A recent study conducted by the University of Florida suggests that Body Mass Index (BMI) may not be the most reliable predictor of mortality risk. The study, published in the Annals of Family Medicine, found that BMI, commonly used to assess weight in relation to height, is deemed “deeply flawed” in forecasting mortality compared to one’s body fat level, which was found to be a more accurate indicator.
Researchers utilized bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA) to measure participants’ body fat by gauging tissue resistance to a low electrical current. Over a 15-year span, individuals with high body fat levels were discovered to have a 78% higher likelihood of mortality, particularly from heart disease, compared to those with healthy body fat levels.
Senior author Dr. Frank Orlando, the medical director of UF Health Family Medicine in Springhill, emphasized that BMI should not be solely relied upon as a “vital sign” for health assessment. The study involved 4,252 participants in the U.S., drawing data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey.
BMI, calculated by dividing weight by height squared, was criticized as “entirely unreliable” in predicting mortality risk over a 15-year period from various causes. While BMI categorizes individuals as obese (BMI 30 or above), overweight (BMI 25-29.9), normal weight (BMI 18.5-24.9), or underweight (BMI below 18.5), it fails to differentiate between muscle and fat mass.
The study advocates for alternative methods like DEXA scans for a more precise evaluation of body composition, acknowledging that BMI’s limitations have long been overlooked. It indicates a shift towards more accurate assessments of body fat, as highlighted by the research findings.
“Using the DEXA scan is considered the most accurate method,” stated Mainous in a press release. “However, it is unlikely to be practical for use in a doctor’s office or family practice.” Referring to BMI, a doctor mentioned, “While it has been a convenient tool for identifying at-risk groups within different populations, it lacks precision in providing individualized data.” Dr. Stephen Vogel, a family medicine practitioner at PlushCare, reiterated the limitations of BMI, emphasizing the need for new, more precise standards in assessing overall physical health.
Vogel highlighted the study’s positive correlation between body fat and health risks but pointed out the challenge in determining universal cutoff values and accurate measurement tools. The researchers recognized the lack of standardized thresholds for body fat percentage compared to BMI and waist circumference. They suggested including a broader age range in future studies to enhance insights into body fat’s impact on health outcomes.
The study’s focus on mortality as an outcome was noted as a limitation, with the researchers proposing the consideration of other health conditions for a comprehensive evaluation of body fat as a risk factor. Vogel stressed the importance of implementing cost-effective and reliable measurement methods to enhance patient-provider discussions and public health initiatives.
The researchers expressed optimism that once validated standards are established, measuring body fat percentage using bioelectrical impedance analysis could become a standard practice in healthcare. They emphasized the potential for improved health discussions and initiatives aimed at enhancing overall well-being. For more health-related content, please visit www.foxnews.com/health.
