BMI vs. BRI: A Shift in Assessing Obesity and Health Risks

 The 2024 Olympic Games in Paris, France, showcased incredible athletic talent.

One standout was a 27-year-old member of Team USA’s women’s rugby sevens, whose combination of speed and strength captivated audiences.

As she powered downfield, stiff-arming opponents, it seemed inconceivable to consider her overweight.

However, she revealed on TikTok that her weight of 200 pounds at 5 feet 10 inches classifies her as overweight by the body mass index (BMI).

BMI, a traditional metric for assessing obesity, measures height and weight but provides limited insight.

For athletes, BMI may be elevated despite minimal central adiposity, rendering it an inadequate tool, according to experts.

Another metric, the body roundness index (BRI), offers an alternative by excluding weight and focusing on waist and hip circumference relative to height.

BRI ranges from 1 to 20, estimating visceral adipose tissue and providing a nuanced assessment of body shape.

Studies link BRI to risks of metabolic syndrome, type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and all-cause mortality.

Despite its advantages, experts caution against replacing BMI entirely with BRI.

BMI remains a simple, accessible screening tool that initiates discussions about obesity.

In cases of borderline or high BMI, adding waist circumference or calculating BRI refines risk assessment.

BRI provides insights into fat distribution, particularly visceral adiposity, which poses significant health risks.

However, it cannot distinguish between visceral and subcutaneous fat, limiting its utility as a standalone measure.

BMI has historical roots dating back to 1832 and has long been criticized for its simplistic approach.

The American Medical Association (AMA) recognized BMI’s limitations, particularly its inability to account for racial, gender, and age variations.

The AMA recommends supplementing BMI with other measurements like waist circumference, body composition, and visceral fat assessments.

For midsection adiposity, a comprehensive approach includes clinical evaluation, waist-to-hip measurements, and possibly imaging.

Metrics like waist-to-height ratio can further enhance risk prediction for metabolic and cardiovascular conditions.

Primary care clinics often fail to accurately measure waist and hip circumferences, highlighting a need for improved practices.

---

Take-Home Points:

• BMI is a simple screening tool but has significant limitations in assessing obesity and health risks.
• BRI is a promising alternative that focuses on body shape and fat distribution rather than weight.
• Visceral adiposity poses greater health risks than subcutaneous fat and should be assessed carefully.
• Supplementing BMI with waist-to-hip or waist-to-height ratios improves risk evaluation.
• A comprehensive, individualized approach is essential for accurate obesity assessment and management.