The BMI Is Outdated, but It Still Works

The flawed body mass index remains a useful predictor of health

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

How much can one simple number tell you about your health? A growing body of research over the past few years has highlighted the shortcomings of the body mass index (BMI), a basic measure of rotundity, as a predictor of well-being. The latest—and in some ways most comprehensive—of these reports appeared in August in the journal Science.

The BMI formula, developed in the 1800s by a Belgian statistician and sociologist, divides a person's weight, in kilograms, by the square of his or her height, in meters. As the new study points out, a normal BMI can mask metabolic abnormalities; even people with a normal weight-to-height ratio can harbor disorders in the way the body handles nutrients. Increasingly, researchers are documenting the many ways a metabolic condition called insulin resistance, for example, elevates the risk for heart disease, Alzheimer's disease and other ailments. According to a 2008 analysis, nearly one in four people with a normal BMI were metabolically unhealthy.

Conversely, an elevated BMI does not necessarily reflect poor metabolic health. About half of overweight individuals are metabolically normal. In recent years Katherine Flegal of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and her colleagues have found that people in the overweight (but not obese) BMI category tend to live longer, as a group, than folks in the normal BMI range. Flegal cautioned against overinterpreting the results, however. After all, there is no way for a few BMI groupings to account for the diversity of bodies.


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.


Take, for instance, the location of excess body fat. Fatty deposits around the abdomen are much more hazardous than fat under the skin of the arms or legs. Some researchers think it makes sense to incorporate a third measurement to better classify body types. Waist circumference, along with height and weight, yields the so-called ABSI (a body shape index), for which numerous calculators are available online.

But there is no need to ditch BMI, which is still a decent approximation of health risk for most people. The point is that good health depends on a lot of things—physical fitness, diet, smoking, and even our surroundings and the company we keep—many of which cannot be quantified.

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe