Better BMI For Tall People and Short People 28


The Body Mass Index (BMI) does not work well for short people nor for tall people. The alternative proposed in this article is the Better Body Mass Index (BBMI). Below is a calculator that demonstrates the BBMI.

Units: imperial metric
Height:
Weight:
Exponent:


 

UnderweightBMI (BBMI) <= 18.5
Normal weightBMI (BBMI) = 18.5–24.9
OverweightBMI (BBMI) = 25–29.9
ObesityBMI (BBMI) >= 30

The US National Institutes of Health (NIH) advises that excessive body fat corresponds with a higher risk of various diseases including heart disease, high blood pressure, type 2 diabetes, gallstones, breathing problems, and certain cancers [1]. The NIH suggests using the Body Mass Index (BMI) in combination with the above evaluation table to assess the healthiness of body mass. The metric and imperial versions of the BMI are as follows:

Metric (kg and m):BMI = Mass ÷ Height2
Imperial (lbs and in):BMI = 703 x Mass ÷ Height2

The formula for the BMI was first conceived by Adolphe Quitelet  (then known as the Quitelet index) and related in such works as, “A Treatise On Man”. The formula became known as the BMI after Ancel Keys’ 1972 publication, “Indices of relative weight and obesity” [2]. Its simplicity was a primary factor in its rise in popularity. Despite this simplicity though, and advancements in computing, it is still used today for such tasks as determining insurance premiums.

A Better BMI for Short and Tall People

A common criticism of the BMI is that it disregards body composition. Muscle is denser than fat, and thus a muscular person may have a misleadingly high BMI despite having a body fat content not unconducive to good health. This short coming limits the usefulness of the index. Another issue is that the BMI is not specific to gender nor ethnicity, despite women generally having a higher body fat percentage and healthy BMI varying between ethnicities (Asians with increased BMI are at greater risk for type 2 diabetes [3]).

For both short and tall people, there is yet another problem, and that is that the relationship between mass and height suggested by the BMI formula may be in error. Though there have been studies finding the implied quadratic relationship [4], there are many that report higher order relationships, as far up as cubic [5]. So while the BMI predicts that humans scale in two dimensions, much like a sheet of paper might, the cubic relationship would imply that humans scale isometrically (proportions are maintained). Yet, taller people tend to appear skinnier than shorter people (proportions are not maintained). It is most likely that humans scale somewhere in between quadratic and cubic, as some studies have found [6].

The Better Body Mass Index (BBMI), proposed in this article, compromises between quadratic and cubic by incorporating a 2.5 exponent in the formula. A correction factor is also applied to ensure that average height people wind up with a BBMI equal to their BMI. The metric and imperial versions of the BBMI are as follows:

Metric (kg and m):BBMI = 1.3 x Mass ÷ Height2.5
Imperial (lbs and in):BBMI = 917 x Mass ÷ Height2.5

A 2.5 exponent is merely an estimate. The true exponent likely varies for ethnicity, gender, and many other variables. For this reason, the calculator provided at the beginning of this article provides a field for alternate exponents. Note, though, that for whatever exponent is entered for an average height person with a given weight, the reported BBMI remains the same.

By using the BBMI, short and tall people should be less likely to be marked as underweight and overweight, respectively. However, the other issues with strictly mass and height indices remain, such as not accounting for body composition. In reality, such indices are better suited for population studies rather than assessing the healthiness of an individual’s weight. A better alternative for individuals is a fat measuring caliper.

[1] National Institute of Health, Assessing Your Weight and Health Risk.
[2] Indices of relative weight and obesity, Journal of Chronic Disease
[3] Ethnicity, obesity, and risk of type 2 diabetes in women: a 20-year follow-up study
[4] Weight-height relationships and body mass index: some observations from the Diverse Populations
[5] Human allometry: adult bodies are more nearly geometrically similar than regression analysis has suggested
[6] Why is the body mass index calculated as mass/height2, not as mass/height3?


Leave a comment

Comments go through moderation, please check back in about a day, thanks!

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

28 thoughts on “Better BMI For Tall People and Short People

  • Dave

    OK, but with the new formula, are shorter people still more likely to have obesity than taller people (in a common population, ethnicity, SES, etc)?

    • Tall Life Post author

      Depends on the definition I suppose. People do tend to get relatively narrower as they get taller, so I’d personally wager a guess yes.

