This article highlights the benefits and drawbacks of BMI and correctly addressed that it has already been incorporated into various aspects of healthcare and management despite its over-simplification
For a full-fledged report of this study, the methodology, and results would have benefitted from a more in-depth reporting of the sources found and used for this synthesis. Nonetheless, the results appropriately highlighted the various additional metrics complementary to BMI to contextualise the individuals' health.
In the discussion, the author explored the current role of BMI and its questionable suitability as a screening tool. While this is both relevant and important, the use of BMI as a sole means of diagnosis is very uncommon and is typically used as a way to stratify individuals. With that said, the use of BMI does aid the diagnostic and management process, in that it can be used to support diagnoses and be used as additional information during risk stratification.
As re-iterated throughout the article, BMI is not perfect, its simplicity is inherently its weakness. The lack of consideration for genetics, other body parts' composition, and tissue type, etc, should always be considered during clinical care. Inappropriate referencing of an individuals' BMI would indeed contribute towards stigmatization. As highlighted, users of BMI should rely on evidence-based medicine to ensure that 'normal' and 'abnormal' ranges are differentiated to the best of our knowledge, using population-specific studies.
Another argument brought up here is that BMI out of 'normal' ranges leads to potentially-avoidable stigmatization, however, this is not necessarily the case. It may be arguable that discriminatory attitudes and unsolicited lifestyle advices are often faced by those with out-of-range BMIs, however, it is also difficult to separate the effects of in-person/physical encounters. E.g. it may be less likely for a body builder with BMI of 30 to be offered these opinions/comments as opposed to someone with a sedentary lifestyle. In short, the effects of stigmatization is likely multi-factorial too.
Overall, this article brings an important topic into the limelight and discusses the pitfalls of our general over-reliance on BMI. However, additional consideration can be given to the practical difficulties of moving from the simplicity offered by BMI and towards a multi-metric view of weight and body mass.
For a full-fledged report of this study, the methodology, and results would have benefitted from a more in-depth reporting of the sources found and used for this synthesis. Nonetheless, the results appropriately highlighted the various additional metrics complementary to BMI to contextualise the individuals' health.
In the discussion, the author explored the current role of BMI and its questionable suitability as a screening tool. While this is both relevant and important, the use of BMI as a sole means of diagnosis is very uncommon and is typically used as a way to stratify individuals. With that said, the use of BMI does aid the diagnostic and management process, in that it can be used to support diagnoses and be used as additional information during risk stratification.
As re-iterated throughout the article, BMI is not perfect, its simplicity is inherently its weakness. The lack of consideration for genetics, other body parts' composition, and tissue type, etc, should always be considered during clinical care. Inappropriate referencing of an individuals' BMI would indeed contribute towards stigmatization. As highlighted, users of BMI should rely on evidence-based medicine to ensure that 'normal' and 'abnormal' ranges are differentiated to the best of our knowledge, using population-specific studies.
Another argument brought up here is that BMI out of 'normal' ranges leads to potentially-avoidable stigmatization, however, this is not necessarily the case. It may be arguable that discriminatory attitudes and unsolicited lifestyle advices are often faced by those with out-of-range BMIs, however, it is also difficult to separate the effects of in-person/physical encounters. E.g. it may be less likely for a body builder with BMI of 30 to be offered these opinions/comments as opposed to someone with a sedentary lifestyle. In short, the effects of stigmatization is likely multi-factorial too.
Overall, this article brings an important topic into the limelight and discusses the pitfalls of our general over-reliance on BMI. However, additional consideration can be given to the practical difficulties of moving from the simplicity offered by BMI and towards a multi-metric view of weight and body mass.
