Some years ago, around 1987 (I think), they used to take a skinfold reading of the upper arm in addition to taking the person's weight; of course, it may just have been the health board of that specific area that did the two as a combined reading. But, it seems a lot better than the BMI alone.
Though, it's considered okay for those that don't workout/weight train, is it really? A person that lifts, though heavier, can be fitter because they have more muscle mass and less bodyfat, whereas a person who is sedentary will have more bodyfat than them yet fall in to the average category. IMO, that means the BMI does a disservice even to those that don't lift weights because it does not address their bodyfat levels (the ol' skinny fat, as we forever hear) and yet permits them to draw the conclusion that they are healthy if their measurements place them in the average category of their BMI, when they clearly may not be.
__________________
Doh! 
|