
  60. https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article/150/3/e2022056552/188377/Changes-in-BMI-During-the-COVID-19-Pandemic
  61. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2836170
  62. https://academic.oup.com/aje/article/191/11/1877/6648519
  63. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/14726171/
  64. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4217157/
  65. https://en.chinacdc.cn/in_focus/202208/t20220823_260921.html
  66. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140673603152683
  67. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38123337/
  68. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8170923/
  69. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8208895/
  70. https://www.theguardian.com/society/2025/may/02/bmi-of-1-million-ethnic-minority-adults-wrongly-classified-in-official-data
  71. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4968570/
  72. https://obesitymedicine.org/blog/where-do-we-go-from-here-impact-of-racism-racial-disparities-on-obesity-rates-in-african-americans-clinical-implications/
  73. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2475299123117719
  74. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11421961/
  75. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11051237/
  76. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8493650/
  77. https://www.e-enm.org/journal/view.php?doi=10.3803/EnM.2020.35.2.416
  78. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10666332/
  79. https://www.cmaj.ca/content/197/25/E708
  80. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7753795/
  81. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8046705/
  82. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39537313/
  83. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24438729/
  84. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27126492/
  85. https://www.jacc.org/doi/10.1016/j.jacc.2018.02.055
  86. https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/59/5/339
  87. https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.122.062537
  88. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002916522042897
  89. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20953639/
  90. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25301872/
  91. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4911242/
  92. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2727738/
  93. https://www.news-medical.net/news/20250112/Being-fit-matters-more-than-weight-for-long-term-health-research-shows.aspx
  94. https://academic.oup.com/jcem/article/93/11_supplement_1/s57/2627216
  95. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23107257/
  96. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4170776/
  97. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/cardiovascular-medicine/articles/10.3389/fcvm.2024.1438817/full
  98. https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/circulationaha.111.067264
  99. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4234002/
  100. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2816734
  101. https://news.ufl.edu/2025/06/bmi-study/
  102. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5349253/
  103. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10688584/
  104. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5001554/
  105. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0925443919303588
  106. https://diabetesjournals.org/care/article/48/Supplement_1/S167/157555/8-Obesity-and-Weight-Management-for-the-Prevention
  107. https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/circulationaha.111.075424
  108. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5373753/
  109. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6572993/
  110. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20563664/
  111. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/am-pdf/10.1002/osp4.70055
  112. https://lipidworld.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12944-021-01591-w
  113. https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/01.ATV.16.12.1509
  114. https://diabetesjournals.org/care/article/48/7/1101/158195/The-Diabetes-Prevention-Program-and-Its-Outcomes
  115. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12178622/
  116. https://www.salud.gob.ec/unidad-de-nutricion-calculadora-de-indice-de-masa-corporal-imc/
  117. https://www.who.int/data/gho/data/indicators/indicator-details/GHO/prevalence-of-obesity-among-adults-bmi-=-30-%28age-standardized-estimate%29-%28-%29
  118. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db508.htm
  119. https://www.niddk.nih.gov/health-information/health-statistics/overweight-obesity
  120. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9209690/
  121. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-30527-w
  122. https://www.cdc.gov/obesity/php/about/index.html
  123. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12468548/
  124. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12356621/
  125. https://sciety-labs.elifesciences.org/articles/by?article_doi=10.21203/rs.3.rs-7567825/v1
  126. https://www.military.com/join-armed-forces/army-weight-rules.html
  127. https://www.airforce.com/frequently-asked-questions/requirements-eligibility/physical
  128. https://www.ifly.com/flying-info-and-tips/overweight-passengers
  129. https://newatlas.com/transport/airline-weight-charge/
  130. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6231962/
  131. https://www.hdfcergo.com/blogs/health-insurance/overweight-impact-health-insurance
  132. https://healtheconomicsreview.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13561-024-00512-8
  133. https://gh.bmj.com/content/6/10/e006351
  134. https://www.worldobesityday.org/assets/downloads/World_Obesity_Atlas_2023_Press_Release.pdf
  135. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2821695
  136. https://whyy.org/articles/philadelphia-soda-tax-health-study/
  137. https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/ebsa/researchers/analysis/health-and-welfare/workplace-wellness-programs-study-full-text.pdf
  138. https://www.pphnh.org/images/contentPages/Workplace_Wellness_Programs.pdf
  139. https://www.bmj.com/content/381/bmj.p1400
  140. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/14/health/bmi-obesity-definition.html
  141. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9590076/
  142. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5591058/
  143. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0953620523003242
  144. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40555527/
  145. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8984168/
  146. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11242171/
  147. https://med.stanford.edu/news/insights/2024/11/bmi-body-mass-index-alternatives-science.html
  148. https://diabetesjournals.org/care/article/38/1/150/37769/BMI-Cut-Points-to-Identify-At-Risk-Asian-Americans
  149. https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12889-020-10040-9
  150. https://diabetesjournals.org/care/article-pdf/35/5/1021/613383/1021.pdf
  151. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9311414/
  152. https://www.merckmanuals.com/professional/gynecology-and-obstetrics/symptoms-during-pregnancy/lower-extremity-edema-during-late-pregnancy
  153. https://www.msdmanuals.com/professional/gynecology-and-obstetrics/symptoms-during-pregnancy/lower-extremity-edema-during-late-pregnancy
  154. https://ijbnpa.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12966-025-01719-6
  155. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2877506/
  156. https://ufhealth.org/news/2025/uf-health-study-shows-bmis-weakness-as-a-predictor-of-future-health
  157. https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2458-13-797
  158. https://theconversation.com/why-the-body-positivity-movement-risks-turning-toxic-189913
  159. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/cravings/202206/the-problem-body-positivity
  160. https://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-fat-healthy-myth-20131202-story.html
  161. https://studyfinds.org/fat-but-fit-not-real-obesity/
  162. https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/obesity/obesity-fact-sheet
  163. https://bmcmedicine.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12916-018-1116-5
  164. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666667725004015
  165. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3607308/
  166. https://info.iowaradiology.com/comparing-methods-of-body-composition-analysis
  167. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2769821/
  168. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3854278/
  169. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4140970/
  170. https://www.healthline.com/health/exercise-fitness/ideal-body-fat-percentage
  171. https://www.bodyfatusa.com/dexa-vs-other-body-fat-testing-methods-why-accuracy-matters-for-your-health-goals
  172. https://www.nanaimobodycomposition.com/dexavsbia
  173. https://idealdexaclinic.com.au/dexa-vs-bia/
  174. https://www.compositionid.com/blog/dexa/dexa-scan-vs-hydrostatic-weighing-for-body-fat-analysis/
  175. https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/science-blog/does-my-bmi-look-big
  176. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16768059/
  177. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23144362/
  178. https://academic.oup.com/aje/article/176/11/959/178244
  179. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2475299123266457
  180. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3399847/
  181. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-71302-5
  182. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2819558
  183. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12670104/
  184. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/now-there-are-better-ways-than-bmi-charts-to-assess-health-risks/
  185. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22344056/
  186. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022316625002950
  187. https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2025.08.01.25332763v1.full-text
  188. https://www.cnn.com/2025/06/24/health/bmi-versus-body-fat-wellness
  189. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12511144/
  190. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11309345/
  191. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-07867-w
  192. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8488453/
  193. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6452160/
  194. https://journalofexerciseandnutrition.com/index.php/JEN/article/view/133
  195. https://www.npr.org/2025/08/03/nx-s1-5486770/bmi-is-a-limited-measurement-for-body-composition-could-bia-be-the-replacement
  196. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41430-025-01664-4
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.