If you have ever stepped on a scale, calculated your BMI, and felt confused about what the number actually means for your health, you are not alone. BMI (Body Mass Index) has been the go-to metric for assessing whether someone is at a "healthy weight" for nearly 200 years. But in recent decades, body fat percentage has emerged as a rival metric that many experts argue is far more meaningful.
So which one should you actually trust? The answer is more nuanced than you might expect. In this comprehensive guide, we break down exactly what each metric measures, when they agree, when they disagree, and how you can use both to make smarter decisions about your health.
What BMI Actually Measures
Body Mass Index, or BMI, is a simple mathematical formula that divides your weight in kilograms by the square of your height in meters (kg/m²). It was originally developed by Belgian mathematician Adolphe Quetelet in 1832 — not as a health tool, but as a way to describe the "average man" for population-level statistics. It was not until the 1970s that physiologist Ancel Keys proposed using BMI as a tool for categorizing obesity in individuals.
BMI produces a single number that places you into one of several categories defined by the World Health Organization (WHO):
- Underweight: BMI below 18.5
- Normal weight: BMI 18.5 to 24.9
- Overweight: BMI 25.0 to 29.9
- Obese Class I: BMI 30.0 to 34.9
- Obese Class II: BMI 35.0 to 39.9
- Obese Class III: BMI 40.0 and above
What BMI Does Well
BMI is a useful population-level screening tool. It requires only two easily measured inputs (height and weight), making it incredibly accessible. You do not need specialized equipment, a trained technician, or a clinical visit. For large epidemiological studies tracking obesity trends across millions of people, BMI remains invaluable because of its simplicity and consistency.
At the population level, higher BMI correlates with increased risk for type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, certain cancers, and all-cause mortality. This statistical association is well-established across decades of research involving millions of participants.
What BMI Gets Wrong
The fundamental limitation of BMI is that it measures total mass relative to height — it has absolutely no ability to distinguish between muscle mass, fat mass, bone density, or water weight. A kilogram of muscle and a kilogram of fat are treated identically. This means BMI can paint a deeply misleading picture for many individuals, including athletes, the elderly, and people with unusual body compositions.
BMI is a screening tool, not a diagnostic tool. It works well for identifying weight trends in large populations but can significantly misrepresent the health status of individuals — particularly those who are muscular, elderly, or of certain ethnic backgrounds.
What Body Fat Percentage Measures
Body fat percentage is exactly what it sounds like: the proportion of your total body weight that consists of fat tissue. If you weigh 80 kg and have 16 kg of fat, your body fat percentage is 20%. Unlike BMI, this metric directly quantifies body composition — the relative amounts of fat mass versus lean mass (muscle, bone, organs, water).
Body fat categories, as defined by the American Council on Exercise (ACE), differ by gender because women naturally carry more essential fat for reproductive and hormonal function:
Body Fat Categories for Men
- Essential fat: 2–5%
- Athlete: 6–13%
- Fitness: 14–17%
- Average: 18–24%
- Obese: 25% and above
Body Fat Categories for Women
- Essential fat: 10–13%
- Athlete: 14–20%
- Fitness: 21–24%
- Average: 25–31%
- Obese: 32% and above
Body fat percentage provides a much richer picture of what is happening inside your body. Two individuals can weigh exactly the same and have identical BMIs, yet one might have 15% body fat (lean and muscular) while the other has 30% body fat (carrying excess adipose tissue). Their health risks would be vastly different, but BMI would classify them identically.
The Role of Fat Distribution
Not all body fat is created equal. Visceral fat, the fat stored deep within the abdominal cavity around organs, is far more metabolically dangerous than subcutaneous fat (the fat beneath your skin). Visceral fat secretes inflammatory cytokines and hormones that contribute to insulin resistance, cardiovascular disease, and metabolic syndrome. Body fat percentage alone does not tell you where your fat is stored, but it gets you much closer to understanding your true health risk than BMI does.
