Featured Post from Villanova University

New Policy on BMI Use Will Change How Physicians Approach Diagnoses and Care

Jul 13, 2023

4 min

Lisa Diewald

The Body Mass Index – or BMI – table was created in the mid-1800s, and for the last several decades has been viewed as the choice tool to diagnose obesity. However, the American Medical Association (AMA) recently issued a policy clarifying the role of BMI after taking a comprehensive look at both its benefits and limitations as a diagnostic tool.


In short, the new policy urges physicians to use BMI only in conjunction with other measures of risk and recognizes the historical shortcomings of the oft-used formula.


Lisa Diewald, MS, RDN, LDN, is the program manager of the MacDonald Center for Nutrition Education and Research with Villanova’s M. Louise Fitzpatrick College of Nursing. She applauds the AMA for embracing a more holistic approach to weight and health in individuals.


“This is a huge step forward and I think it will ultimately lead to better health care and an improved practitioner-patient relationship,” Diewald said.


To understand why, one must first understand the history of BMI’s use. The formula that spits out the number we have all come to understand as our BMI considers a person’s height and weight. It was developed in the mid-19th century by a Belgian sociologist to measure the socially ideal person. The modern term and application came about in the 1972 and has been a routine measurement ever since because it is easy, fast, costs nothing and in some cases, said Diewald, does correlate with body fat.


But in recent years, large scale studies have exposed some of the limitations of the measure, building to the point where they needed to be weighed against the overt benefits. For starters, BMI does not measure body fat – or adiposity – directly. Adiposity, per Diewald, is more closely associated with health risk than BMI.


“For this reason, health risk for some individuals with normal BMI but high body fat has been underestimated, and some with high BMI but normal body fat levels have been overestimated,” she said.


Nor does it “differentiate between muscle, bone and body fat, or distribution of fat on the body,” Diewald said. “We know that all these factors can influence health and chronic disease risk.”


Other comorbidities or chronic conditions that wouldn’t show up on a BMI chart alongside a number in the “normal” range can also impact health. Conversely, there are health conditions that might be incorrectly assumed just because a BMI is high.


“Not every person with a high BMI experiences these chronic conditions, so developing a more holistic approach can lead to better assessment, treatment and outcomes,” Diewald said.


Another shortfall she pointed out was its failure to factor in gender, race, body composition, ethnicity or physical activity level. Think back to the origins of the chart, intended to be a social standard created in Europe nearly two hundred years ago.


“BMI tables were originally designed in the 1800’s using a population of white men,” Diewald said. “Understandably, at one point in time it was all we had to evaluate weight status, but it may not be accurate to use this standard alone with all groups of people.”


These societal, gender and racial/ethnic factors led the AMA to explicitly cite “historical harm, use for racist exclusion and because BMI is based primarily on data collected from previous generations of non-Hispanic white populations” in the new policy on its clinical use. Additionally, the policy addressed the differences in body composition across genders, races and ages that were not being considered.


There is also an ignored mental component in its use to diagnose obesity, which can lead to avoidance of doctor visits and, in turn, further physical issues.


“Obesity is a multifactorial, complex condition and addressing it with individuals needs to be done with empathy and sensitivity, beginning with how it is measured,” Diewald said. “There are numerous factors influencing weight well beyond simply food intake, physical activity level and BMI, so it is important for practitioners to recognize that and communicate this to patients.


“It is extremely difficult for people with higher weight to be told that they have a high BMI and simply need to eat less and move more. When BMI is used as the sole indicator of weight status, this can be psychologically damaging. We know that many who have been told to lose weight simply based on a high BMI may avoid going to the doctors for routine medical visits and skip necessary preventive care.”


It will not be easy, she said, to move away from a method used for so long that has been ingrained as a part of a routine medical visit, but Diewald thinks utilization of the tool in conjunction with other assessments is the best way put this new policy to practice.


She advocates for measures such as “Using BMI as only one of several indicators of chronic disease risk, asking permission to discuss weight and health risk, [and] using shared decision-making between practitioners and patient to determine course of treatment.”


Education is also paramount to proper assessment of weight-related health risks.


