The article first states that the science is pretty much unambiguous, but doesn't seem to like that conclusion, so then picks out experts who at first also admi

The article first states that the science is pretty much unambiguous, but doesn't seem to like that conclusion, so then picks out experts who at first also admit that the evidence is overwhelming, but then quickly segway into speculation like "restricting your calories or cutting out certain foods may not be healthy overall if it negatively impacts your mental health" without offering any sort of evidence that that's an actual issue (the only evidence offered there is a study showing that diets have high relapse rates, without discussing any relationship to mental health). One reason why the BMI doesn't work well at the individual level is that the square exponent for height is wrong for 3D beings like us. The article completely glosses over this well-known issue. I can empathize with the agenda behind this selective reporting, but I also find it questionable in a time when obesity has become an epidemic to the point of being among the most important preventable risk factors [0]. Fyi, we also don't scale linearly (which would imply an exponent of 3), the actual exponent is sth like 2.5. So to align with the established scale, Prof. Nick Trefethen of Oxford University suggests using the formula 1.3 * weight/height^2.5 for metric units [1] History fun fact: the 2.5 exponent was already known to the inventor of the BMI, but apparently that wasn't considered practical to compute in the 19th century (source: also [1]). [0] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1790820/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1790820/ [1] https://people.maths.ox.ac.uk/trefethen/bmi.html https://people.maths.ox.ac.uk/trefethen/bmi.html