Body fat percentage directly measures the proportion of fat in your body, making it fundamentally more informative than BMI for assessing individual health. However, it requires more sophisticated measurement techniques and still does not reveal fat distribution.
Head-to-Head Comparison: BMI vs Body Fat Percentage
Below is a detailed side-by-side comparison of the two metrics across every dimension that matters for practical health assessment.
| Criteria | BMI | Body Fat % |
|---|---|---|
| What it measures | Weight relative to height (total mass) | Proportion of body mass that is fat |
| Differentiates fat from muscle? | No | Yes |
| Ease of measurement | Very easy — only height and weight needed | Varies by method (easy to complex) |
| Cost | Free (scale + tape measure) | Free (BMI formula) to $100+ (DEXA scan) |
| Accuracy for individuals | Poor for muscular, elderly, and certain ethnic groups | Good to excellent (depends on method) |
| Population-level usefulness | Excellent — standard in epidemiological research | Limited — harder to collect at scale |
| Accounts for gender? | No (same cutoffs for men and women) | Yes (different categories by gender) |
| Accounts for age? | No (same cutoffs for 20-year-olds and 70-year-olds) | Partially (norms shift with age) |
| Accounts for ethnicity? | Asian-specific cutoffs exist (WHO WPRO) | Less researched across ethnicities |
| Tracks fitness progress? | Poor — gaining muscle can increase BMI | Excellent — shows fat loss vs muscle gain |
| Health risk prediction | Moderate (better with waist circumference) | Good (especially with distribution data) |
| Used in clinical settings? | Yes — globally standardized by WHO | Sometimes — not universally standardized |
| When to use | Quick screening, population studies, general tracking | Fitness goals, body recomposition, individual health |
As the table makes clear, neither metric is universally "better" — they serve different purposes. BMI excels in accessibility and population research, while body fat percentage provides far superior insight into individual body composition.
Calculate Your BMI & Body Fat Side by Side
Enter your details below to instantly see both your BMI and estimated body fat percentage, with color-coded gauges showing where you fall in each scale.
Your BMI
Estimated Body Fat
What Your Numbers Mean Together
When BMI and Body Fat Disagree
BMI and body fat percentage frequently tell different stories. Understanding when and why they diverge is critical for interpreting your own numbers correctly. Here are the most common scenarios where the two metrics disagree.
The Muscular Athlete: High BMI, Low Body Fat
This is the most widely cited limitation of BMI. A 180 cm (5'11") male who weighs 95 kg (209 lbs) of mostly muscle would have a BMI of 29.3 — classified as "overweight" and nearly "obese" by WHO standards. Yet a DEXA scan might reveal body fat of just 12%, placing him firmly in the "athlete" category. This scenario is not rare: a study by Romero-Corral et al. (2008) in the International Journal of Obesity found that BMI misclassified approximately 48% of women and 25% of men when compared to body fat percentage measurements.
Professional athletes in sports like rugby, American football, sprinting, and weightlifting routinely have BMIs in the "obese" range despite having excellent metabolic health markers and low body fat. For these individuals, BMI is not just inaccurate — it is actively misleading.
Skinny Fat: Normal BMI, High Body Fat
On the opposite end of the spectrum, "skinny fat" (clinically termed normal weight obesity or metabolically obese normal weight) describes individuals who maintain a normal BMI of 18.5–24.9 but carry excess body fat, typically due to low muscle mass. A 170 cm (5'7") female weighing 62 kg (137 lbs) has a BMI of 21.5 — solidly "normal." But if her body fat is 35%, she is in the obese range by body composition standards.
Research published in the European Heart Journal (2010) found that people with normal BMI but central obesity (excess belly fat) had the highest cardiovascular mortality risk — even higher than those classified as obese by BMI. This is profoundly important: these individuals are invisible to BMI-based screening and may receive false reassurance about their health.
