
Why BMI Still Won't Die
Its creator, the 19th-century Belgian astronomer and statistician Adolphe Quetelet, believed that greatness arose from averageness. The closer an individual was to the average size and shape of their time and place, the closer they were to perfection.
Any sports fan instantly sees the flaw in this logic: How boring would basketball be if the average NBA player was 5-foot-9 instead of 6-foot-7?
But it gets worse: Quetelet asserted that the further someone deviated from the population average, the more flawed they were.
First, however, he had to figure out what 'average' was.
Starting with a database of measurements from Scottish soldiers, Quetelet developed a formula of weight (in kilograms) divided by height (in meters) squared.
More than a century later, in 1972, legendary nutrition scientist Ancel Keys coined a new name for Quetelet's formula: body mass index, or BMI.
What was conceived in judgment remains quite judge-y. BMI continues to serve as a demarcation between a 'normal' or 'healthy' body weight (a BMI between 18.5 and 24.9) and the deviance of being 'overweight' (a BMI of 25 to 29.9) or 'obese' (a BMI of 30 or more).
Today, there's nothing 'normal' about a sub-25 BMI. Not when the average American adult has a BMI of 30 — just a couple of sandwiches past 'overweight' —and the CDC estimates that 42% of U.S. adults have obesity.
That's why, over the past decade, a growing number of doctors and scientists have argued that BMI as a health metric is past its sell-by date.
But before we talk about what's wrong with BMI and what health professionals can use instead, we need to look at how it became so ubiquitous and what it tells us — and doesn't.
What BMI Can and Can't Tell Us
'The advantage of BMI,' said obesity specialist Yoni Freedhoff, MD, is that 'it's easily calculable.' Just run your height and weight through a BMI calculator.
Freedhoff, an associate professor of family medicine at the University of Ottawa and medical director of the Bariatric Medical Institute, also acknowledges that 'BMI has a basis in statistical risk.'
We've known for a long time that a person with obesity has a higher risk of developing heart disease, diabetes, and some cancers. During the COVID-19 pandemic, we learned that someone with a BMI over 30 was statistically more likely to develop a severe or even fatal illness.
But when we look at overall risk of dying early from any cause, the link to excess body weight doesn't line up with expectations.
A 2023 study found that, among U.S. adults, the likelihood of early death was 5%-7% lower among people with a BMI in the 'overweight' range, compared to those with a BMI between 22.5 and 24.9.
The results varied significantly for older vs. younger groups.
For those 65 and older, the chance of early death was about the same across BMIs from 22.5 to 34.9 — from the high end of 'healthy' to the low end of 'obese.'
But for participants younger than 65, the lowest death rates were more constrained: from 22.5 to 27.4.
'BMI alone does not capture metabolic risk well,' said study author Aayush Visaria, MD, an instructor of medicine and clinical researcher at Rutgers University. That's because it can't distinguish between fat mass and lean tissue (muscle, bone, water), much less account for how a person's fat is distributed.
That's important, Visaria said, because health professionals may overlook potential health risks in a patient who has a 'normal' BMI but poor body composition — the ratio of fat to muscle.
The combination isn't as rare as it sounds.
Research shows that many people with a 'healthy' BMI have excess body fat, defined as 25% or more in men and 35% or more in women.
So what are the alternatives to using BMI to assess a patient's health risks?
A New Paradigm for Diagnosing Obesity
'BMI by itself doesn't do anything for me,' said Fatima Cody Stanford, MD, MPH, an obesity medicine specialist at Massachusetts General Hospital and an associate professor of medicine and pediatrics at Harvard Medical School.
'I call it street-corner medicine. You're looking at the person like you're sitting on the street corner and you're like, 'That person has this issue.''
That's the message of a recent report that Stanford developed along with dozens of obesity experts from across the globe.
The report puts obesity on a continuum. Where a person lands depends on how much body fat they have and how it affects their health and abilities.
Toward the healthier end, you'd have someone whose BMI puts them in the overweight or obesity range but who has no weight-related health problems.
They also wouldn't have excess fat mass, which you can indirectly measure with a tape measure. If their waist circumference, measured at the belly button, is less than 35 inches (for a woman) or 40 inches (for a man), you can assume they have a healthy body composition.