“Education cannot stop with physicians, however,” she said. “I think this provides an excellent launching pad for enhanced collaboration among health professionals such as dietitians, nurses, nurse practitioners, physician’s assistants and others involved in providing care, nutrition counseling and lifestyle modification support to patients… Doing this can better fine tune recommendations for treatment, leading to improved outcomes.”


Connect with:
Lisa Diewald

Lisa Diewald

Associate Director, MacDonald Center for Nutrition Education and Research | M. Louise Fitzpatrick College of Nursing

Lisa K. Diewald, MS, RDN, LDN, is an expert in healthy eating and nutrition education programs for children and adults

Nutrition CounselingNutritionObesity PreventionPolycystic Ovarian SyndromeWeight Management

You might also like...

Check out some other posts from Villanova University

4 min

Two Decades Later, Villanova Engineering Professor Who Assisted in Hurricane Katrina Investigation Reflects on Role in the Storm’s Aftermath

Twenty years ago, Hurricane Katrina hit the southeastern coast of the United States, devastating cities and towns across Louisiana, Florida, Mississippi, Alabama and beyond. The storm caused nearly 1,400 fatalities, displaced more than 1 million people and generated over $125 billion in damages. Rob Traver, PhD., P.E., BC. WRE, F.EWRI, F.ASCE, professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering at Villanova University, assisted in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' (USACE) investigation of the failure of the New Orleans Hurricane Protection System during Hurricane Katrina, and earned an Outstanding Civilian Service Medal from the Commanding General of USACE for his efforts. Dr. Traver reflected on his experience working in the aftermath of Katrina, and how the findings from the investigation have impacted U.S. hurricane responses in the past 20 years. Q: What was your role in the investigation of the failure of the New Orleans Hurricane Protection System? Dr. Traver: Immediately after Hurricane Katrina, USACE wanted to assess what went wrong with flood protections that had failed during the storm in New Orleans, but they needed qualified researchers on their team who could oversee their investigation. The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), an organization I have been a part of for many years, was hired for this purpose. Our job was to make sure that USACE was asking the right questions during the investigation that would lead to concrete answers about the causes of the failure of the hurricane protection system. My team was focused on analyzing the risk and reliability of the water resource system in New Orleans, and we worked alongside the USACE team, starting with revising the investigation questions in order to get answers about why these water systems failed during the storm. Q: What was your experience like in New Orleans in the aftermath of the hurricane? Dr. Traver: My team went down to New Orleans a few weeks after the hurricane, visited all the sites we were reviewing and met with infrastructure experts along the way as progress was being made on the investigation. As we were flying overhead and looking at the devastated areas, seeing all the homes that were washed away, it was hard to believe that this level of destruction could happen in a city in the United States. As we started to realize the errors that were made and the things that went wrong leading up to the storm, it was heartbreaking to think about how lives could have been saved if the infrastructure in place had been treated as one system and undergone a critical review. Q: What were the findings of the ASCE and USACE investigation team? Dr. Traver: USACE focused on New Orleans because they wanted to figure out why the city’s levee system—a human-made barrier that protects land from flooding by holding back water—failed during the hurricane. The city manages pump stations that are designed to remove water after a rainfall event, but they were not well connected to the levee system and not built to handle major storms. So, one of the main reasons for the levee system failure was that the pump stations and levees were not treated as one system, which was one of the causes of the mass flooding we saw in New Orleans. Another issue we found was that the designers of the levee system never factored in a failsafe for what would happen if a bigger storm occurred and the levee overflowed. They had the right idea by building flood protection systems, but they didn’t think that a larger storm the size of Katrina could occur and never updated the design to bring in new meteorological knowledge on size of potential storms. Since then, the city has completely rebuilt the levees using these lessons learned. Q: What did researchers, scientists and the general population learn from Katrina? Dr. Traver: In areas that have had major hurricanes over the past 20 years, it’s easy to find what went wrong and fix it for the future, so we don’t necessarily worry as much about having a hurricane in the same place as we’ve had one before. What I worry about is if a hurricane hits a new town or city that has not experienced one and we have no idea what the potential frailties of the prevention systems there could be. Scientists and researchers also need to make high-risk areas for hurricane activity in the United States known for those who live there. People need to know what their risk is if they are in areas where there is increased risk of storms and flooding, and what they should do when a storm hits, especially now with the changes we are seeing in storm size.