Normal weight obesity is particularly common in:
- Sedentary individuals who rarely exercise
- People who have lost weight through extreme caloric restriction without strength training
- Individuals of South Asian descent, who tend to carry more visceral fat at lower BMIs
- Women after menopause, when body composition shifts toward higher fat and lower muscle
The Elderly: Shifting Composition with Age
Aging fundamentally changes body composition. Even if an older adult maintains the same weight they had at age 30, they are likely to have significantly more body fat and significantly less muscle mass — a process called sarcopenia. Studies show that adults lose approximately 3–8% of muscle mass per decade after age 30, with the rate accelerating after age 60.
A 70-year-old man with a BMI of 24 (normal) may have a body fat percentage of 28–30%, which places him in the "average" to "obese" range. BMI sees a "healthy" weight; body fat percentage reveals the underlying loss of lean tissue that increases his risk for falls, fractures, metabolic disease, and reduced functional independence.
Ethnic and Genetic Variation
BMI cutoffs were developed primarily using data from White European populations. Research has consistently shown that these cutoffs do not apply equally across ethnicities. South Asian and East Asian populations tend to carry more body fat at lower BMIs, which is why the WHO Western Pacific Region recommends lower overweight cutoffs (23 instead of 25) for Asian populations. Conversely, some Pacific Islander and Polynesian populations carry more lean mass at higher BMIs. Body fat percentage, while not immune to biological variation, at least directly measures what matters — the actual fat.
BMI and body fat diverge most dramatically for muscular individuals, those with low muscle mass ("skinny fat"), the elderly, and people of certain ethnic backgrounds. If you fall into any of these groups, relying on BMI alone could significantly misrepresent your health status.
Body Fat Measurement Methods Compared
If body fat percentage is the more informative metric, how do you actually measure it? The accuracy of your body fat reading depends heavily on the method used. Here is a practical breakdown of every major technique, ranked from most to least accurate.
| Method | Accuracy (Error Range) | Cost | Accessibility | Best For |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| DEXA Scan | +/- 1–2% | $40–$150 per scan | Clinical / specialized facilities | Gold standard reference, medical assessment |
| Hydrostatic Weighing | +/- 1.5–2.5% | $30–$100 per session | University labs, specialized facilities | Research, high-precision tracking |
| Bod Pod (ADP) | +/- 1.5–2.5% | $30–$75 per session | Gyms, universities, sports labs | Athletes, comfortable alternative to underwater |
| US Navy Method | +/- 1–3% | Free (tape measure only) | Home — self-measurement | Free tracking, military fitness standards |
| Skinfold Calipers | +/- 3–4% | $10–$30 (calipers) or free at gym | Home, gym, personal trainers | Affordable tracking, trained tester needed |
| BMI-Based Estimation | +/- 3–5% | Free | Anywhere (just height, weight, age, sex) | Quick estimates when no other method available |
| BIA Scales / Devices | +/- 3–8% | $25–$200 (one-time device purchase) | Home — smart scales widely available | Trend tracking over time (not absolute accuracy) |
DEXA (Dual-Energy X-ray Absorptiometry)
DEXA scanning is widely considered the clinical gold standard for body composition analysis. It uses two different energy X-ray beams to differentiate between bone mineral, lean tissue, and fat tissue throughout the entire body. A full scan takes about 10–20 minutes and exposes you to minimal radiation (roughly one-tenth of a chest X-ray). Beyond total body fat percentage, DEXA also reveals regional fat distribution — showing you exactly where fat is concentrated, including visceral fat around your organs.
Bioelectrical Impedance Analysis (BIA)
BIA devices (including most "smart" bathroom scales) send a small electrical current through your body and measure the resistance. Since fat tissue conducts electricity differently than lean tissue, the device estimates body composition. While convenient and affordable, BIA is highly sensitive to hydration status: drinking water, exercising, eating, or even the time of day can swing readings by 3–5% or more. For this reason, BIA is best used for tracking trends over weeks and months rather than trusting any single reading.
