BMI has been the benchmark in evaluating health and fitness for many years. The formula is quite simple: weight in kilograms divided by the square of height in meters. This would easily tell if one is underweight, within the healthy weight range, overweight, or obese. But with new research findings, scientists are now questioning its accuracy and usefulness as a total measure of body composition.

The report, published in The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology, has sparked a global conversation on rethinking BMI. Supported by more than 50 international medical experts, the report suggests classifying obesity into "clinical" and "pre-clinical" types for better diagnosis and treatment. The shift underscores a growing consensus: BMI alone may not tell the full story of your health.

While BMI is simple to calculate and universally accessible, it is far from perfect. It does not consider muscle mass, bone density, or fat distribution, leading to misleading conclusions in some cases. For example, athletes with a high muscle mass may be considered overweight, whereas individuals with normal BMI might carry unhealthy amounts of visceral fat.

A landmark study in JAMA Network Open studied more than 155,000 postmenopausal women and found that women with a normal BMI but a waist size over 35 inches were more likely to die from heart disease or cancer compared with their counterparts whose waists are smaller. That makes a great case for how BMI can be insufficient and fat distribution must be factored into account.

Not all body fat is equal. Subcutaneous fat, which lies just beneath the skin, is relatively harmless. The real health danger lies in visceral fat—fat that surrounds internal organs. Unlike subcutaneous fat, visceral fat is metabolically active, releasing stress hormones like cortisol and inflammatory substances that raise blood pressure, blood sugar, and cholesterol levels. These effects significantly increase the risk of conditions such as heart disease, type 2 diabetes, and certain cancers.

BMI Isn't Always the Best Measure of Body Composition — Here's What to Use Instead

Since BMI is not the most reliable measure, scientists and doctors have sought other means to measure body composition more accurately.

1. Waist Circumference

A simple tape measure can provide valuable insight into your health. Measure your waist at the level of your belly button, ensuring the tape is parallel to the ground. For women, a waist measurement under 35 inches is considered healthy, while for men, the goal is under 40 inches.

2. Waist-to-Hip Ratio

This is the ratio of your waist circumference to that of your hips. To calculate it, divide your waist measurement by your hip measurement. According to the National Center for Biotechnology Information, a ratio under 0.8 for women and 0.9 for men is considered healthy.

3. Body Roundness Index (BRI)

A newer method that seems to be receiving more attention involves the Body Roundness Index or BRI: height, weight, and girth are placed together to represent a more advanced view of what body composition says. Research presented in JAMA Network Open offers evidence that this BRI predicts mortality risk greater than BMI in some cases- a promising weapon for public health.

Also Read: Using BMI To Classify People As Obese Is Flawed Say Experts

Ways To Cut Off Unhealthy Fat

The good news is that visceral fat responds well to lifestyle changes. Here are three evidence-based strategies:

Time-Restricted Eating

Adopting an eating window of 12 hours—such as from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m.—can significantly reduce visceral fat, according to a study published in Nutrition Research Reviews. This approach not only helps control caloric intake but also reduces late-night snacking, a known risk factor for abdominal obesity.

Limit Alcohol Intake

Excessive alcohol consumption is associated with increased belly fat. A 2017 study published in Public Health Nutrition revealed that alcohol increases the levels of insulin and encourages the storage of fat in the abdominal area. Limiting alcohol to occasional indulgence helps avoid weight gain in this region.

High-Intensity Interval Training (HIIT)

HIIT involves repeated episodes of high-intensity exercise separated by periods of rest. A review in *Sports Medicine* concluded that HIIT is very effective in reducing visceral and total body fat. It can be noted that adding just 20 minutes of HIIT two times a week can make all the difference.

The reliance on BMI as a sole indicator of health is increasingly being challenged. While it remains a convenient screening tool, its limitations necessitate a broader approach that considers factors like fat distribution, waist circumference, and new metrics such as BRI.

In the simplest of words, health is multi-dimensional, and shifting perspectives from considering weight solely to broader measures of body composition will get people a much clearer understanding of where their health risks are so that they can take the action required for a better quality of life. Through adjustment to diet, exercise, or perhaps through innovative metrics like BRI, health is well within reach of the individual.

This dynamic conversation raises the point about personalized health screenings, which helps everyone get more relevant tools fitting their unique lives and circumstances. As body composition research is enhanced, so do the futures look brighter and brighter for the times of measurement when it comes to health.

Definition and diagnostic criteria of clinical obesity. The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology.

Association of Normal-Weight Central Obesity With All-Cause and Cause-Specific Mortality Among Postmenopausal Women. JAMA Netw Open. 2019

Waist-Hip Ratio. NIH.

Physiological responses to food intake throughout the day. Nutr Res Rev. 2014

Association between abdominal obesity and alcohol drinking pattern in normal-weight, middle-aged adults. Public Health Nutr. 2017

Finding an hour for the gym is one of the most common reasons people skip workouts. But what if short bursts of exercise at the office or home could deliver similar benefits?