  • Maari Oldham

    I think the range for tall people is too large for normal BMI and this calculator does not fix this problem. I’m tall and have been thin my whole life, I know what a healthy weight is for me. At 5 feet, 11 inches to stay in the normal range I can gain or lose up to 43 pounds. I think this range is too large. I feel fat or too skinny even if I have gained or lost 10 pounds from what I think my ideal weight is.

    • Smallish normal

      Yes, absolutely, why not?

      I am 5ft2 and according to normal BMI measures I am underweight if I drop below 100lbs or so. Yet at my current 98lbs I do not look underweight at all, slim not bony, 30DD bra, 23.5″ waist, periods regular. And no I’m not skinny fat, I’ve got decent muscle mass and low visceral fat. So yes, a 5ft lady could easily be perfectly healthy at 90lbs, especially if she is small framed.

      Normal BMI charts definitely underweigh the petite. Apparently I’d not be “overweight” til I reached 135lbs, which is a stretch. The most I’ve ever been is 120lbs and I felt on the curvy side then. I’d consider myself “chubby” (ie slightly overweight) at 125-130lbs

      I think that perhaps everyone is so big now that we have lost sight of what “underweight” actually is. Skinny doesn’t necessarily mean underweight or unhealthy.

    • Jack

      I think the range is too large for any individual person, but a 5’7″, large framed and very muscular woman could conceivably weigh 43 pounds more than a thin and small-framed woman of the same height and they could have similar body fat percentages. Smallish normal says she looks normal at 98 pounds, while I am 5’0 and people thought I looked emaciated at 110 pounds because I have a large frame. 115 – 120 is the ideal range for me personally, even though it might be technically overweight on the short person BMI scale

  • Stargate

    say i am 6’5″. say i am 209 lbs. I find that to be at 24.8 BMI using the traditional measure (exp of 2). if i then change the exponent to 2.5 and multiply by 1.3 i get 30.16 BBMI. Please explain to me how BBMI is less likely to mark people as overweight who are tall?

    • Tall Life Post author

      BMI for a 6’5″ person weighing 209 lbs is 24.8. If you change the exponent to 2.5 (BBMI) as opposed to 2 (BMI), then result drops to 23.2, which suggests a healthier wight for that height. Hence the BBMI is less likely to suggest tall slim people to be overweight.

  • Me

    Wow, with this calculation you’re saying an adult female who is 5 foot could be 90 pounds & a healthy weight, not underweight…. Less than 6.5 stone… I don’t think there are many adults who would be healthy (or having periods) at under 6 1/2 stone…

    • Woman

      For an incredibly short woman such at that, yes. However, she would be in the absolute bottom of her healthy range, and right on the cusp of being underweight. In my personal opinion, that’s not a goal to strive for. Keep in mind that this is still not an exact measurement, but an improved indication over (traditional) BMI. A good goal for most people would be somewhere in the middle of the “healthy range”, which for her would be closer to 110-115 lbs.

      • tomine

        I am at that “incredibly short” height of 5 foot. I weigh 52.5 kg, which is in the healthy range of both BMI scales. However, I do have quite a bit of belly fat and slightly too big/fatty thighs and upper arms (but small breasts).

        I do not have a particularly narrow frame (rather the contrary!), and in my experience, 48-49 kg is what about right for me. I would think that for more narrow-framed women, an even lower weight (45 kg, for example) could be preferable.

        • Too tall

          Yet you are ok with the maximum healthy (not beauty contest winning, maximum healthy) weight for a 6’2 / 188 cm is like 193 pounds / 87 kg?

          BMI scales incorrectly for height. Tall people have been getting the short end (pun not intended) of the stick.

    • Tall Life Post author

      People tend not to scale isometrically (proportionally); anthropometric studies show that taller people tend to be relatively narrower and vice versa.

  • Jackie

    This does not work for me. I am a 4’8 adult female and I was super skinny at 110 lbs. This shows my BBMI was 27, still overweight.

    • em

      That’s because you would have been carrying excess body fat. 110lbs at your height is too large if you aren’t muscular. My mother at 5’4″ is on the thinner side of healthy at 115lbs, 8 inches taller than you.

    • Short woman

      Also short woman of 5ft here. And currently 115lbs and i can definitely say I could lose some weight. I feel heavy and tired, sluggish all the symptoms of someone carrying extra weight. I have no idea how you were super skinny at 4ft 8 and 110lbs. Even when i was toned and more muscular i was about 105lbs. Maybe you weighed yourself with a lot of clothes on?