The US Navy Circumference Method
Developed by Hodgdon and Beckett in 1984, this method uses circumference measurements (neck, waist, and hips for women) along with height to estimate body fat using a logarithmic formula. With an accuracy of +/- 1–3% compared to DEXA, it offers a remarkably good result for a free, at-home method. The key is taking consistent, accurate measurements at the same time of day using a flexible tape measure. Our Body Fat Calculator uses this method alongside the BMI-based Deurenberg formula for comparison.
Skinfold Measurements
Skinfold calipers pinch and measure the thickness of subcutaneous fat at specific body sites (typically 3, 4, or 7 sites depending on the protocol). A skilled, experienced tester can achieve accuracy of +/- 3–4%. However, accuracy drops substantially with inexperienced testers, very lean individuals, or those with very high body fat. The Jackson-Pollock 3-site and 7-site equations are the most commonly used formulas.
BMI Can Misclassify 20–30% of People
One of the most compelling arguments for using body fat percentage over BMI comes from misclassification research. When researchers compare BMI categories to body fat measurements from DEXA scans, the disagreement rates are striking.
A landmark 2012 study published in PLoS ONE by Shah and Braverman examined over 1,300 adults and found that BMI misclassified 25% of men and 48% of women compared to body fat percentage. Specifically:
- 29% of subjects classified as "normal weight" by BMI actually had body fat levels in the obese range. These individuals would pass BMI-based screening with flying colors while carrying significant metabolic risk.
- 16% of those classified as "obese" by BMI were actually in a healthy body fat range, predominantly muscular individuals being falsely labeled.
- Women were particularly likely to be misclassified: BMI failed to identify obesity (as defined by body fat) in nearly half of all cases.
A separate meta-analysis by Okorodudu et al. (2010) in the International Journal of Obesity reviewed 25 studies and found that BMI-defined obesity (BMI of 30 or higher) had high specificity (95%) but low sensitivity (50%). In plain language: if BMI says you are obese, you probably are. But if BMI says you are not obese, there is roughly a 50% chance it is wrong — you might still have excess body fat.
Who Gets Misclassified Most Often?
- Women are misclassified nearly twice as often as men, partly because BMI uses the same cutoffs for both genders despite women having higher essential body fat.
- Older adults are frequently misclassified because they lose muscle mass with age, meaning their body fat may be high even at a "normal" BMI.
- Physically active people with above-average muscle mass are often falsely classified as overweight or obese.
- Asian populations tend to have higher body fat at the same BMI compared to European populations, leading to underdiagnosis of obesity-related risk when standard BMI cutoffs are used.
Research consistently shows that BMI misclassifies 20–30% of the population, with the worst accuracy for women, the elderly, athletes, and certain ethnic groups. BMI is good at confirming obesity but poor at ruling it out.
Which Is Better for Health Risk Prediction?
Both BMI and body fat percentage are used to predict health outcomes, but which one does a better job? The answer depends on what health outcome you are looking at.
Cardiovascular Disease
A large 2016 study published in the Annals of Internal Medicine by Sahakyan et al. followed over 15,000 adults and found that those with normal BMI but central obesity (high waist-to-hip ratio, a proxy for high body fat) had the highest cardiovascular mortality rate — double that of people with similar BMI but lower body fat. This finding was particularly strong in men. Body fat distribution, especially abdominal fat, appears to be more predictive of heart disease than total body weight.
Type 2 Diabetes
Body fat percentage, particularly visceral fat, is a strong predictor of insulin resistance and type 2 diabetes risk. A 2019 study in Diabetes Care found that body fat percentage added significant predictive value beyond BMI for identifying pre-diabetes. However, waist circumference — a simpler measure that correlates with visceral fat — was nearly as predictive as body fat percentage for diabetes risk.
