Problem solved in full
-
A 175 cm and 70 kg body changing size without changing shape 5 steps
Find what BMI does to a body that changes size without changing shape. This is the Reference adult: 175 cm and 70 kg.
-
Start with the index as defined. The numerator is a mass and the denominator is an area, so BMI is not a ratio of like quantities β and that mismatch is what the rest of the problem is about.
-
Now enlarge the whole body: multiply every length by s and hold the density fixed. Mass follows volume and gains sΒ³ while the denominator gains only sΒ², so one power of s survives the division.
-
An index that survives the scaling has to match the exponent of mass, and cubing the height does exactly that. The ponderal index is then identical for every member of the family β not approximately, exactly.
-
Writing BMI as the ponderal index times height makes the height dependence explicit, so no mass needs recomputing at each size. 4.6 BMI units separate the 155 cm and the 190 cm version of one body, with not a gram of extra fat anywhere in it.
-
The category boundaries are fixed numbers while the index is not, so the crossing heights are a single division.
Answer
The tool prints BMI = 22.857 and a ponderal index of 13.061, and the second figure is unchanged for the 155 cm and 190 cm versions of that same body. The crossing heights are the payoff: this exact build is classified overweight at 191.4 cm and underweight at 141.6 cm. Almost no adult stands 142 cm, so under pure geometric scaling the bias runs one way only β it can push a person up a band, never down. The real effect is smaller than 4.6 units, because adults are not scaled copies of each other: taller adults genuinely are relatively more slender, and if population mass scaled as hΒ² exactly then BMI would be height-free and the square would be geometry rather than a fit. It is a fit, and that is the entire answer to why the exponent is 2 and not 3 β along with the reason an exponent tuned on a population misreads the individuals at its edges.
-
References (2)
- The body-fat equation this tool actually evaluates: P. Deurenberg, J. A. Weststrate and J. C. Seidell, "Body mass index as a measure of body fatness: age- and sex-specific prediction formulas." British Journal of Nutrition 65(2), 105β114, 1991.
- Insight block 3 β why the denominator is height squared and not cubed: A. Keys, F. Fidanza, M. J. Karvonen, N. Kimura and H. L. Taylor, "Indices of relative weight and obesity." Journal of Chronic Diseases 25(6β7), 329β343, 1972 β the study that compared the candidate indices against measured body fat, and coined the name "body mass index".