BMI adoption in clinical practice, particularly in ERs, grew as clinicians sought quantitative markers of malnutrition and severity. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders( DSM-5-TR) incorporates BMI thresholds to specify underweight status and severity in anorexia nervosa( APA, 2022). However, BMI was never intended as a stand-alone diagnostic or prognostic tool for complex psychiatric conditions like eating disorders.
Eating Disorders
Eating disorders( EDs), such as anorexia nervosa( AN), bulimia nervosa( BN) and other specified feeding or eating disorders present significant clinical challenges due to their complex interplay of psychological, behavioral and physiological factors( American Psychiatric Association [ APA ], 2022). BMI has traditionally been utilized as a key diagnostic criterion and severity specifier, especially for AN( APA, 2022). Despite its convenience, reliance solely on BMI risks misclassification and inadequate assessment of a patient’ s true health status. This review explores the origins and clinical utility of BMI, highlighting its limitations in the context of eating disorders and proposes a multidimensional assessment framework to enhance patient care.
Limitations
A major limitation of BMI is that it does not properly assess body fat percentage and muscle mass. It also does not distinguish between abdominal and gluteofemoral fat, which is important to note because abdominal fat is associated with insulin resistance, metabolic disease and cardiovascular complications. Using a less accurate index to assess the relationship between weight and disease risk is conceptually invalid because BMI influences patient treatment, preventive medicine and overall health outcomes( Pray et al, 2023).
The BMI is commonly used in medical practice to categorize an individual’ s weight status and potential medical risks thought to be associated with excess weight. Such weight categories use arbitrary cutoff scores to define different levels of risk, despite ambiguous research on the actual risks associated with them. These risk categories do not account for racial, ethnic and gender factors, limiting their ability to accurately assess patients. As an unreliable marker of an individual’ s health, the widespread use of BMI continues to reinforce weight categories that perpetuate weight stigma.
Despite its use in general medical practice, BMI has minimal value as a measure of an individual’ s medical status. It should not be used as the basis for conclusions about medical risk or as a stand-alone treatment goal.
Eating Disorder Treatment
BMI is still used as a general marker of low weight for individuals being treated for anorexia nervosa. Other types of information, particularly an individual’ s weight history, are considered more reliable in assessing someone’ s nutritional status. However, BMI can be useful as an initial screening assessment. For instance, a BMI below 18.5 is commonly used as a threshold for clinically significant low weight and should signal the need to do a more thorough assessment of the individual’ s nutritional status. That assessment can involve medical tests and the review of that individual’ s weight and growth trajectories. Many providers working with children, adolescents and young adults use pediatric growth charts to assess a patient’ s weight changes over time in order to evaluate the significance of low BMI.
For low BMI patients who require nutritional rehabilitation and weight gain, BMI may be used as one consideration in tracking weight gain and in establishing weight gain goals. Once again, though, BMI should not be used as a stand-alone measure of weight gain goals. These goals should involve a more thorough and personal assessment of each individual’ s weight history, growth and medical status.
Impact of Misleading BMI Information
Reliance on BMI as a primary indicator of health can significantly compromise both medical care and insurance coverage for patients with eating disorders. Since BMI does not reflect behavioral, metabolic or psychological factors, individuals with eating disorders may be misclassified as healthy under BMI classifications and will be denied necessary treatment as a result. Insurance companies that use BMI thresholds to determine eligibility for inpatient or residential care may delay treatment by waiting for the patient’ s case to become more severe, thereby increasing morbidity and mortality( Lebow et al., 2015). The American Medical Association( AMA) now states that BMI“ should not be used as a sole criterion to deny appropriate insurance reimbursement”( AMA Council on Science and Public Health, 2024). Further, the International Federation of Eating Disorder Dietitians clarifies that using weight or BMI to define eating-disorder treatment eligibility is inappropriate and may violate the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Actif it results in unjust coverage denial( IFEDD, 2024).
On the other hand, overemphasizing BMI reinforces weight stigma, invalidates psychological distress and overlooks the reality that eating disorders are present in diverse body sizes. A comprehensive assessment incorporating vital signs, laboratory results and psychological symptoms is essential for an accurate diagnosis( Garner, 2022).
Conclusion
While BMI is quick and may be useful as an initial screening measure, it is misleading and insufficient when used in isolation, particularly
( continued on page 18) January 2026 17