All-Cause Mortality
The relationship between body fat and mortality is complex. While high body fat clearly increases mortality risk, the "obesity paradox" in BMI-based research suggests that mildly "overweight" individuals (BMI 25–30) sometimes have lower mortality than "normal" weight individuals. This paradox largely dissolves when body fat percentage is used instead of BMI: a 2014 meta-analysis in Progress in Cardiovascular Diseases found that high body fat was consistently associated with increased mortality regardless of BMI category, and that the obesity paradox was largely an artifact of BMI's inability to distinguish fat from lean mass.
The Case for Combining Metrics
Perhaps the most important finding in recent research is that no single metric captures the full picture. A 2021 systematic review in Obesity Reviews concluded that combining BMI with at least one measure of body composition (body fat percentage, waist circumference, or waist-to-height ratio) significantly improved the prediction of cardiometabolic risk compared to using any single metric alone.
Body fat percentage generally outperforms BMI for predicting individual health risks, especially cardiovascular disease and diabetes. However, the best approach combines multiple metrics: BMI, body fat percentage, and waist circumference together provide the most reliable health risk assessment.
Using Both Together for a Complete Picture
Rather than choosing one metric over the other, the smartest approach is to use BMI and body fat percentage together. Each fills in the gaps left by the other, and their combined interpretation reveals patterns that neither can show alone.
The Four Quadrants of BMI + Body Fat
When you plot BMI category against body fat category, four distinct profiles emerge:
- Normal BMI + Normal Body Fat: This is the ideal scenario. Your weight is proportional to your height, and your body composition is healthy. Standard health maintenance advice applies — regular exercise, balanced nutrition, routine checkups.
- High BMI + Normal/Low Body Fat: This is the "athletic" profile. You carry significant muscle mass that elevates your BMI, but your actual body fat is healthy or low. Your BMI is not a health concern; focus on maintaining your fitness routine and monitoring cardiovascular health markers through blood work.
- Normal BMI + High Body Fat: This is the "skinny fat" profile, and it is arguably the most dangerous because it often goes undetected. Despite a reassuring BMI, you have excess fat and insufficient muscle. Priority actions include strength training to build lean mass, increasing protein intake, and getting cardiovascular health markers checked (blood pressure, cholesterol, fasting glucose).
- High BMI + High Body Fat: Both metrics agree that there is excess fat. This is the most straightforward scenario for health intervention, and the combined signal provides strong motivation for lifestyle changes focused on both reducing fat and building or preserving muscle through resistance training combined with moderate caloric deficit.
Adding Waist Circumference for a Third Dimension
For an even more complete picture, add waist circumference to the mix. A waist measurement above 94 cm (37 inches) for men or 80 cm (31.5 inches) for women indicates elevated visceral fat risk, regardless of BMI or total body fat. The waist-to-height ratio — keeping your waist circumference below half your height — is one of the simplest and most effective health screening tools available. Our Waist-to-Hip Ratio Calculator can help you assess abdominal fat distribution.
Practical Recommendations by Goal
Different health and fitness goals call for different measurement strategies. Here is a practical guide for which metrics to prioritize based on what you are trying to achieve.
Goal: Weight Loss
If your primary goal is losing excess body fat, body fat percentage is far more useful than BMI for tracking progress. Here is why: when you combine caloric deficit with strength training (the optimal approach for sustainable fat loss), you often lose fat while simultaneously gaining some muscle. On the scale, your weight may not change dramatically, and your BMI may barely budge — but your body fat percentage will drop while your lean mass increases. This is called body recomposition, and it is one of the most beneficial things you can do for long-term health. BMI would show you "no progress," while body fat percentage reveals substantial improvement.
Recommended metrics: Body fat percentage (primary), waist circumference, progress photos. Use BMI as a secondary reference point, but do not rely on it alone.
Goal: Muscle Building
For those focused on gaining muscle mass (whether for aesthetics, athletic performance, or healthy aging), BMI will inevitably increase and may move you into "overweight" territory. This is expected and not a cause for concern, provided your body fat remains in a healthy range. Tracking body fat percentage ensures you are gaining mostly lean mass rather than excessive fat during a caloric surplus ("bulking") phase.
