.png)
"As a fitness professional, I’ve seen firsthand the transformative effects of body composition changes in patients undergoing treatment for metabolic diseases. While BMI has been a staple in assessing obesity and related health risks, its limitations are becoming increasingly apparent, particularly when we consider the nuanced needs of individual patients" Dan Lowry, Co-Founder, SANAMethod.
It’s time to shift the focus toward a more precise and clinically relevant measure: body fat percentage. This metric provides a clearer picture of metabolic health, informs more effective treatment strategies, and ultimately leads to better patient outcomes.
The Shortcomings of BMI in Clinical Practice
BMI, calculated as weight in kilograms divided by height in meters squared, has long been used to classify individuals into weight categories. However, this metric fails to account for key aspects of body composition that are crucial in the context of metabolic health:
No Distinction Between Fat and Lean Mass: BMI does not differentiate between fat mass and lean mass, such as muscle and bone. This is particularly problematic in cases where patients may have a higher muscle mass, leading to a higher BMI despite a low body fat percentage. Conversely, individuals with a normal BMI may have a high percentage of body fat, especially visceral fat, which is a significant risk factor for metabolic diseases.
Overlooked Variations in Body Composition: BMI does not consider the variations in body composition due to factors such as age, gender, and ethnicity. For example, older adults may have a stable BMI despite losing muscle mass and gaining fat, particularly around the abdomen. This change increases their risk for metabolic disorders, yet their BMI may not reflect this increased risk.
Inaccurate Risk Assessment: BMI is a generalised tool that can misclassify individuals’ health risks. For instance, individuals of Asian descent may have a higher risk of type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease at lower BMI levels compared to other ethnic groups, due to differences in body fat distribution. Using BMI alone in such cases could lead to underestimation of health risks and delayed intervention.
Poor Tracking of Progress: Imagine you’ve been toiling away in the gym, eating your lean meat and veggies and over the first 8 weeks of the protocol you only lose 1kg. What a demotivating disaster for all your time and effort. This is not unusual in the early stages of beginning a program that involves resistance training as the core modality of exercise. But, when we use body fat percentage changes as the metric for measuring progress, it's not unusual to see 5kg of fat loss, with a 4kg increase in lean tissue. This is a massive result with clear health implications that are missed when using BMI alone
The Case for Body Fat Percentage as a Primary Metric
Body fat percentage offers a more accurate assessment of an individual's metabolic health and provides actionable insights for treatment. Here’s why it should be the focus in clinical practice:
Direct Correlation with Metabolic Health: Unlike BMI, body fat percentage directly correlates with metabolic health risks. High levels of body fat, particularly visceral fat, are associated with insulin resistance, inflammation, and dyslipidemia—hallmarks of metabolic syndrome, type 2 diabetes, and cardiovascular disease. By monitoring body fat percentage, you can better assess your patients' metabolic risks and track improvements in response to treatment.
Precision in Treatment Monitoring: The goal of most metabolic disease treatments is to reduce body fat while preserving or increasing lean mass. This is particularly important because lean mass, especially muscle, plays a crucial role in glucose metabolism and overall metabolic function. Monitoring changes in body fat percentage provides a clearer indication of treatment success compared to BMI, which might remain unchanged or even increase as lean mass increases.
Tailored Interventions: Understanding a patient’s body fat percentage allows for more personalised treatment plans. For example, a patient with high visceral fat but a normal BMI might benefit more from targeted fat reduction strategies rather than general weight loss approaches. This specificity leads to more effective interventions and better patient outcomes.
Target Body Fat Percentages for Optimal Health
To reduce the risk of chronic diseases, specific body fat percentage targets should be aimed for:
Men: 10-20% body fat
Women: 18-28% body fat
These ranges are associated with lower risks of chronic diseases such as type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and certain cancers. Research has shown that maintaining body fat within these ranges improves insulin sensitivity, reduces systemic inflammation, and supports overall metabolic health.
Practical Application in Clinical Settings
Incorporating body fat percentage assessments into routine practice is feasible with tools such as dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DEXA), bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA), or even skinfold measurements. These methods provide essential data that can inform treatment plans and monitor progress more effectively than BMI alone.
For instance, in patients undergoing weight loss or metabolic disease management, a reduction in body fat percentage combined with maintenance or an increase in lean mass should be considered a primary indicator of treatment success. This approach not only provides a more accurate measure of patient progress but also helps set more meaningful goals, thereby improving patient adherence and long-term health outcomes.
Conclusion
While BMI has served as a useful tool for population-level health assessments, its limitations in individual clinical management—particularly in the context of metabolic diseases—are undeniable. Body fat percentage is a more precise and clinically relevant measure that can guide treatment decisions and improve patient outcomes. As we continue to refine our understanding of metabolic health, it is imperative that we move beyond BMI and adopt more effective measures such as body fat percentage to assess and monitor our patients’ progress.
By Dan Lowry,
Co-Founder SANAMethod
References
Romero-Corral, A., Somers, V. K., Sierra-Johnson, J., et al. (2008). Accuracy of body mass index in diagnosing obesity in the adult general population. International Journal of Obesity, 32(6), 959-966.
De Lorenzo, A., Bianchi, A., Maroni, P., et al. (2019). Adiposity rather than BMI determines metabolic risk. International Journal of Cardiology, 278, 88-92.
Lear, S. A., Humphries, K. H., Kohli, S., et al. (2007). Visceral adipose tissue accumulation differs according to ethnic background: results of the Multicultural Community Health Assessment Trial (M-CHAT). American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 86(2), 353-359.
Lee, S. Y., & Gallagher, D. (2008). Assessment methods in human body composition. Current Opinion in Clinical Nutrition and Metabolic Care, 11(5), 566-572.
Gallagher, D., Heymsfield, S. B., Heo, M., Jebb, S. A., Murgatroyd, P. R., & Sakamoto, Y. (2000). Healthy percentage body fat ranges: an approach for developing guidelines based on body mass index. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 72(3), 694-701.
Deurenberg, P., Yap, M., & van Staveren, W. A. (1998). Body mass index and percent body fat: a meta-analysis among different ethnic groups. International Journal of Obesity, 22(12), 1164-1171.
댓글