New Issue: Orbital Catastrophe Ahead? Read Now

Now There Are Better Ways Than BMI Charts to Assess Health Risks

The body mass index is flawed, and medicine now has better options to measure obesity

Illustration of a woman being given a physical examination, including blood samples, blood pressure and waist measurements

Jay Bendt

According to standard calculations, my husband's body mass index (BMI) is too high. Yet he is the fittest person I know—an athlete carrying plenty of muscle and very little fat.

Therein lies the problem with BMI. Derived by dividing someone's weight in kilograms by the square of their height in meters, a BMI number classifies a person as underweight (less than 18.5), normal weight (18.5 to 24.9), overweight (25 to 29.9) or obese (30 or more). But that simple formula obscures critical details such as the difference between muscle and fat. When it comes to individual health risks, those details tell the real story.

The shortcomings of BMI have been recognized for decades. Yet physicians kept using it as a quick way to diagnose obesity and as a proxy for overall health. “It made life really easy,” says clinical psychologist Cynthia Bulik, founding director of the University of North Carolina Center of Excellence for Eating Disorders. “It also led to a type of tunnel vision.”


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Equating a slightly high BMI with poor health isn't always accurate. The American Medical Association acknowledged as much when it announced last June that BMI alone is an imperfect measure and that clinical practice needs to change.

The new thinking on BMI does not negate the need to address the health risks associated with a high body-fat percentage. In 2013 the AMA recognized obesity as a disease and noted that it often leads to many dangerous conditions, including cancer, diabetes and heart disease. The risks of obesity haven't changed. For the time being, however, insurers still rely on BMI to determine people's eligibility for bariatric surgery and most weight-loss drugs, including popular new options such as Wegovy.

A recent study showed just how imprecise BMI can be. Yftach Gepner, a physiologist and epidemiologist at Tel Aviv University, and his colleagues looked at data on about 3,000 Israeli men and women. Roughly one third of those whose BMI placed them in the normal range were found to be obese when their actual body fat was measured. And a third of those who were identified as overweight by their BMI had normal amounts of body fat. “If you are combining the misclassification on both sides,” Gepner says, using BMI to determine obesity “is like flipping a coin.”

Not only does BMI fail to distinguish between muscle and fat, but it says nothing about where that fat sits in your body, says Priya Jaisinghani, an endocrinologist and specialist in obesity at N.Y.U. Langone Health in New York City. With fat, as with real estate, location matters. Abdominal fat confers higher risk, as does fat around vital organs. A 2018 study looked at magnetic resonance imaging scans—the gold standard for body-composition research—collected by the U.K. Biobank, a large biomedical database. The results showed that people with fat concentrated in their abdomen had higher risk for type 2 diabetes, heart disease and metabolic disease than did people with the same BMI and of the same age whose fat was spread through other parts of their body.

A further problem is that BMI is based on height and weight tables developed using data from non-Hispanic white people, mostly men. Yet researchers now know that race, ethnicity, sex and age affect body composition and health risks differently. For instance, Black people tend to have greater muscle mass and thus may be misclassified as obese on the basis of BMI. The opposite is true for Asians, who tend to have more body fat at lower BMIs, so their actual disease risks may be missed.

Although BMI has value for assessing obesity at a population level, better methods exist for individuals. “The key is not to use BMI on its own as an index of health,” Bulik says. To properly assess health, doctors should combine the index with measures such as waist circumference, blood pressure and cholesterol levels. Bioelectrical impedance analysis, which uses electric signals to tell fat from muscle in the body, is becoming more common in medical offices. “In a very few years it is going to become standard,” Gepner says. DEXA scans, a type of x-ray imaging that can distinguish between muscle and fat, and MRI also can be used to measure body fat, although they tend to be more costly and are therefore less accessible.

With so many alternatives available, no one, including health-care workers, should give BMI too much weight.

Lydia Denworth is a Brooklyn, N.Y.–based science writer and was a contributing editor for Scientific American. She wrote about the neuroscience of stuttering in Scientific American’s August 2021 issue. She is co-author of Parent Nation.

More by Lydia Denworth
Scientific American Magazine Vol 330 Issue 1This article was published with the title “Stepping Off the BMI Scale” in Scientific American Magazine Vol. 330 No. 1 (), p. 78
doi:10.1038/scientificamerican0124-78

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe