The Body Mass Index (BMI) is a household name in health discussions, a simple number that tells us whether someone’s weight is in a healthy range for their height. Found on fitness apps, medical charts, and public health campaigns, BMI is a global standard for assessing weight-related health risks.
But where did this ubiquitous metric come from, and how did it become a cornerstone of modern medicine? Let’s embark on a journey through the history of BMI, exploring its origins, its rise to prominence, and its enduring role in health assessments today, all backed by credible sources to ground our understanding.
The Birth of BMI: A 19th-Century Idea
The Quetelet Index: BMI’s Predecessor
The story of BMI begins not with doctors but with a Belgian mathematician, astronomer, and statistician named Adolphe Quetelet in the 1830s. Quetelet was fascinated by human measurements and sought to define the “average man” through statistical analysis.
In his work, Sur l’Homme et le Développement de Ses Facultés (1835), he introduced a formula to describe the relationship between weight and height: weight divided by the square of height. This was dubbed the Quetelet Index, the precursor to modern BMI.
Quetelet’s goal wasn’t health assessment but rather understanding population trends. He noticed that weight tended to scale with the square of height in adults, providing a way to compare body sizes across groups. His formula was simple: weight (kg) ÷ height (m)².
For example, a person weighing 70 kg and standing 1.75 m tall would have a Quetelet Index of 22.86. This was a statistical tool, not a medical one, but it laid the groundwork for BMI’s future.
Reference: Quetelet, A. (1835). Sur l’Homme et le Développement de Ses Facultés, ou Essai de Physique Sociale. Paris: Bachelier.
Why Height Squared?
Why did Quetelet choose to square height? It was an empirical observation. He found that dividing weight by height squared produced a consistent metric across populations, unlike other ratios (e.g., weight ÷ height). This made it useful for comparing individuals of different heights. While not perfect, this approach was revolutionary for its time, offering a standardized way to analyze body proportions.
BTW, here you can check out the difference between BMI and body fat percentage.
From Statistics to Medicine: The 20th-Century Shift
Ancel Keys and the Naming of BMI
For over a century, the Quetelet Index remained a statistical curiosity, largely ignored by medicine. It wasn’t until the 1970s that it gained traction as a health metric, thanks to American physiologist Ancel Keys. In a landmark 1972 study published in the Journal of Chronic Diseases, Keys and his team analyzed various weight-height indices to find the best predictor of body fat across populations.
They tested the Quetelet Index against others, like weight ÷ height or weight ÷ height³, using data from thousands of men in five countries.
Keys found that the Quetelet Index was the most reliable for estimating body fat without complex measurements, and he gave it a new name: Body Mass Index. His study showed that BMI correlated reasonably well with body fat percentage, making it a practical tool for health research. Keys emphasized its use for populations, not individuals, but this distinction would later blur.
Reference: Keys, A., Fidanza, F., Karvonen, M. J., Kimura, N., & Taylor, H. L. (1972). Indices of relative weight and obesity. Journal of Chronic Diseases, 25(6), 329–343.
The Rise of Obesity as a Public Health Concern
The timing of Keys’ work was critical. By the mid-20th century, obesity was emerging as a public health issue in developed nations. Diets were shifting toward processed foods, and sedentary lifestyles were on the rise. Researchers needed a simple way to track obesity trends across populations.
BMI, with its easy-to-calculate formula, fit the bill. It allowed scientists to compare weight-related health risks across countries, ages, and ethnic groups, paving the way for its adoption in medical and public health settings.
Adoption by Global Health Organizations
The WHO’s Endorsement
The World Health Organization (WHO) played a pivotal role in cementing BMI’s status as a global standard. In the 1980s and 1990s, as obesity rates climbed, the WHO sought a universal metric to define weight categories and assess health risks. In 1995, the WHO formally adopted BMI as a tool for classifying underweight, normal weight, overweight, and obesity. Their standardized categories, based on Keys’ formula, are:
-
Underweight: Below 18.5
-
Normal weight: 18.5–24.9
-
Overweight: 25–29.9
-
Obese: 30 or higher
These cutoffs were based on studies linking higher BMI to increased risks of diseases like heart disease, diabetes, and certain cancers. The WHO’s endorsement made BMI a global benchmark, used in clinical guidelines, public health policies, and even insurance assessments.
Reference: World Health Organization. (1995). Physical Status: The Use and Interpretation of Anthropometry. WHO Technical Report Series 854. Geneva: WHO.
National Institutes of Health and Broader Adoption
In the United States, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) followed suit. In 1985, the NIH endorsed BMI as a screening tool, and by 1998, it lowered the obesity threshold from a BMI of 27.8 (men) and 27.3 (women) to 30, aligning with the WHO’s standards. This shift classified millions more as overweight or obese, raising awareness but also sparking debate about BMI’s accuracy for individuals.
Reference: National Institutes of Health. (1998). Clinical Guidelines on the Identification, Evaluation, and Treatment of Overweight and Obesity in Adults. Bethesda, MD: NIH.
BMI’s Role in Modern Medicine
A Screening Tool, Not a Diagnosis
Today, BMI is a first-line tool in medical settings. Doctors use it to screen for weight-related health risks during checkups. A high BMI might prompt further tests, like blood pressure, cholesterol, or glucose levels, to assess conditions like metabolic syndrome. Public health officials rely on BMI to monitor obesity trends, allocate resources, and design interventions, such as anti-obesity campaigns or school nutrition programs.
For example, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) uses BMI data to track obesity rates in the U.S., reporting that over 40% of adults had a BMI of 30 or higher in 2017–2018. Such data drives policies to combat obesity-related diseases. Here you can check out statistics on obesity in the UK.
Reference: Hales, C. M., Carroll, M. D., Fryar, C. D., & Ogden, C. L. (2020). Prevalence of obesity and severe obesity among adults: United States, 2017–2018. NCHS Data Brief, (360).
Beyond Weight: BMI in Research and Policy
BMI’s simplicity makes it invaluable for research. It’s used in studies linking weight to outcomes like mortality, cardiovascular disease, or even mental health. For instance, a 2016 meta-analysis in The Lancet found that BMI above 25 increases mortality risk, reinforcing its role in health risk assessment.
In policy, BMI informs guidelines like dietary recommendations or workplace wellness programs. It’s also used in bariatric surgery eligibility, where a BMI of 35 or higher often qualifies patients for procedures.
Reference: Di Angelantonio, E., et al. (2016). Body-mass index and all-cause mortality: Individual-participant-data meta-analysis of 239 prospective studies in four continents. The Lancet, 388(10046), 776–786.
Strengths of BMI as a Health Standard
BMI’s rise to prominence isn’t just historical luck—it has real strengths. First, its simplicity is unmatched. Requiring only weight and height, it’s accessible to anyone with a scale and tape measure, making it practical for clinics, schools, or even home use.
Second, its standardization allows global comparisons. Researchers can study obesity trends from Tokyo to Toronto using the same metric.
Third, BMI’s correlation with health risks is well-documented. Higher BMIs are linked to conditions like type 2 diabetes, hypertension, and heart disease, making it a useful red flag for further investigation.
Limitations and Criticisms of BMI
Despite its widespread use, BMI isn’t flawless. It doesn’t measure body composition, meaning it can’t distinguish fat from muscle or bone. A bodybuilder with a BMI of 30 might be misclassified as obese despite low body fat.
It also ignores demographic differences—age, sex, and ethnicity affect body composition, yet BMI uses the same cutoffs for all adults. For example, Asian populations may face health risks at lower BMIs than Caucasians, prompting calls for adjusted thresholds.
Additionally, BMI overlooks fat distribution. Visceral fat around organs is more dangerous than subcutaneous fat, but BMI can’t tell the difference. Finally, its overreliance in medicine can lead to misjudgments. A “normal” BMI doesn’t guarantee health, and a high BMI doesn’t always mean disease. Critics argue that BMI should be paired with other metrics, like waist circumference or body fat percentage, for a fuller picture.
Reference: Deurenberg, P., Yap, M., & van Staveren, W. A. (1998). Body mass index and percent body fat: A meta-analysis among different ethnic groups. International Journal of Obesity, 22(12), 1164–1171.
The Future of BMI: Still Relevant?
As science advances, some question whether BMI will remain the gold standard. New tools like bioelectrical impedance or DEXA scans measure body fat directly, offering more precision. Yet, these methods are costly and less accessible, keeping BMI in the spotlight. The WHO and CDC continue to refine BMI’s use, exploring adjusted cutoffs for specific populations or combining it with metrics like waist-to-hip ratio.
BMI’s staying power lies in its balance of simplicity and utility. While not perfect, it’s a practical starting point for health conversations, from doctor’s offices to global health policies. Its evolution from a 19th-century statistic to a medical mainstay shows its adaptability, but it also reminds us to use it wisely—not as a verdict, but as a clue in the complex puzzle of health.
Conclusion
The journey of BMI from Adolphe Quetelet’s statistical musings to a global health standard is a testament to its versatility and simplicity. Born as a tool to measure the “average man,” it was reborn in the 20th century as a health metric, championed by Ancel Keys and adopted by giants like the WHO and NIH.
Today, it’s a cornerstone of medical screenings and public health, despite its limitations in capturing body composition or individual differences. By understanding BMI’s history and nuances, we can appreciate its role while advocating for a holistic approach to health, combining BMI with other tools for a clearer, more personalized picture.