Wellness Exchange: Health Discussions
New Health Measure: Is Your Body Too Round?
(upbeat music) - Welcome to "Listen To." This is Ted. The news was published on Tuesday, October 1st. Joining me today are Eric and Kate to discuss a new health measurement called the Body Roundness Index, or BRI. It's being proposed as an alternative to BMI. Let's start with the basics. What exactly is BRI and how does it differ from BMI? Well, Ted, BRI is a fresh take on measuring body composition. It's calculated using height and waist circumference, unlike BMI, which relies on height and weight. The key difference here is that BRI is designed to give us a better picture of fat distribution in the body. It's like getting a 3D view instead of just a flat image, if you will. - That's right, but let's not get too excited about yet another way to put people in boxes. BRI is just another tool to categorize and potentially stigmatize bodies. We should be focusing on overall health. - Hold on, Kate, I have to disagree there. BRI isn't about stigmatization. It's about identifying health risks. Research shows people with the roundest body types may be up to each 63% more likely to develop heart disease. - But Eric, those statistics can be incredibly misleading. Correlation doesn't equal causation. We need to look at overall lifestyle factors, not just body shape. You can't just reduce someone's health. - Interesting points from both of you. Now, the article mentions that BRI might be a more accurate predictor of heart disease and death than BMI. Can you elaborate on why this might be the case? - Certainly, Ted. The key here is that BRI takes into account where fat is distributed on the body. It's not just about how much fat you have, but where it's located. Fat around the midsection and vital organs is linked to increased health risks. Think of it like this. If your body is an apartment building, BRI is checking which floors are overcrowded, not just how many total tenants you have. - But that's an oversimplification, Eric. Health is complex and can't be reduced to a single number or measurement. We're talking about-- - I agree that health is complex, Kate, but having objective measures helps healthcare professionals assess risk. A study from Nanjing Medical University found that high BRI over six years increased cardiovascular disease risk by up to 163%. - Those studies often don't account for other crucial factors like stress, socioeconomic status, or access to healthcare. We're missing the bigger picture here. People's lives are created and-- - Actually, Kate, the researchers did account for factors like age, sex, ethnicity, income, and family history. Even after controlling for these variables, BRI still showed significant predictive value. But it perpetuates the harmful idea that you can determine someone's health just by looking at them, which is often inaccurate and can lead to discrimination. We need to move beyond-- - Let's look at this from a historical perspective. Can you think of a similar shift in health measurements from the past that might be relevant here? - Absolutely, Ted. This reminds me of the shift from using ideal weight tables to BMI in the 1970s. Dr. Ansel Keys introduced BMI as a more accurate measure of body fat. It was a game changer at the time, moving us away from overly simplistic height weight charts to a more nuanced approach. - That's a perfect example of why we should be skeptical, Eric. BMI has been widely criticized for its limitations and biases. It's a cautionary tale about adopting new measurements without-- - True, but it was an improvement over previous methods, Kate. It allowed for standardized comparisons across populations. We shouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Each new measure brings us closer to-- - But it was developed using data primarily from white European men. Eric, it's not applicable to diverse populations. We're talking about a measure that's been used to discriminate against people for decades. - Interesting comparison. How do you think the introduction of BRI compares to the shift to BMI? - Well, Ted, BRI seems to address some of BMI shortcomings by considering fat distribution. It's an evolution in our understanding of body composition and health risks. Think of it like upgrading from a flip phone to a smartphone. We're getting more data and a clearer picture. - But it's still reducing complex health factors to a single number, Eric. We're repeating past mistakes. It's like we're stuck in a loop, always looking for an easy way to label people's health. - The difference is that BRI is based on more recent diverse data and takes into account what we've learned about the risks of abdominal fat. It's not perfect, but it's a step forward. We're building on our knowledge, not just-- - Yet it still ignores crucial factors like muscle mass, bone density, and overall fitness level. How can we claim to assess someone's health without considering these? It's like judging a book by its cover, but worst because it has-- - No single measure is perfect, but BRI appears to be a step in the right direction for assessing certain health risks. It's one tool among many that healthcare professionals can use. We shouldn't dismiss progress just because-- - We should be moving away from these oversimplified measures altogether, not creating new ones. It's time to focus on holistic health approaches that consider the whole person, not just their measurements. We need a complete-- - Looking to the future, how do you see the adoption of BRI playing out in healthcare settings? - I believe BRI will gradually replace BMI in many clinical settings, Ted. It provides a more nuanced view of body composition and associated health risks. - Imagine doctors having a more accurate roadmap of a patient's health landscape. That's what BRI could offer. - Hi, see it differently, Eric. I think there will be pushback against BRI just as we're seeing with BMI. Healthcare is moving towards more personalized holistic approaches. We can't keep trying to fit everyone into neat little boxes. - But BRI could be part of that personalized approach, Kate. It gives doctors more specific information to work with. It's like having a high resolution image instead of a blurry one. This could lead to more tailored health recommendations. - It's still a one-size-fits-all measure that doesn't account for individual differences or overall health, Eric. We're talking about unique human beings here, not statistics. How can you justify using a single number to reference some of these-- - Interesting perspectives. What about the impact on public health messaging and policy? - BRI could lead to more targeted public health campaigns focusing on reducing abdominal fat, which could have significant health benefits. Imagine PSAs that help people understand not just how much weight they're carrying, but where it's distributed and what that means for their health. It could be a game changer in how we approach wellness. - But it could also lead to increased body shaming and discrimination, Eric. We should be promoting health at every size, not creating new ways to categorize bodies. This kind of approach can be psychological-- - The goal isn't to shame, Kate, but to provide accurate health information. - BRI could help identify at-risk individuals who might appear healthy by BMI standards. It's about giving people and health care providers better tools to understand-- - That approach still puts too much emphasis on body size and shape, Eric. We need to focus on promoting healthy behaviors for everyone, regardless of their measurements. It's like we're stuck in this cycle of trying to define health by numbers instead of-- - Kate, BRI is just one tool among many. It doesn't replace comprehensive health assessments, but can provide valuable insights. It's like having an extra instrument in the orchestra. It adds depth to our understanding of health-- - But introducing yet another body measurement perpetuates harmful weight-centric health care practices. We should be moving towards a more inclusive behavior-focused approach to health. Why can't we focus on what people do, rather than-- - Thank you both for this lively discussion. It's clear that the introduction of BRI as a health measurement tool is a complex issue with valid arguments on both sides. As we wrap up, it's evident that while BRI may offer new insights into body composition and health risks, concerns about its potential misuse and oversimplification of health remain. This debate underscores the ongoing challenge in health care to balance objective measurements with holistic, individualized approaches to well-being. Thanks for tuning in to Listen2, and we'll see you next time.