5 min

Rubin Observatory Releases First Images, as The Villanova One Sky Center for Astrophysics Begins Celestial Partnership

If the first few frames are any indicator of a blockbuster movie, hold the 2035 Best Picture Oscar for the Vera C. Rubin Observatory and its ambitious new 10-year project. On June 23, 2025, scientists at the state-of-the-art facility in the mountains of north-central Chile gave the public its first glimpses into the capabilities of its 8.4-meter Simonyi Survey Telescope, equipped with the world’s largest digital camera—a 3.2 megapixel, 6,600-pound behemoth that can photograph the whole southern sky every few nights. Its task is a decade-long lapse record-called the Legacy Survey of Space and Time (LSST). The first shots on that journey have left both the general public and astronomical community in awe, revealing in rich detail a mind-boggling number of galaxies, stars, asteroids and other celestial bodies. “The amount of sky it covers, even in just one image, is unprecedented,” said David Chuss, PhD, chair of the Department of Physics, who viewed the first images with colleagues at an organized watch party. “It’s such high-precision, beautiful detail,” added Kelly Hambleton Prša, PhD, associate professor of Astrophysics and Planetary Sciences. “It’s just mind-blowing.” What Makes Rubin and LSST So Unique? Simply, this revolutionary instrument, embarking on an equally revolutionary initiative, will observe half the sky to a greater depth and clarity than any instrument ever has before. Consider this: "The Cosmic Treasure Chest” image released by Rubin contains 1,185 individual exposures, taken over seven nights. Each one of those individual exposures covers 10 square degrees of night sky, which is about the same as looking up at 45 full moons positioned around one another. It may seem like a small size, but click the image yourself, and zoom in and out. The amount of sky captured in that range—enough to show roughly 10 million galaxies—is astounding. Per the Observatory, “it is the only astronomical tool in existence that can assemble an image this wide and deep so quickly.” “At the end of 10 years, Rubin will have observed 20 billion galaxies, and each night in that time frame it will generate 20 terabytes of data,” Dr. Hambleton Prša said. “And, because Rubin has so many different filters, we get to see the same objects in so many different ways.” According to Dr. Hambleton Prša and Dr. Chuss, the power and precision of the Rubin LSST, combined with the shear area of the sky that will be observed, will allow for an incredibly in-depth study of myriad objects, processes and events in ways nobody has ever studied them before. “For example, in our galaxy, we expect to observe only two supernovae per century,” Dr. Hambleton Prša said. “But we're observing 20 billion galaxies. For someone studying this phenomenon, the number of supernovae that they’re going to observe will be off the charts. It is an exquisite survey.” It will also provide insight into the universe’s oldest and most puzzling enigmas. “Rubin is able to look back into our universe at times when it was much smaller during its expansion and really address some of these incredible mysteries out there, like dark energy,” Dr. Chuss said. “We know the universe is expanding and that this expansion is accelerating. Rubin will trace the history of that acceleration and, from that, provide insight into the physics of the mysterious dark energy that appears to be driving it.” To enhance the technological capabilities of its instrument, scientists were invited to contribute towards the selection of the observing strategy of the telescope. The Rubin team took into consideration continual input from the astrophysics community, separated into what they call “science collaborations.” To achieve this, the Rubin team generated proposed simulations for collecting observations, which the science collaborations then assessed for their specific science goals. “The Rubin team then iterated with the science collaborations, taking into account feedback, to ultimately obtain the best strategy for the largest number of science cases,” Dr. Hambleton Prša said. Dr. Hambleton Prša is the primary contact for the Pulsating Star Subgroup, which is part of the Transients and Variable Stars Science Collaboration, the science collaboration that focuses on objects in the sky that change with time. She was the lead author among 70 co-authors on the roadmap for this science collaboration, underscoring the significant scale of community participation for each of these areas. Joined Under One Sky Dr. Hambleton Prša, Dr. Chuss and other members of the Astrophysics and Planetary Sciences Department and Department of Physics at Villanova have a vested interest in Rubin and the LSST project. In April, the two departments joined forces to launch The Villanova One Sky Center for Astrophysics, co-directed by the two faculty members. With goals to elevate the University's longstanding record of research eminence in astronomy and astrophysics and create opportunities for more students to access the disciplines, the Center partnered with the Rubin Observatory to help realize the mission. Both Villanova and Rubin share a similar vision on expanding access to this broad field of study. Fortuitously, the launch of The Villanova One Sky Center coincided with the initial data released from Rubin. What will result, Dr. Chuss says, will be a “truly awesome impact on both our Center and institution.” Dr. Hambleton Prša will advance her own research of pulsating stars, and Andrej Prša, PhD, professor of Astrophysics and Planetary Science and the primary contact for the Binary Star Subgroup, will broaden his study of short-period binary stars. Joey Neilsen, PhD, associate professor of Physics, will expand his research in black hole astrophysics. Becka Phillipson, PhD, an assistant professor of Physics, who recently led a proposal for Villanova to join the Rubin LSST Discovery Alliance, aims to increase the scope of her study of chaotic variability of compact objects. Dr. Chuss, who generally works on infrared and microwave polarimetry, which is “outside the wavelength ranges of Rubin” is interested in its complementarity with other observations, such as those of the cosmic microwave background—the oldest light in the universe—and the evolution of the large-scale structure of the universe. Subjects, he says, which are “exactly in the wheelhouse for Rubin.” Other faculty members are interested in topics such as how Rubin’s observations may change the knowledge of both the history and structure of our solar system and the population of Milky Way satellite galaxies. That is not to mention, Dr. Hambleton Prša points out, the daily 20 terabytes of data that will become available for students and postdoctoral researchers under their tutelage, who will be heavily involved in its analysis for their own projects and ideas. “This partnership is going to greatly increase our opportunities and elevate our profile,” Dr. Chuss said. “It will make our program even more attractive for faculty, postdocs and students to come and to share their knowledge and expertise. “Together, we will all have access to an incredible movie of this epoch of our universe, and the knowledge and surprises that come with it along the way.”

