Most people don't realize that the BMI was designed at the University of Minnesota as a tool for predicting mobidity and mortality within a population for use in developing insurance statistics and tables. Its developers repeatedly came out against its use as a medical tool to assess individual health but the health care industry has glommed onto it so tightly that it may never go away.

My problem with the BMI is that it is meaningless in many situations. For example: Consider two 30 year old, six foot tall males who weigh 200 pounds. The first is an avid recreational athlete who regularly does aerobic and resistance exercise, eats well and abstains from junk food. His body fat is at 13%. The second is and always has been a couch spud who rarely walks further than to the fridge or to the car to go for fast food (if delivery isn't an option). His greatest exercise is playing Grand Theft Auto on his X-Box. He considers Cheetos a food group. He has no decernable muscle definition and his body fat is at 32%. Yet both of these individuals get the exact same BMI.

Example two: A middle age patient has a disappointing annual physical and vows to get back in shape. By his next physical, the patient has lost 10 pounds of fat, gained 10 pounds of muscle (a 20# shift in body composition), looks and feels much better with improved strength and stamina. This patient made a substantial improvement, correct? Not according to his BMI.

It blows my mind that much of the medical community refuses to utilize body composition analysis such as caliper measurement or bioimpedence because they are "inaccurate" but then venerate an even less accurate, but faster and easier, tool as if it was carried down from the mount by Moses.