A lot of athletes and other highly active people would fit into this category.
At the other end of the continuum is clinical obesity: a chronic illness caused by excess body fat.
Clinical obesity affects the person's health and/or quality of life at a functional level. They might have sleep apnea or joint pain; high blood pressure or heart problems; or high blood sugar or low HDL cholesterol. Or it might be some combination.
Whatever the symptoms are, clinical obesity has a significant effect on the patient's present and future health status.
Somewhere in between is preclinical obesity.
In this category, a person has objectively high body fat (whether measured directly with DEXA or indirectly via waist circumference) but doesn't yet have obesity-related complications.
Those complications are by no means exclusive to people with obesity.
In a recent study, Stanford and her co-authors found that 61% of participants with a BMI of 30 or higher had at least one obesity-related complication — typically muscle or joint pain, high cholesterol, and high blood pressure.
But so did 50% of participants with a 'normal' BMI.
'I don't know anything about [a patient] until I do a full assessment,' Stanford said. In fact, she won't see a new patient until she has access to a full metabolic workup, including fasting blood lipids and glucose, as well as their height and weight measurements. 'I don't even go over BMI with patients until it gets very severe, which is that 40-plus group.'
What No Measurement Can Tell Us
Someone with such a high BMI is unlikely to be surprised by hearing it.
'People who have excess weight know they have excess weight,' Freedhoff said. 'The doctors know. Everybody knows.'
That's why Freedhoff doesn't think it matters if we replace or combine BMI with any other metrics.
'None of those numbers tell you if the individual in front of you has health consequences of their excess adiposity,' he said.
Even more important, he added, is whether they themselves have any concerns about their weight.
'And if the answer to all those questions is no' — they have no medical conditions that require treatment, and they don't think their weight affects their quality of life — 'they're good to go. Just monitor, like we would with any other medical condition.'
Why BMI Won't Go Away
So if BMI doesn't offer uniquely valuable information, why is it still so ubiquitous?
Why is it still used to assess who is or isn't at risk for diabetes or heart disease? Why is BMI the basis for prescribing in-demand weight loss medicines or for approving a range of procedures from joint replacements to organ transplants?
'It all comes down to what's the easiest, best number to use?' Freedhoff said. 'I'm not saying it's BMI, but I'm not saying it isn't.'
If excess body fat is what medical providers should be monitoring, he added, 'BMI is pretty darned good' at detecting it.
That's supported by a new study in the Journal of the American Medical Association. It showed that an overwhelming majority of participants with a BMI above the obesity threshold do, in fact, have excess body fat, as measured by DEXA.
Still, Freedhoff said, no number has perfect prognostic value. That applies to any tool doctors use for any chronic condition.
The difference with BMI is that it comes with the onus of personal responsibility. Whereas a doctor would never suggest that a patient's cardiac arrhythmia is a choice, that implication is almost always part of the conversation when it comes to obesity.
