BMI: The Controversial Number with a Dark and Racist History


Exiting the physician's clinic, one might quickly hide away their medical summary, especially if it glaringly displays "overweight" or "obesity." For many, this three-letter acronym, the Body Mass Index (BMI), has evolved into an unsolicited badge of judgment. It's not just a reflection of one's physique but also an indicator of health and, by extension, character.

Yet, how many of us have paused to question the origins and validity of the BMI? Despite its widespread acceptance, the history of the BMI is riddled with inconsistencies and, shockingly, racial biases.

The Birth of BMI

The BMI dates back almost two centuries, coined by Adolphe Quetelet coined, a Belgian academic. Interestingly, Quetelet was no physician. His expertise lay in astronomy, mathematics, statistics, and sociology. His ambition was to define the "average man" or l’homme moyen, which he believed represented societal perfection.

Quetelet's era was one where racist science thrived. He co-founded the positivist criminology school, which later influenced thinkers like Cesare Lombroso, who shockingly posited that people of color were inherently criminal, drawing comparisons to primates. Quetelet's work also laid the foundation for phrenology, a now-debunked pseudoscience that claimed to determine character based on skull shape.

The BMI, originally termed Quetelet’s Index, was derived from the measurements of French and Scottish individuals, excluding any non-white populations. By the 20th century, this index was misused to support eugenics, advocating for the sterilization of certain groups deemed "unfit."

Quetelet, however, never intended the BMI to gauge individual health, body fat, or build. For him, it was a tool for population studies, focusing on statistics rather than personal well-being.

BMI's Rocky Journey

It wasn't until the 20th century that weight became a primary health indicator, thanks to U.S. insurance companies. These companies, however, had flawed data collection methods, often relying on self-reported height and weight. Despite these inconsistencies, by the mid-20th century, physicians began using these tables to assess patient health.

The 1970s saw a renewed interest in refining weight metrics. Researcher Ancel Keys stepped in, conducting a study across five countries. Yet, this study too was marred by racial biases, primarily focusing on white populations.

Keys' research concluded that the BMI was the best available tool, even if it was imperfect, diagnosing obesity correctly only about half the time against the gold-standard method of determining body fat percentages.

The late 20th century witnessed consequential changes in BMI standards. In 1998, the National Institutes of Health altered the definitions of "overweight" and "obese," leading to a sudden surge in the number of individuals classified as "fat" even though they did not even gain a pound. This redefinition fueled the "Obesity Epidemic" narrative, with the BMI becoming a standard health metric.

The Evolving Science of Weight

Recent research has significantly expanded our understanding of obesity. Studies have identified numerous types of obesity, each with unique causes and treatments. Yet, the BMI remains a blunt tool, offering a one-size-fits-all approach.

Furthermore, the BMI's inherent racial biases have been exposed. For Black individuals, the BMI often overestimates health risks, while for Asian populations, it underestimates them. Additionally, the BMI fails to account for gender differences, potentially putting those assigned female at birth at a disadvantage.

Despite mounting evidence against its accuracy, the BMI remains deeply entrenched in our society, influencing everything from workplace health initiatives to medical treatments. The science has evolved, but societal perceptions remain stubbornly static, often to the detriment of those deemed "overweight" or "obese."

The BMI, like phrenology before it, is a reflection of its times. It's high time we recognize its limitations and seek more holistic, inclusive measures of health.

This is original content from NewsBreak’s Creator Program. Join today to publish and share your own content.

Comments / 89

Published by

MSc (Research) | Named Standford's world's top 1% scientists | Independent scientist | 10x first-author academic papers | 400+ articles on coronavirus


More from Shin

Comments / 0