5 min

Taming “The Bear”: Villanova Professor Examines Workplace Toxicity in FX’s Acclaimed Series

In the latest season of FX’s award-winning series “The Bear,” lead character and chef Carmen “Carmy” Berzatto finds himself at a crossroads. A culinary genius, Carmy has successfully overseen the reinvention of his family’s Italian beef shop as a high-end restaurant—shepherding a dedicated, if unpolished, crew of sandwich makers into a world of haute cuisine, fine wine and elevated service. However, over the course of this transition, his exacting standards have contributed to a culture of anxiety, dysfunction and resentment in the workplace. Despite staff members’ professional and personal growth, tempers still flare like burners on a range, with Carmy’s obsessive attention to detail and single-minded pursuit of perfection spurring conflict. By season’s end, grappling with the fallout from a mixed review seemingly influenced by the back-of-house “chaos,” the chef is forced to confront a complicated and thorny question: Am I getting in the way of my own restaurant’s success? Carmy’s dilemma, while fictional, reflects the very real challenges many modern businesses face when excellence is prioritized at the expense of psychological safety and workplace harmony. Per Manuela Priesemuth, PhD, who researches toxic work climates, aggression on the job and organizational fairness, the warning signs are all too frequently overlooked in high-pressure environments like restaurants. “Some high-stakes industries have a characteristic of having toxic behavior more accepted,” says Dr. Priesemuth. “When it’s more accepted or normed, it’s a real problem.” As she explains, workers in the food service industry, much like medical professionals in an operating room or military personnel in a combat zone, have a tendency to view measured communication and thoughtful interaction as a luxury or even, in some cases, a hindrance. Essentially, there’s a common misconception that working with an edge—yelling orders, avoiding dialogue and berating “underperformers”—gets the job done. “In all of these high-stakes environments where it’s thought there’s leeway to talk negatively or disparagingly, people are mistaken in the productivity result,” Dr. Priesemuth says. “It actually changes for the better in positive climates, because people who are treated with dignity and respect are better performers than those who are mistreated.” To Dr. Priesemuth’s point, research increasingly shows that workplace culture, not just talent or technical ability, is an essential driver of organizational success. In an environment like Carmy’s kitchen, where pride and passion often give way to personal attacks and shouting matches, the on-the-job dynamic can effectively undermine productivity. What may begin as an intended push for excellence can instead result in burnout, high turnover and weakened trust—outcomes that are especially problematic in collaborative, fast-paced industries like hospitality. “There’s even evidence that abusive behavior in restaurant settings can lead to food loss,” shares Dr. Priesemuth. “So, there is a sort of retaliation from the employees who are going through this experience, whether it’s measured [in profit margins] or impact on the customer.” In order to prevent these less-than-ideal outcomes, businesses should take steps proactively, says Dr. Priesemuth. More specifically, they should clearly articulate their values and expectations, considerately engage with their staff’s opinions and concerns and consistently invest in their employees’ growth and development. In the world of “The Bear,” a few of Carmy’s managerial decisions in the second season could be seen as moves in the right direction. At that juncture, he was leveraging his industry connections