There has been a report shown on Sky News today. Some doctors find the Body Mass Index calculation "mind numbingly complex"
 
The formula is simply  BMI = weight/height squared. If a doctor finds this maths too complex, that is seriously frightening.

Most Doctors should also try in to improve their general handwriting skills.
 
Interestingly BMI is not so popular in some medical circles as it is not always truly reflective of a person.  Take a Rugby player or heavy weight boxer they frequently have a BMI in excess of 30% but carry very little body fat.

That's hard to believe. Perhaps they mean it's too hard to explain to their patients?

And here I thought BMI = Bapu & Mooch are Idiots

If you're dealing with pounds rather than kilograms, the formula is (weight  / height squared) x 703. Not surprising that MDs or anybody else can't do that in their head. But that's why they have a chart hanging on the wall.
 
For somebody like me, no calculation is required. The doc takes one look at me and says "you're too fat.". Yup, same as the previous diagnosis.

So we should use the ASCAP calculation instead?

bitflipper
 
For somebody like me, no calculation is required. The doc takes one look at me and says "you're too fat.". Yup, same as the previous diagnosis.

A good eye may be a useful metric. The problem with BMI, is that it is only a rough estimate for an individual. The actual measurement of the fat content of the body is fiendishly difficult, something like trying to find the weight of cashews in a paper bag full of mixed nuts without knowing how many other nuts are inside. In a large population that estimate may be very useful, and it is easily calculated (by a computer at least) from two commonly available and cheap measures. Thus it is a very useful tool for research studies looking at the health effects of obesity or fat loss. But even if you know the amount of total body fat relative to lean body mass, it is not at all clear that such a number will provide accurate risk estimates for an individual. The location of the fat (visceral vs subcutaneous) and type of fat may be important in the health effects of adipose.
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_fat_percentage
 
So measuring the BMI in a population may be useful in interpreting health impact, but is does not necessarily imply that it should be used uncritically to guide decisions for a given patient. If your doctor sees a big gut, but cannot pinch a significant amount from the abdominal wall, or an embarrassing large butt and thighs but not much gut, he may well be correct in estimating that you are at substantially less health risk than your BMI would suggest.

There's always going to be a problem trying to use one system for everyone.  Bone density and muscle mass can vary quite a bit for example.  Since I used to play sports, I would have been considered "over weight" using the BMI yet, at one time, my body fat percentage was under 5% (once you get above 30, you really should keep at least 9 or 10% in body fat to help protect your internal organs).
 
Single systems for determining obesity are about as accurate as the current IQ system!

Think it was just a bit of very poor journalism. (It was Sky News after all, I think it was the reporter that found the formula mind numbingly complex).
 
There was a better report later, I think they must have read this fred because they mentioned many of the points brought up here.
 
 

So is that the same thing as the foot sensors on my scale tells me? When I weigh myself it gives my weight, then makes a little countdown and apparently sends an electrical pulse up my body to measure fat. It always reads between 16-17% but I've never been sure if that's good or average or whether it's the same thing as BMI.