A small trial from China suggests that splitting squats into short bursts throughout the day, a practice known as "exercise snacking", may build strength about as effectively as completing the same workout in one session.

How the trial worked

The study was published in the October 2026 issue of the Journal of Exercise Science & Fitness. It was led by researchers at Tongji University, including Rongxuan Zhai and Lejun Wang. The team recruited 45 male students aged 18 to 25, all with at least six months of regular weight training behind them.

Participants were randomly placed in one of three groups: fragmented resistance training, traditional continuous training, or no supervised training at all. For eight weeks, the two training groups squatted three times a week on a Smith machine under expert supervision, with the weight rising over time for each person. The fragmented group did three separate one-minute bouts of 20 weighted squats. The traditional group did one continuous session of 60. The total amount of work was the same.

What they found

Both training groups got clearly stronger than the control group. According to the study’s abstract, one-rep max squat strength beat the control group by about 20.6 kilograms in the fragmented group and about 28.9 kilograms in the traditional group. ScienceAlert reported that muscular strength, isometric squat force and relative muscular endurance improved in both training groups compared with the control group.

Also Read: Just Four Days Of High-Fat Diet May Increase Inflammation, Study Finds

The traditional group’s gains were larger on paper, but ScienceAlert reported that the difference between the two training styles was not statistically significant. “The present findings do not support the conclusion that traditional continuous resistance training is superior,” the authors concluded.

The one clear difference was enjoyment. Participants who squatted in short bursts reported having more fun than those who did one long session. The authors suggest that “dividing the same training volume into several brief sessions may reduce the perceived burden associated with prolonged exercise while allowing individuals greater flexibility to integrate exercise into their daily schedules.”

Why it matters

“Exercise snacking”, meaning short bouts of activity spread through the day, has become popular in recent years. Earlier research has mostly looked at aerobic activity such as climbing stairs or brisk walking. ScienceAlert noted that it has been linked with better cardiorespiratory fitness and blood sugar control.

This trial looked at resistance training instead. That matters because strength work usually means a dedicated gym session, which is harder to fit into a busy day. Breaking it into one-minute pieces could make it easier to start.

What the study can’t tell us

The trial was small, and the volunteers were young men who already lifted weights. They did one exercise, the squat, for eight weeks. The results may not apply to women, older adults, beginners or other exercises. Because the sessions were supervised, the study also can’t show whether people would keep up short bursts on their own.

ScienceAlert noted that the researchers had expected traditional training to build better endurance than the short bursts. That hypothesis was not supported here. The authors say longer studies in more diverse groups are needed.

The bottom line

For people short on time, this early evidence suggests that a few one-minute sets of squats spread through the day can do much of what a longer session does. It is a promising option, not yet a proven replacement for a full workout. Anyone with a health condition or injury should check with a doctor before starting a new exercise routine.

Most of us know exercise is good for the heart. It makes the muscle stronger and brings the resting heart rate down. But new research from the University of Bristol suggests there is another layer. Regular exercise may also change the nerves that tell the heart how fast to beat.

What The Researchers Did

The heart is partly run by the autonomic nervous system, the body’s autopilot. It handles heartbeat, breathing and digestion without you thinking about it. According to a University of Bristol statement, the team studied rats that did 10 weeks of moderate treadmill running. They then examined the stellate ganglia, two small clusters of nerve cells on either side of the lower neck and upper chest. These clusters send the “go faster” signals to the heart.

The study appeared in the journal Autonomic Neuroscience, with researchers from University College London and two Brazilian universities.

In untrained rats, the left and right clusters looked fairly similar. In trained rats, they did not. Healthline, reporting on the paper, said the right cluster held about four times as many neurons as the left. The nerve cells also changed size in opposite directions. Those on the left grew to nearly twice their size, while those on the right became slightly smaller.

The trained rats also had a lower heart rate, around 280 beats a minute against 314 in untrained rats, while their blood pressure stayed about the same, according to Healthline’s report on the study.

Why It Matters

Doctors already target these nerve clusters in some patients. Nerve blocks and denervation procedures calm them down to treat irregular heartbeats, angina (chest pain from poor blood flow to the heart) and stress-induced “broken-heart” syndrome.

Dr. Augusto Coppi, the study’s lead author, said in the University of Bristol’s statement that the clusters work like the heart’s “dimmer switch.” He said that knowing how they differ on each side could one day help doctors pick the side most likely to benefit.

Also Read: Vanessa Trump Recovers From 'Very Invasive' Breast Cancer, Reveals Early Sign Of The Disease

This was a rat study. Dr. Coppi himself said in the same statement that the findings are early-stage and that clinical studies would need to follow. The team still has to show how these changes affect the way the heart actually works. They plan to test larger animals and eventually people, using noninvasive markers so no surgery is needed.

So this is not a new reason to change anyone’s treatment. It is a clue, not a cure.