    • Anonymous

      I’m a 4’8″ adult female too, and I was overweight at 105 lbs and had some chronic health issues. Every photo of me definitely looked much chubbier than women who had a similar, unadjusted BMI of 25. So I lost 20lbs through working out and changing eating habits, and my periods returned, chronic backpain went away, etc. Now I think I look more like women with an unadjusted BMI of 23, so am not definitely not skinny by any means but average. Maybe you have incredibly low bodyfat at the weight of 110. Mine’s 30%.

  • JR

    I am a 5’5″ 60 year old male and according to this I should be about 10 stone. I am presently 15 stone having got down from 17 and a half stone. At age 15 I was 10st 10lbs and played for my school rugby team, I ran 100m in under 12 seconds and was the fastest swimmer in my year at every distance. As an adult I continued playing sport, swimming and cycling into my 40’s when my weight increased to 13st plus, I was not as fast but I could still put in a good 90 minutes on the football pitch or several hours on the bike. More recently my ability to exercise was hindered by illness and my weight increased to almost 18 stone at one stage. I managed to get it down to where my BMI dropped below 35, I was teaching scuba diving so I had to. Even at that weight I was still fit with all the swimming and most of my young students had difficulty keeping up with me when swimming against currents. Quite honestly this BMI is a load of crap, any version of it. I had a friend who also taught diving and he was naturally tall and thin, he never had ant trouble passing the HSE Dive Medical. Sadly that was of no use to him when he had a tough swim back to shore and suffered a heart attack, a few weeks before we had a bit of a falling out and I was not there, he sent his student on ahead of himself. He always put others first and lost his life that day, so don’t try and tell me that any form of BMI calculation will work, it was never intended to be used in this way and is just a lazy useless tool for hopeless doctors and stupid insurance brokers.

  • Anonymous

    Swear to God at 6’5″ I am almost skin and bone yet the ordinary BMI scale says I am slightly overweight…
    I feel really sorry for women over 6′ tall as it is nothing short of insane for them to weigh less than 200lb

    • Anonymous

      I don’t know if I’d call it insane… certainly slender, but I don’t think it’s unreasonable. I’m a 6’4 fairly athletic man with a slight frame and I only weigh 165lb and I’m in good health.

      • Too tall

        Yeah but that means you’re in the middle or lower end of the healthy weight for your height. Saying someone 6’2 or 6’5 being overweight from a health perspective at 200 pounds is silly though. It’s certainly at the top (chubbier) range of what’s healthy, but you don’t expect someone at BMI 24.9 to be slender and someone at BMI 25.1 to be a total fat butt.

        Again BMI is not a beauty contest or an athletic competition. It’s the range of weights where significant health effects from weight related causes are unlikely (or outside of that range, significantly more likely).

    • Elizabeth

      uh… no. For a man to be 6’+ and 200lbs is actually a decent sized man, it really just depends how much of that weight is muscle and how much is fat. Women on average have higher body fat percentages than men due to the fact that most men have higher testosterone and androgen production than women, which the body uses as chemical catylists for increased bone and muscle growth. If a woman that would be 20-25% at 200lbs is still expected to be 200lbs to be considered healthy, then that would be a little bit on the extreme side. But more often than not, most women do not have these pretty extreme genetics for this muscle growth, which, by the way, don’t use BMI if you have a ffmi of higher than 22. It’s pointless.

  • stickman

    This TALL people calculation is better. I am 6′ 9″ and 245 lbs. Using the normal index it says I am (26.3) OVERWEIGHT. B/S. The tall index says I am (23.9) NORMAL. Most of mine friends say I am slightly skinny. One thing that both scales fail to take into fact is the bone structure. I am considered to be large frame so the scale should be adjusted for that.

    • Tall Life Post author

      Glad you found this one a better BMI. If there was an easy way to account for bone structure, that’d be in the equation too…

  • stay slim stay healthy

    The new formula is fine Still, most people these days are overweight, so the BMI still is a good reference (and so is the Bbmi…not a lot of difference).

    I am 6′ 4″ and run every day 6 km and weigh180, and think that the idea tall people can weigh 200+ is prevalent yet misguided. If you are past 200, your joints are working overtime.

    And yes, athletes may have larger muscle mass and weigh more….but the majority of pros today are on steroids and will also develop health issues.

  • Anon

    This is definitely better for tall people but still way off for short people. My ex-gf was 4’5″ and 89 lbs. This still shows her as being overweight even though she was so thin as to not be menstruating regularly. I have a friend who is 4’10” and 95 lbs. She doesn’t have an ounce to lose anywhere, but this shows her as being in the middle of the healthy range rather than near underweight.