Ignore BMI: Researchers Created a Simpler, More Accurate Method to Measure Your Body Fat
The most popular way for determining someone’s weight status at the moment is body mass index, or BMI. The relative fat mass index, or RFM, is a new and allegedly superior option, according to scientists.
The study team behind RFM claims it is more accurate than BMI and that it can also be calculated with only a tape measure, unlike BMI, which requires a set of scales.
In the case of RFM, your waist circumference in relation to your height is more important than your weight. That, according to the researchers, provides a better indication of whether or not a person’s body fat is at a healthy level.
According to main author Orison Woolcott of the Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in California, “We hoped to develop a more accurate, straightforward, and affordable approach to quantify body fat percentage without requiring specialized equipment.”
“Our findings showed that our new recipe was effective across a wide range of subjects. In comparison to several indices now employed in science and medicine, including the BMI, relative fat mass is a better indicator of body fatness.”
You must first divide your weight in kilos by your height in meters, then divide the result by your height once more to determine your BMI. This number can then be compared to a table of healthy weights for people of different heights; a normal BMI ranges from 18.5 to 25.
Experts have always acknowledged that it isn’t perfect because it doesn’t account for gender differences, doesn’t always reflect muscle mass effectively, and can produce inaccurate results for young children and the elderly.
However, BMI has proven to be a helpful abbreviation for monitoring issues like obesity over time and across communities. Even if it’s just a preliminary estimate, it can highlight potential health risks connected to someone’s weight.
Maybe this is BMI’s time now. You must measure your height and waist circumference, then enter the results into the following formula to determine your new RFM measurement:
MEN: 64 – (20 x height/waist circumference) = RFM
WOMEN: 76 – (20 x height/waist circumference) = RFM
The updated calculations also appear to be accurate. The RFM readings closely matched those obtained by a high-tech DXA body scan, which is widely regarded as the gold standard for assessing body tissue, bone, muscle, and fat. The study was based on data from 3,456 adult patients in the US.
And all it need is a tape measure. In other words, RFM was virtually as accurate an indicator of body fat as a specialized piece of medical equipment. Compared to the more than 300 other formulas the researchers investigated, the RFM computations were more precise.
The revised calculations are intended to make it easier for those who are dealing with weight problems and related health issues (such diabetes and high blood pressure) to keep track of their body fat percentages.
To ensure that RFM is as accurate as its developers believe it to be, more study involving a wider range of subjects is necessary for the time being. If that turns out to be the case, BMI may need to be retired.
In order to determine what ranges of body fat percentage are regarded normal or pathological in relation to major obesity-related health concerns, Woolcott argues that “we still need to test the RFM in longitudinal studies with big populations.”
