I recently read Jordan Ellenberg’s How Not to Be Wrong: The Power of Mathematical Thinking. In it, he describes the pitfalls of linear regression, including the example of the paper “Will all Americans become overweight or obese?” According to this paper, by 2048 all Americans will be overweight or obese. This sounds dramatic – but it is statistically nonsensical. The underlying regression ignores the fact that as the number of overweight people increases, fewer and fewer slim people remain who could “convert.” Just a few years after the paper’s publication, it became clear that the increase in obesity does not follow a linear path but a logistic one – it flattens out, because populations are not infinite processes.
What Ellenberg does not mention: even the underlying metric, the Body Mass Index (BMI), is problematic. It appears in health records, insurance forms, and medical consultations – as if it were a precise health indicator. Yet it is not.
BMI as a proxy variable
To be fair: the BMI was never intended as a diagnostic tool. Adolphe Quetelet developed it in the 1830s as a statistical descriptor for populations – not for individual assessment. For decades, it was mainly used in epidemiology. It only entered clinical practice in the 1970s and 1980s, when simplicity became more important than precision.
Used correctly, the BMI is a proxy variable: not exact, but stable enough to identify patterns at the population level. And indeed, large datasets show that the risk of cardiovascular disease increases with rising BMI – but not linearly. One of the largest meta-analyses, Flegal et al. (2013, JAMA), evaluated 97 studies involving 2.88 million people. The result: overweight (BMI 25–29.9) was associated with lower mortality (Hazard Ratio 0.94). Only from BMI ≥30 did risk increase significantly. In other words: the oft-cited formula “the higher the BMI, the sicker you are” is simply wrong.
What BMI does not measure
Statistically speaking, the BMI is a noisy signal with high variance and poor construct validity. It measures mass, not health. It does not distinguish fat from muscle, nor visceral from subcutaneous fat, nor does it account for age or ethnicity. For example, Asian populations have a higher body fat percentage at the same BMI than European populations, while Black populations tend to have more muscle mass at the same BMI. A one-size-fits-all threshold makes no epidemiological sense.
Fitness matters more than weight
Barry et al. (2014) found that fit obese individuals live longer on average than unfit normal-weight individuals. Tarp et al. (2021) confirmed: among men with high fitness, obesity was not a significant mortality factor. This means: fitness has a protective effect – but not an unlimited one.
At the same time, other studies show that high fitness does not fully neutralize the effects of severe obesity – some studies find a 117% elevated mortality risk. Healthy habits improve outcomes, but they do not cancel the effects of extreme adiposity.
Confounders
A significant portion of the correlation between high BMI and health risks arises because people with obesity tend to eat less healthily, exercise less, and more often face socioeconomic burdens. Diet: people with obesity consume more highly processed foods, sugar, and saturated fats – a pattern that independently leads to metabolic disorders. Physical inactivity: independently associated with cardiovascular risk. Socioeconomic factors: poverty increases both obesity risk and limited access to healthcare.
This does not mean that adiposity has no independent effect – above a certain threshold, biological mechanisms such as chronic inflammation, insulin resistance, and hormonal disruption clearly play a role. The global data consistently show a connection (Heath 2022; Global BMI Mortality Collaboration 2023). Nevertheless: adiposity is not inherently dangerous because one is fat, but because it is usually the expression of an unhealthy lifestyle and disturbed metabolism. Beyond a certain point, however, it also becomes a biological cause in its own right.
A classic statistical error
The most common mistake in dealing with BMI is confusing population and individual. What holds true on average for a group does not necessarily apply to an individual – this is the ecological fallacy. The BMI works for groups, not for individuals: it provides useful trends, but no diagnoses.
The BMI is a prime example of a variable that can be statistically significant but conceptually weak. Or to put it differently: the BMI endures because it is convenient – not because it is good.






