A Reflection on BMI
Part 1 – In The Media
By Laura Cipullo and the Laura Cipullo Whole Nutrition Services Team
We’ve been hearing a lot about BMI recently in news. Between The Biggest Loser controversy and a recent article recounting a Yale student’s struggle with her school’s perception of health, BMI seems to be the hottest new weight assessment. Mom Dishes it Out covered BMI in 2012 (the article can be accessed here) emphasizing the importance of good and healthy behaviors over the use of a flawed scale of measurement. Since then, we found that it continues to be used in the media as a fact determining obesity. But what does BMI really tell us about our bodies? Body Mass Index—or BMI—is a measurement of body fat based on an individual’s height and weight. To determine your own BMI, you can use this easy equation.
BMI = weight (kg)/ height (m)2
Determining BMI is not specific; it’s general. An individual’s BMI is just one part of the puzzle when health care professionals work towards improving an individuals habits and it should not be used as the sole determinate to suggest that an individual is either under or overweight. It is merely a clue as part of a larger nutrition and health assessment. In recent years, the parameters for BMI have changed, causing more people to fall into certain categories.
Consider this – muscle weighs more than fat. So are Tom Brady, Michael Phelps, and many of the female Olympic gymnasts overweight? Their BMI says yes, though we know this is not the case. Bodies come in all shapes, sizes, and masses and it is important to remember this.
The fueling argument behind The Biggest Loser contestant, Rachel Frederickson’s, weight controversy was her BMI of 18, a value considered just underweight and malnourished. Without considering her BMI, it’s easy to understand how and why a driven and competitive individual involved in a nationally televised weight-loss competition (who would win $250,000) would be so intent on dramatic weight loss. However, we don’t think her weight was healthy. But not because of her BMI, rather her report of exercising 6 hours a day while only consuming 1600 kcals daily in addition to losing 266 pounds in such a short period of time. This is not realistic to continue nor healthy for a lifestyle. If an Olympic athletic were in training, they may exercise for so many hours but they would also be likely consuming 4000 kcals/day. Since the final weigh-in, and after resuming her “normal lifestyle” with the tools she learned from the show, Rachel has a BMI of about 20.
What is more important to consider, is that she reports she is finding time to exercise everyday for about 60 minutes. She loves cooking and is enthusiastic about her meals. She has a renewed sense of her athleticism. She has invested in behavior modification and it is working for her. Instead of using her BMI as a tool to ask the larger questions, we used it’s against her stating that is was a fact that she was unhealthy and now that her BMI is in normal range it is a fact that she is healthy. When, in reality, none of us truly have access to that information. Particularly since none of us know the mental and physical impact that social scrutiny had on her—that’s certainly not information we can get from her BMI. We wonder, is she menstruating, is she thinking about food all of the time or some of the time? We don’t need Rachel to answer these questions, but rather, for us to understand that a mid-range BMI and decreased exercise still does not equate health. More questions need to be answered.
A similar scandal arose when Yale student, Frances Chan, reported in an article later picked up by the Huffington Post, that Yale was forcing her to gain weight, at risk of mandated medical leave from school, based on her BMI. Chan, 5’2” and 90 lbs has a BMI of 16.5. Says Chan;
The University blindly uses BMI as the primary means of diagnosis, it remains oblivious to students who truly need help but do not have low enough BMIs. Instead, it subjects students who have a personal and family history of low weight to treatment that harms our mental health.
While we are given access to Chan’s height and weight and, therefore, her BMI—she is not our patient. We do not have her medical history or understanding of her body’s development overtime. Most importantly, we are not made aware of Chan’s habits and behaviors. With all of that said, her BMI is quiet low. This is a red flag to health professionals suggesting they dig deeper into one’s medical status and mental health to determine if there is an issue, perhaps behavioral, that needs addressing. Chan suggests that Yale used her BMI as the sole determinant during her nutrition intervention. Whether or not an intervention was required remains unclear to us, but we would hope that more than one’s BMI will be used in future assessments and they would take into account her medical status, her mental health and her behavior/habits.
The above scenario is particularly true when visually assessing others. The point here is size is not the only measurement of health especially that of BMI. Some people qualify as healthy with a BMI of 20 yet their behaviors say otherwise by implementing dietary restriction, smoking, over exercising and even purging. While others, with a BMI of 26 could be healthy, exercising, not smoking, and eating normally yet be considered overweight. The same holds true for someone in the extreme margins of BMI. There are many nutrition clients that we have counseled with BMI’s greater than 29 who have made dietary and lifestyle behavioral changes yet their weight does not reflect the media’s representation of health. And so the same goes for someone who is naturally thin and healthy. For women, regular menstruation, adequate nutrition intake and lack of food thoughts/obsessions along with a normal blood pressure, EKG and more, may be a better indicator of true health. So don’t judge a book by its cover.
Stay tuned; there is more information to come about BMI and how it is being used in our culture and society.