Recommended metrics: Body fat percentage (primary), lean body mass (from DEXA or calculated), strength benchmarks. BMI is largely irrelevant for this goal.
Goal: General Health Maintenance
For everyday health monitoring without specific fitness goals, using BMI as a quick screening tool is perfectly reasonable — it requires zero special equipment and takes seconds. However, if your BMI falls in the "normal" range but you are sedentary, over 40, or have a family history of diabetes or heart disease, it is worth getting a body fat percentage reading to check for hidden metabolic risk ("skinny fat" syndrome).
Recommended metrics: BMI (quick screen), annual body fat check (Navy method or BIA scale for trends), waist circumference, regular blood work (blood pressure, lipids, fasting glucose, HbA1c).
Goal: Athletic Performance
Competitive athletes should largely ignore BMI and focus on sport-specific body composition targets. Endurance athletes typically perform best at lower body fat percentages (6–15% for men, 12–22% for women), while strength and power athletes may carry slightly more fat while maintaining high lean mass. DEXA scans every 3–6 months provide the most useful data for optimizing performance-related body composition.
Recommended metrics: Body fat percentage (DEXA if available), lean body mass, sport-specific performance metrics. BMI is not useful.
Goal: Healthy Aging
For adults over 60, preserving muscle mass becomes as important as managing body fat. The age-related loss of muscle (sarcopenia) increases fall risk, reduces functional independence, and worsens metabolic health. BMI often masks sarcopenia because declining muscle and increasing fat can offset each other on the scale. Body fat percentage, combined with grip strength and functional fitness tests, provides a much more meaningful picture of aging health.
Recommended metrics: Body fat percentage, lean body mass, grip strength, walking speed, balance tests. BMI alone is misleading for this population.
Your ideal tracking strategy depends on your goals. For weight loss and athletic performance, prioritize body fat percentage. For general health screening, BMI is a useful starting point but should be supplemented with body composition data. For healthy aging, tracking lean mass is as important as tracking fat.
Frequently Asked Questions
Yes, body fat percentage is generally more accurate than BMI for assessing body composition because it directly measures the proportion of fat in your body. BMI only relates weight to height and cannot distinguish between muscle, bone, water, and fat mass. However, the accuracy of body fat measurements depends heavily on the method used — DEXA scans are accurate to within 1–2%, while bioelectrical impedance (BIA) scales can be off by 3–8%. For the most reliable picture, use body fat percentage from a proven method alongside BMI rather than relying on either alone.
Yes, this condition is known as "normal weight obesity" or "skinny fat" (medically called metabolically obese normal weight, or MONW). Research published in the European Heart Journal found that approximately 30% of people with a normal BMI have excess body fat. These individuals carry a higher risk for type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and metabolic syndrome despite appearing to be at a healthy weight by BMI standards. Sedentary lifestyle, aging, and inadequate protein intake are common contributing factors.
BMI uses a simple formula (weight divided by height squared) that does not differentiate between types of body mass. Muscle tissue is denser than fat tissue, so a muscular individual weighs more than a non-muscular person of the same height. This extra muscle mass inflates their BMI into the "overweight" or even "obese" range, even though their actual body fat percentage may be in the athlete or fitness category. Studies show BMI misclassifies roughly 10% of men and 20–30% of physically active individuals due to this limitation.
DEXA (Dual-Energy X-ray Absorptiometry) is considered the clinical gold standard for body fat measurement, with accuracy within 1–2%. Hydrostatic (underwater) weighing and the Bod Pod (air displacement plethysmography) are also highly accurate at 1.5–2.5% error. For home use, the US Navy circumference method (accurate to 1–3%) and skinfold calipers (3–4% when done by a skilled tester) are practical, affordable options. BIA scales are the most convenient but least accurate, with 3–8% error depending on hydration status. Choose your method based on budget, accessibility, and whether you need absolute accuracy or just consistent trend tracking.