The advice itself is old and well proven. The World Health Organization recommends that adults aged 18 to 64 do at least 150 to 300 minutes of moderate aerobic activity a week, or 75 to 150 minutes of vigorous activity. Brisk walking, swimming and cycling all count. WHO data also shows that about a third of adults worldwide still don’t do enough.

If you have a heart condition, get chest pain, or take heart medicines, check with your doctor before starting a new routine. For everyone else, the message is simple. Your heart is not the only thing that changes when you work out. The nerves that control it may change too.

For someone living with obesity today, the treatment conversation has become more complex and, in many ways, far more hopeful. With newer weight-loss pharmacotherapies offering significant results, patients and clinicians now have more options than ever before. The key question is no longer whether medication or surgery is better, but rather which approach or combination of therapies is most appropriate for a particular patient.

Obesity is a chronic, relapsing disease that can affect much more than body weight. It is closely linked to severe metabolic comorbidities, including type 2 diabetes, hypertension, obstructive sleep apnoea, fatty liver disease, joint problems and reduced quality of life. Treatment must therefore focus not merely on short-term weight loss, but on long-term metabolic health and sustained weight maintenance.

How Newer Weight-Loss Medicines Are Changing Treatment

Newer anti-obesity medicines, including GLP-1-based and related therapies, have significantly expanded the options available to patients. They can support meaningful weight loss and improve metabolic health when combined with appropriate nutrition, physical activity and behavioural support. They may be particularly useful for patients who are not ready for surgery, those who need to improve their health before an operation, or those who experience weight recurrence after previous treatment.

However, these medicines do not work in the same way for everyone. Long-term treatment may be required, while side effects, affordability, access and adherence can influence outcomes. Some patients may also regain weight after stopping treatment. In India, the cost and continued access to these therapies are therefore important considerations when planning long-term care.

Also read: Is ‘Ozempic Face’ Influencing The Beauty Industry? Global Cosmetic Brand Highlights A New Trend Amid GLP-1 Boom

Why Bariatric Surgery Remains An Important Option

For patients with severe obesity, particularly those with established metabolic complications, metabolic and bariatric surgery remains an important treatment option. Procedures such as sleeve gastrectomy, Roux-en-Y gastric bypass and one-anastomosis gastric bypass can influence appetite, gut hormones and glucose metabolism, in addition to reducing stomach capacity. This can result in substantial weight loss and improvement in conditions such as diabetes and sleep apnoea.

The decision to undergo surgery should be based on factors such as the severity of obesity, associated illnesses, previous treatment attempts and the patient's readiness for an operation and long-term follow-up. Surgery is not an endpoint; nutritional care, lifestyle changes and regular monitoring remain important afterwards.

Also read: Swiss Team Including Indian Scientists Develops Electric Implant To Lower Blood Sugar Without Insulin Or Drugs

Combining Medication, Surgery And Lifestyle Changes

Weight regain also needs to be viewed in the context of obesity as a chronic disease. Treatment may need to evolve over time, with medicines, surgery and lifestyle interventions playing different roles at different stages. A patient may use medication before surgery to improve metabolic health, while another may require medication later to manage weight recurrence. This approach allows treatment to adapt to the patient's changing needs rather than treating weight loss as a one-time goal.

Technology is also influencing how bariatric surgery is performed. Technology has fundamentally elevated precision in minimally invasive bariatric procedures. Robotic-assisted surgical systems, such as the da Vinci Surgical System provide three-dimensional visualisation and wristed instruments that flex and rotate with dexterity far exceeding the human hand.

Operating at a dedicated console, the surgeon maintains full control throughout the procedure, as the system translates hand movements in real time with built-in tremor filtration. These capabilities are particularly advantageous during complex reconstructive procedures such as gastric bypass, where precise suturing, micro-dissection, and delicate tissue handling are paramount.

The technology, however, works within a broader surgical ecosystem. Patient selection, surgical expertise, standardised protocols, anaesthesia and postoperative care remain central to achieving good outcomes.

What Real-World Experience With Robotic Bariatric Surgery Shows

Our real-world experience of 545 patients undergoing robotic bariatric surgery with the da Vinci Surgical System showed consistent outcomes across procedures, including in patients with severe obesity. There were no conversions to open or laparoscopic surgery, the 30-day post-discharge complication rate was 2.02%, and no mortality was reported during follow-up.

At one year, mean BMI reduced from 44.55 to 32.68 kg/m², while outcomes in patients with BMI ≥50 kg/m² remained broadly comparable with the overall cohort. For patients, this translates into predictable perioperative outcomes and meaningful weight reduction, while for surgeons, the experience demonstrates how robotic assistance can be integrated into bariatric practice, including the management of technically challenging cases.

The changing obesity landscape ultimately calls for a comprehensive, personalized approach to treatment. Anti-obesity medications have expanded the options available to patients, while metabolic and bariatric surgery remains the cornerstone intervention for those who require substantial, durable weight loss and metabolic improvement. Neither approach should be viewed in isolation from nutrition, physical activity, behavioral health, and long-term follow-up.