to provide his restaurant’s staff with the tools and training necessary to thrive in Chicago’s fine dining scene, building skills, confidence and goodwill. “If you give people voice—such as input on the menu, for example, or more autonomy in completing a certain task—it boosts morale,” says Dr. Priesemuth. “It helps people feel that they have input and that they are valued members of the team; it’s this sort of collaborative, positive relationship that increases commitment and performance.” Establishing this type of work culture, grounded in open communication, mutual respect and a shared sense of mission, takes concerted effort and constant maintenance. In situations in which toxicity has already become an issue, as it has in Carmy’s kitchen, the task becomes decidedly more difficult. Typically, it demands a long-term commitment to organizational change at the business’ highest levels. “Adjusting the tone at the top really matters,” says Dr. Priesemuth. “So, if the owner were to treat their chefs and waiters with the dignity and respect that they deserve as workers, that also trickles down to, for example, the customer.” A leader’s influence on workplace morale, she contends, is nuanced and far-reaching. When those in charge model a lack of empathy or emotional distance, for instance, a sort of toxicity can take root. Likewise, when they repeatedly show anger, animosity or frustration, those same feelings and attitudes can have an ingrained effect—regardless of a staff’s talent or ability. Given the outsized role owners, supervisors and managers play in shaping organizational culture, Dr. Priesemuth further notes, “Leaders must also feel that they’re being supported. You can’t have someone who’s exhausted, works 80 hours a week and has relationship and money issues and expect them to say, ‘What are your problems? What do you need?’” In many ways, her insights speak directly to the struggles Carmy faces and prompts throughout “The Bear’s” run. At every turn, he’s dogged by family and relationship troubles, mounting financial pressures and unresolved trauma from a past role. Ultimately, as would happen in real life, his difficulty in healthily processing and addressing these issues doesn’t just harm him; it affects his staff, manifesting itself as a need for control and a crusade for perfection. “There are spillover effects from your own personal life into your job role. In the management field, that has become increasingly clear,” says Dr. Priesemuth. “Whatever you’re going through, whether it’s from an old job or something personal, it will automatically spill over into your current work life and your interactions. And, vice versa, what’s happening to you at work will [impact you off the clock].” In dramatic fashion, the fourth season of “The Bear” concludes with Carmy acknowledging as much. Determining that there are other aspects of his life desperately in need of attention, he surrenders the reins of his business to chef de cuisine Sydney “Syd” Adamu and maître d’hôtel Richard “Richie” Jerimovich, appointing them part-owners. While the soundness of this decision remains a subject for the show’s next season, Carmy justifies the move with a blunt admission: “It’s the best thing for the restaurant. We have to put the restaurant first… I don’t have anything to pull from.” In the end, in both “The Bear” and management studies, there’s an understanding that building healthy and productive work environments requires active engagement and positive reinforcement on the part of leadership. In a sense, creating a strong work culture is shown to be a lot like preparing a phenomenal meal; it’s a matter of attentiveness, patience and care. Without those ingredients, the result could very well be a recipe for disaster.

View all posts
Powered by