There is an indicator which, together with many others, says that our nation is getting more and more clinically obese? Let’s get rid of it, that will certainly solve the problem!
What's better instead though? Being between 10% below and like 15% above Ideal Body Weight with muscle mass weighted less heavily? It gets more complicated than BMI pretty quick.
What about being able to function as a metric?
Basic level: Can you jump twice in a row, swim about 25 meters, run for 3 minutes without collapsing, make 5 squads.
Advsnced: pull yourself up 5 times, 5 pushups without rest, ...
Nothing especially hard or challenging, just use your body.
That's the bear minimum to survive and be "healthy'-er than looking at stupid numbers and feel bad.
I've never really understood people complaining about BMI. Yes, it doesn't work for body builders or amputees, but are you actually one of these? Most of the complaints I've heard are from fat Americans who think they'd be "a skeleton" if they were a healthy BMI (say below 175 pounds at 6 feet).
Feels mostly like a "it's not a great measurement so it's fine that I'm fat according to BMI" excuse to me.
I weigh 175 at 6 feet and my insurance company was informed that I have an unhealthy BMI. I was running 21 miles per week at the time and could easily pass the test described above. Of course pointing at the problem again doesn't solve it. I'd be all for a combination of a low effort stress test and waist to height ratio would definitely be better that just weight to height.
I was in a similar situation right after I transitioned out of the military and was in really good shape. I got a physical including an accurate body fat analysis and the problem went away. Ended up costing me a couple hundred bucks, but well worth it overall policy cost.
>I've never understood people complaining about BMI. yes it doesn't work for body builders or amputees
It has way more issues than that, but I'll include them for a more complete list:
- It ignores body composition: BMI is calculated by dividing a person's weight (in kilograms) by the square of their height (in meters). It provides a general estimate of body fat based solely on weight and height, without considering factors such as muscle mass (or missing limbs in your example), bone density, or distribution of fat.
- Despite your hyperbole, you don't have to be a body builder for BMI to be inaccurate. BMI fails to consider variations in muscle mass, which can significantly affect an individual's weight and overall health. Muscles are denser than fat, so individuals with a higher muscle mass may have a higher BMI, even if they have low body fat and good overall health. Athletes and individuals who engage in strength training often fall into this category.
- it doesn't care about fat distribution, different types of fat or account for fat distribution patterns in the body. Abdominal fat, also known as visceral fat, is considered more dangerous than fat stored evenly throughout the body. Visceral fat is associated with a higher risk of chronic diseases like cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, and metabolic syndrome. However, BMI does not provide information about fat distribution or its potential health implications.
- It does t account for ethnic and gender variations: BMI was originally developed based on studies conducted primarily on white males. It does not take into account variations in body composition among different ethnic groups or between genders. For example, some studies suggest that individuals of Asian descent may be at higher risk for health problems associated with excess weight at lower BMI values compared to individuals of other ethnic backgrounds.
- It suffers from lack of individual context. BMI provides a numerical value without considering an individual's unique health history, lifestyle factors, or genetic predispositions. It fails to capture the complexities of an individual's overall health and cannot account for important factors such as nutrition, physical activity, and overall body shape.
