To the hunter go the spoils? No evidence of nutritional benefit to being or marrying a well‐reputed Hadza hunter

The objective was to study the relationship between body mass index (BMI) and body fat per cent (BF%) in different population groups of Asians. The study design was a literature overview with special attention to recent Asian data. Specific information is provided on Indonesians (Malays and Chinese ancestry), Singaporean Chinese, Malays and Indians, and Hong Kong Chinese. The BMI was calculated from weight and height and the BF% was determined by deuterium oxide dilution, a chemical-for-compartment model, or dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry. All Asian populations studied had a higher BF% at a lower BMI compared to Caucasians. Generally, for the same BMI their BF% was 3-5% points higher compared to Caucasians. For the same BF% their BMI was 3-4 units lower compared to Caucasians. The high BF% at low BMI can be partly explained by differences in body build, i.e. differences in trunk-to-leg-length ratio and differences in slenderness. Differences in muscularity may also contribute to the different BF%/BMI relationship. Hence, the relationship between BF% and BMI is ethnic-specific. For comparisons of obesity prevalence between ethnic groups, universal BMI cut-off points are not appropriate.

Body mass index (BMI) is the cornerstone of the current classification system for obesity and its advantages are widely exploited across disciplines ranging from international surveillance to individual patient assessment. However, like all anthropometric measurements, it is only a surrogate measure of body fatness. Obesity is defined as an excess accumulation of body fat, and it is the amount of this excess fat that correlates with ill-health. We propose therefore that much greater attention should be paid to the development of databases and standards based on the direct measurement of body fat in populations, rather than on surrogate measures. In support of this argument we illustrate a wide range of conditions in which surrogate anthropometric measures (especially BMI) provide misleading information about body fat content. These include: infancy and childhood; ageing; racial differences; athletes; military and civil forces personnel; weight loss with and without exercise; physical training; and special clinical circumstances. We argue that BMI continues to serve well for many purposes, but that the time is now right to initiate a gradual evolution beyond BMI towards standards based on actual measurements of body fat mass.