'I marvel at how challenging it seems to be for society as a whole, including health care, to consider obesity to be just another chronic medical condition that the person did not choose, that does not always guarantee problems, that does respond to treatment, and that should be free from blame,' Freedhoff said.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Forbes
18 minutes ago
- Forbes
MIT Spinout Strand Therapeutics Raises $153 Million To Make Cancerous Tumors Light Up
Strand Therapeutics founders Jake Becraft (left) and Tasuku Kitada Jon Chomitz As a grad student in biological engineering at MIT, Jake Becraft had an idea that could change the way we treat cancer: What if genes could be turned on and off like light switches? Thinking it through a bit further, he envisioned 'circuits' in which messenger RNA (mRNA), which carries the instructions for making proteins to cells, could be programmed to cause cancerous tumors to reveal themselves to the body's immune system. It was an idea at the cutting-edge of science, and when Becraft cofounded Cambridge, Mass.-based Strand Therapeutics to pursue it there was no guarantee of success. Now, eight years later, Strand seems on the cusp of it. Strand's preliminary phase 1 clinical trial showed that its first programmable mRNA drug is not only safe, but can shrink tumors in cancer patients who had otherwise run out of treatment options. 'It shocked even us,' Becraft told Forbes. 'You hope something happens, but you don't expect to see a huge response because these patients have already proven to have cancers so resistant to treatment.' With those results, Strand Therapeutics raised $153 million in new venture funding led by Swedish investment giant Kinnevik to build out its programmable mRNA therapeutics pipeline. Other investors include VC firms Iconiq and Playground Global; Regeneron Ventures, the venture arm of Regeneron Pharmaceuticals; and drugmakers Amgen and Eli Lilly. The investment brings Strand's total funding to $250 million and its valuation to an estimated $550 million. That number pales in comparison to the stratospheric valuations of today's AI startups, but it's a significant one for a clinical-stage biotech that was worth $359 million at its last round, in November 2024, according to venture-capital database PitchBook. The funding comes at a time when biotech firms have been struggling to raise money and the public markets are filled with zombie biotechs that are trading below their cash on hand. Strand, which hopes to get its first therapy on the market by 2030, does not yet have revenue. Most people know mRNA as the backbone of the vaccines from Moderna and BioNTech during the Covid-19 pandemic. Despite their success, those vaccines have become a political football, with Health & Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. announcing on Tuesday that he was pulling $500 million of federal funding from mRNA vaccine projects. But mRNA could potentially be used to treat a variety of diseases, from cancer to heart disease. Unlike Covid-19 vaccines, which send instructions to a cell's nucleus to create antigens for a virus, Strand's mRNA therapeutics instruct tumors to produce signals that make them visible to the body's immune system—essentially lighting them up–so that it can fight back. 'The clinical results blew us away,' said Ala Alenazi, an investment manager at Kinnevik, who will join Strand's board of directors with the deal. 'They have been able to prove out these ambitions that had stayed in textbooks.' 'What's become very clear in the past year or year-and-a-half is that the age of messenger RNA and genetic medicines is finally here.' Jake Becraft, cofounder and CEO, Strand Therapeutics Becraft, who is now 34, calls himself 'a reluctant biotech executive.' In 2017, he and Tasuku Kitada, the company's president and head of research and development—the first scientist to create synthetic mRNA gene circuits while working as a researcher at MIT—spun Strand out of MIT. Becraft's Ph.D. advisor, Ron Weiss, a professor of biological engineering whose work focuses on engineering cells and building circuits, was also a cofounder and remains an advisor to the company. In 2019, Strand scored seed funding with Playground leading the round. Its valuation then was just $15.5 million, according to venture-capital database PitchBook. 'They were young Ph.D.s with amazing ideas when we first met with them,' said Jory Bell, a general partner at Playground Global. Becraft has long believed that the biggest barrier to new and personalized medicines is delivery. Today, many therapies are administered by 'brute forcing the proteins into the right cells,' requiring lengthy hospital stays for patients and high costs for insurers, he said. 'What we want to do is deliver proteins that have a therapeutic outcome into a cancer cell or immune cell or into the bone marrow,' he said. That targeting allows the treatment to be potent where it's needed without being toxic where it isn't. 'What's become very clear in the past year or year-and-a-half is that the age of messenger RNA and genetic medicines is finally here,' he said. 'We see that as the path to how we will build medicines in the future.' Consider the first protein that Strand is working with, an immune system stimulant called interleukin 12, or IL-12. It's promising as a cancer immunotherapy, but so far its toxicity has outweighed any anti-cancer benefits. Without targeting, 'it is ineffective or toxic,' Becraft said. 'You want effective and non-toxic.' The results of Strand's study of 22 cancer patients showed it was possible to use targeting to create a potent therapy that wasn't toxic, he said. 'From the very first patients we dosed, we started to see the tumors shrinking,' he said. 