For most people, measuring body fat every 4–8 weeks provides a good balance between tracking progress and avoiding frustration from day-to-day fluctuations. Always measure at the same time of day, under similar conditions (e.g., morning, fasted, well-hydrated). If you are using a BIA scale, daily fluctuations of 1–3% are normal due to changes in hydration, so focus on trends over weeks rather than individual readings. For DEXA scans, every 3–6 months is sufficient given the cost and the relatively slow rate of body composition change.
Research suggests that body fat percentage and waist circumference are better predictors of cardiovascular disease risk than BMI alone. A 2016 study in the Annals of Internal Medicine found that individuals with normal BMI but high body fat (central obesity) had the highest mortality risk. However, BMI is still a useful population-level screening tool. For individual health risk assessment, combining BMI with body fat percentage and waist circumference provides the most complete and accurate picture of cardiovascular risk.
Target body fat depends on your gender, age, and fitness goals. For men: essential fat is 2–5%, athletes 6–13%, fitness 14–17%, average 18–24%, and obese is 25%+. For women: essential fat is 10–13%, athletes 14–20%, fitness 21–24%, average 25–31%, and obese is 32%+. For general health, men should aim for 10–20% and women for 18–28%. Extremely low body fat can be as harmful as excess fat — dropping below essential fat levels can cause hormonal disruption, immune suppression, and bone loss. Consult a healthcare provider before pursuing very low body fat targets.
Yes. BMI can misclassify individuals who are very muscular, very tall, very short, elderly, or have unusual body proportions. Body fat percentage can also be inaccurate depending on the measurement method, hydration level, recent exercise, and individual biological variation. Even DEXA scans have a 1–2% margin of error, and BIA scales can be off by as much as 8%. No single metric perfectly captures health — the best approach is to use multiple measurements (BMI, body fat, waist circumference, blood work) and track trends over time rather than relying on any single number.
Medical Disclaimer
The information and calculators on this page are provided for educational and informational purposes only and are not intended as a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. BMI and body fat estimates are screening tools with known limitations. Always consult a qualified healthcare provider before making decisions about your health, diet, or exercise program. Individual results may vary based on factors not captured by these calculations.
References
- Shah NR, Braverman ER. "Measuring adiposity in patients: the utility of body mass index (BMI), percent body fat, and leptin." PLoS ONE. 2012;7(4):e33308.
- Romero-Corral A, Somers VK, Sierra-Johnson J, et al. "Accuracy of body mass index in diagnosing obesity in the adult general population." International Journal of Obesity. 2008;32(6):959-966.
- Sahakyan KR, Somers VK, Rodriguez-Escudero JP, et al. "Normal-weight central obesity: implications for total and cardiovascular mortality." Annals of Internal Medicine. 2015;163(11):827-835.
- Okorodudu DO, Jumean MF, Montori VM, et al. "Diagnostic performance of body mass index to identify obesity as defined by body adiposity: a systematic review and meta-analysis." International Journal of Obesity. 2010;34(5):791-799.
- Deurenberg P, Weststrate JA, Seidell JC. "Body mass index as a measure of body fatness: age- and sex-specific prediction formulas." British Journal of Nutrition. 1991;65(2):105-114.
- Hodgdon JA, Beckett MB. "Prediction of percent body fat for U.S. Navy men and women from body circumferences and height." Naval Health Research Center, Report No. 84-29. 1984.
- Lavie CJ, De Schutter A, Parto P, et al. "Obesity and prevalence of cardiovascular diseases and prognosis—the obesity paradox updated." Progress in Cardiovascular Diseases. 2016;58(5):537-547.
- World Health Organization. "Obesity: preventing and managing the global epidemic." WHO Technical Report Series 894. Geneva: WHO; 2000.
Was this article helpful?