Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed. Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles. The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being wilfully misrepresented as published articles.
As a nurse working in coronary care, I am naturally concerned about
obesity and its effects on health. However, I wonder if we are using the
correct measure of obesity when we use the body mass index.
As it is currently calculated by dividing the weight of person by
the square of his/her height, it assumes that the two are proportional. I
have not been able to find any evidence or papers to show this to be the
case. In fact, logic suggests that weight will be proportional to volume,
which relates to the cube of height in a normally proportioned person, not
Thus, if two people of 1.7 metres and 1.9 metres tall respectively
have similar proportions and the former weighs 80 kg, then the latter
could be expected to weigh about 112 kg. Using the present method of
calculation, the shorter would have a body mass index of 27.7, in the
middle of the overweight range. However, the taller would have a body
mass index of nearly 31, and thus would be classified as obese.
Could it be the part of the present claimed increase in obesity is,
in fact, simply an increase in height?
I suggest that we need a new body mass index which relates to the
cube of height, or use the simple measure of girth divided by height.