'They have been able to prove out these ambitions that had stayed in textbooks.' Ala Alenazi, investment manager, Kinnevik Referring to a contrast dye scan of a patient with stage 4 melanoma, Becraft noted tumors, indicated with black dots, across the body. A second scan of the same patient after treatment with Strand's mRNA drug revealed a stunning improvement. 'The only dot left was where the contrast agent was injected in their arm,' Becraft said. 'I don't think anyone expects that. This was very shocking.' But even with results like this, it's a long road from early clinical trials to commercialization. Strand now plans to use its new influx of funds to conduct additional clinical research with the hopes of getting its first drug approved by 2030. The company also has a few other pre-clinical mRNA therapies in its pipeline, including one that gets infused through a patient's bloodstream rather than injected into a tumor. That would allow it to potentially be used for additional types of cancer that are harder to reach, such as lung cancer. 'We can rewire the way we treat cancer,' Becraft said. 'We think we are just on the precipice of what this technology can do.' MORE FROM FORBES Forbes How A 60-Year-Old Drug Developer Built A $4.4 Billion Biotech Treating 'Butterfly Skin Disease' By Amy Feldman Forbes This AI Founder Became A Billionaire By Building ChatGPT For Doctors By Amy Feldman Forbes How AI And Mini-Organs Could Replace Testing Drugs On Animals By Alex Knapp Forbes Fear Of Super Intelligent AI Is Driving Harvard And MIT Students To Drop Out By Victoria Feng


Axios
an hour ago
- Axios
Food companies make promises while MAHA looks for more
Coca-Cola, Steak 'n Shake, Mars and other food companies earned valuable exposure for pledging to remove certain ingredients and align themselves with Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s bid to clean up what America eats. But some of Kennedy's "Make America Healthy Again" base question if the companies deserve a celebration. Why it matters: The commitments aren't enforceable. And nutritionists and influencers say they largely don't address the primary drivers of chronic diseases that Kennedy has made his cause. State of play: Companies including General Mills, PepsiCo, Conagra, Nestle, Hershey and Kraft Heinz have said they'll remove artificial dyes from their products within the next two years. Coca-Cola pledged to roll out a product that uses cane sugar instead of high-fructose corn syrup. Starbucks is looking to remove canola oil from products on its menu. Steak 'n Shake was among the earliest to get on board, agreeing to cook its fries in beef tallow instead of seed oils. "Secretary Kennedy has consistently emphasized that the Department's top priority is ensuring the health and transparency that American families deserve," a Health and Human Services spokesperson said in an email to Axios. "Recent food industry commitments to remove artificial dyes, seed oils, and high fructose corn syrup are a positive step." Some MAHA faithful question whether the resulting fanfare amounts to a free pass, akin to a dubious healthy food claim. "They are not big MAHA wins," said Rob Houton, founder of the MAHA Coalition, an advocacy group that builds support for the MAHA agenda. "Those companies want to trumpet that, right? [It's] very clever of them to say, 'Oh, we're in agreement.' But what they are trumpeting as a big deal is not transformative." "The analogy I would make is it's like you have a dilapidated house, the foundation is crumbling and you think that you can correct everything by just putting a new coat of paint on it all," said Arden Anderson, a physician, agriculture consultant and MAHA supporter. As for the two-year window some companies have to make good on their commitments, "what I want to see is that they are doing it," said Ana-Maria Temple, a holistic pediatrician and an influencer aligned with MAHA. Between the lines: Some activists say the most substantive changes would be in regulating agriculture — a touchy proposition for an administration eager not to alienate farm interests. MAHA discontent is building around the House Interior spending bill, which includes language that would offer liability protections for the makers of pesticides. There's also frustration with agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency, which removed regulations against pesticides and "forever chemicals." "We are extremely disappointed with some of the actions taken by this administration to protect the polluters and the pesticide companies," Zen Honeycutt, the founder of Moms Across America, told Vox. What to watch: Kennedy is set to release a blueprint within days for how the administration intends to address issues raised in a MAHA Commission report that was released in May. Supporters say it will be a test of the administration's willingness to impose new standards on food ingredients, as well as transparency requirements about what's in their products. "Under the MAHA agenda, HHS supports real accountability and science-based standards to ensure that any promised changes are both transparent and truly meaningful for consumers," the HHS spokesperson said in the emailed statement. The bottom line: These moves are creating awareness and pressure that the food industry has never had to respond to before, and that's important, Temple said. "Is it the final answer? Of course not," Temple said of the commitments the administration has extracted from industry. "More people are going to be asking questions. That's a huge win." "The small changes that have been made ... you might think, 'Well, that's not making that big of a difference,'" said Hilda Labrada Gore, a health coach, podcast host and MAHA supporter. "But it's a start."


NBC News
2 hours ago
- NBC News
Ultra-processed foods make up the majority of kids' diet, CDC report finds
Ultra-processed foods make up the bulk of what kids eat — and adults aren't far behind, a report published Thursday by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention finds. About 62% of kids' and teens' daily calories came from ultra-processed foods, the CDC's National Center for Health Statistics found, compared with 53% for adults. The report marks the first time CDC has provided estimates about how much ultra-processed foods make up Americans' diets. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. in May cited ultra-processed foods among his list of top issues that need to be addressed to curb what he says is an epidemic of childhood chronic diseases. Last month, the Department of Health and Human Services took the first step to formally define 'ultra-processed foods' — a move, experts say, that could open the door to regulation, including what types of food are eligible for food assistance programs. Diets high in ultra-processed foods have been linked to a number of health problems, including depression, Type 2 diabetes and early death. Previous administrations have also tried to take action on ultra-processed foods, but those efforts have focused mostly on labeling and individual ingredients — such as added sugars and trans fats — rather than on regulating or classifying foods based on their level of processing. In January, during the Biden administration, the Food and Drug Administration proposed requiring a new label on the front of most packaged food and drinks that would alert consumers to how much saturated fat, salt and added sugar they contained. Thursday's report was based on findings from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, from August 2021 to August 2023. The report's lead author, Anne Williams, a researcher with the National Center for Health Statistics, said the agency identified ultra-processed foods using the NOVA classification system — a framework developed by Brazilian researchers that's the most commonly used tool to evaluate processed foods. NOVA defines ultra-processed products as 'industrial creations' made with little — if any — whole foods. The top source of ultra-processed foods for both kids and adults was sandwiches, such as burgers, hot dogs and PB&Js, Williams said. That was followed by baked goods, salty snacks and sugary drinks. The report found that adults with higher incomes tended to eat fewer ultra-processed foods. It also found that intake of ultra-processed foods for both kids and adults dropped slightly from 2017-18 to August 2021–23. For adults, the decline started even earlier, going back to 2013–14. Williams cautioned that the decline so far has been small — a 56-calorie difference over roughly a decade. Marion Nestle, professor emerita of nutrition, food studies and public health at New York University, said the CDC's findings align with what outside researchers have found about Americans' eating habits. Nestle said parents tend to gravitate toward ultra-processed foods for their kids because they're easy to throw in a school lunch bag. But, she added, probably the biggest reason kids eat so many ultra-processed foods is that the food industry heavily markets it to them. 'They're the most profitable products in the supermarket, and the companies sell them, they market them directly to kids,' Nestle said. 'They're seen as cool and are iconic and you're lucky to eat them, because that's how they're marketed.' The term 'ultra-processed food' was created around 2009 and has primarily been used for research purposes, said Susan Mayne, who was director of the FDA's Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition in both the Biden and the first Trump administrations. Mayne said research has shown that eating ultra-processed foods in general is linked to increased caloric intake and weight gain and that it is associated with greater risk of chronic diseases. The problem with defining ultra-processed foods, she said, is that not all of them are linked to greater health risks. In fact, some — like certain yogurts, whole grain breads and cereals — are actually associated with reduced risks of chronic diseases like colon cancer. States like California have tried to address that by coming up with a definition of 'particularly harmful' ultra-processed foods, she added. The NOVA classification system also has limitations, as it doesn't directly measure processing, Mayne said. Rather, it uses additives and specific ingredients as a proxy for the level of processing. 'FDA is engaging in a public process to attempt to define UPF, which is a good first step,' Mayne said in an email, referring to ultra-processed foods. 'But it would be important to repeat studies to demonstrate that the new definition is as or more predictive of chronic disease risk than existing definitions before it could be used for policies.' HHS hasn't said when it plans to formally define 'ultra-processed.' Nestle said she hopes the Trump administration also targets marketing. 'These are highly convenient products, and the kids will eat them because the kids have been trained to eat them,' she said.