Image Credit: Canva
When was the last time you measured your waistline? If you assume that BMI is the only number to focus on when it comes to your health, think twice. New research has revealed a shocking revelation—your waist circumference might be a far better predictor of men's cancer risk than BMI.
The study finds that for each 4-inch increase in waist size, a man's risk of cancer increases by a staggering 25%. Meanwhile, BMI, commonly regarded as the gold standard for assessing obesity, raises cancer risk by only 19% for the same weight gain. So, if you've been dismissing that pesky belly fat, it's time to take notice.
But why is your waistline so important? The reason is visceral fat—the hidden, deep fat that accumulates around your organs. Unlike other body fat, visceral fat is a stealthy troublemaker, causing inflammation, insulin resistance, and abnormal blood fat levels—all of which combine to create a cancer-perfect storm.
Obesity has been associated with an increased risk of numerous health conditions, including cancer, for decades. The research, though, indicates that a specific measure of the body—waist circumference—may be an even more reliable forecaster of cancer risk in men than the more frequently employed Body Mass Index (BMI). This finding emphasizes the need to pay particular attention to the distribution of fat and not merely to the weight of the body.
BMI has been the go-to measure for years for gauging health risks related to obesity. New research, though, that appears in The Journal of the National Cancer Institute indicates that waist measurement is a better predictor of cancer risk in men. According to the research, four more inches (10 cm) around the waist will add 25% to a man's cancer risk. Conversely, a 3.7 kg/m² rise in BMI (from a BMI of 24 to 27.7) increased cancer risk by only 19%.
Why is waist circumference a better predictor, then? Unlike BMI, which measures weight relative to height, waist circumference actually measures abdominal fat—specifically, visceral fat. This type of fat encircles internal organs and is also linked to higher levels of inflammation, insulin resistance, and abnormal blood lipids, all of which are factors in cancer growth. BMI, however, does not measure fat distribution, so two individuals with the same BMI can have very different levels of health risk depending on where fat is deposited on their bodies.
Interestingly, the research identified a significant difference between men and women when it came to waist circumference and cancer risk. Although waist circumference and BMI were linked with obesity-related cancers in women, the relationship was weaker than for men. An increase of 12 cm (4.7 inches) in waist size or a 4.3 rise in BMI (from 24 to 28.3) raised the cancer risk in women by just 13%—a much lower percentage than for men.
Experts credit this difference to the way that fat is stored in the body. Men are more likely to carry fat around the abdomen, especially as visceral fat, which is more metabolically active and associated with cancer-producing biological alterations. Women, by contrast, store fat in peripheral sites such as the hips and thighs, where it is less likely to drive systemic inflammation and metabolic disturbances.
A possible reason is that men tend to depot fat more in the visceral regions, whereas women tend to carry more subcutaneous and peripheral fat," wrote the researchers. "This may render waist circumference a more robust risk factor for cancer in men and account for why waist circumference provides additional risk information beyond BMI in men but not women."
The research used the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) data to define obesity-related cancers. These cancers are esophageal (adenocarcinoma), gastric (cardia), colorectal, rectal, liver, gallbladder, pancreatic, renal, and thyroid cancers, and multiple myeloma and meningioma. In men, abdominal obesity is especially significant in raising the risk of these cancers through high levels of insulin and markers of inflammation.
For women, the research proposes that both waist circumference and hip circumference may give a more accurate estimate of visceral fat and cancer risk. "Adding hip circumference to risk models could strengthen the link between waist circumference and cancer, especially in women," researchers observed.
With these results, doctors advise men to be more mindful of their waistline than only their BMI. Waist size is an easy method to gauge health risk, and its maintenance through lifestyle changes might be the key to cancer prevention.
Track Your Waist Size: Regularly measure your waist circumference and try to keep it in a healthy range (below 40 inches for men, according to medical advice).
Eat a Balanced Diet: A diet containing high fiber, lean protein, and healthy fats can assist in limiting visceral fat gain.
Exercise Consistently: Regular exercise with a combination of aerobic and strength training will help maintain a healthy waistline.
Control Stress and Sleep: Persistent stress and inadequate sleep tend to cause weight gain, especially in the midsection of the body.
Regular Health Screenings: Early identification of cancer risk factors through regular screening can greatly enhance long-term health status.
Credits: Canva
The internet is obsessing with the idea that Japan has a fat law, it fines people for being "fat". Talk about sensational headlines, mistranslations, and social media exaggerations. But what does Japan's so-called 'fat law' actually say? Does it really change anything?
Health and Me did a closer fact check on Japan's Fat Law, and here is what we found.
In 2008, the Japanese Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare introduced the Metabolic Syndrome Countermeasures Promotion Law, which was popularly nicknamed the 'Metabo Law'. the word 'metabo' comes from metabolic syndrome, a cluster of high-risk conditions that include elevated blood pressure, high blood sugar, abnormal cholesterol, and excess fat around the waist. If left untreated, this could increase the risk of heart attacks, stroke and diabetes.
The law's main focus is on identifying these risks as early as possible. As part of Japan's long-standing annual health check tradition, about 50 to 56 million adults aged 40 to 74 undergo this mandatory waist measurements every year. The waistline thresholds are:
While the numbers are not arbitrary, they match the International Diabetes Federation's guidelines used to screen metabolic risks.
The Times-Union fact check confirms: "Japanese citizens cannot be fined or imprisoned for being overweight". RosePlus Japan also reports that the term "fat tax is a mistranslation and that "it is not illegal to be fat in Japan".
The law basically shifts the responsibility away from individuals to governments and employers.
Annual measurement: Employers and local authorities measure the waistlines of eligible adults.
If someone exceeds the limit:
No individual penalties: There is no fine for not losing weight.
Employer penalties:
This structure makes the Metabo Law more of a workplace wellness mandate than a personal weight regulation.
Much of the misunderstanding comes from how Japanese concepts were translated in English. With the word "law" being reported internationally, it implied a strict legal prohibition.
"Metabo" was incorrectly equated was being "fat", losing its medical meaning.
However, there have been things that changed since 2008. This includes companies offering nutrition workshops, physical activity support, health check programs for employees and their families. The annual health checks are now more structured. People flagged for metabolic syndrome were connected with counselling and monitoring, which can reduce long-term medical costs. The conversation has now also shifted towards body autonomy, public health and role of employers in personal wellness.
Credits: Canva
In a what doctors call an "exceptionally rare event', a Michigan man has died of rabies after receiving a kidney from a donor who was unknowingly infected with the virus. A recent report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) gives information on how this rare medical event took place, with a surprising chain of exposures that vegan with a skunk scratch.
The Michigan patient underwent a kidney transplant at an Ohio hospital in December 2024. For several weeks, he seemed to be recovering normally. About five weeks after the procedure, he suddenly developed worrying symptoms such as tremors, weakness in his lower limbs, confusion and urinary incontinence. His condition deteriorated quickly and he was admitted to the hospital, soon requiring ventilation. Despite treatment, he passed away. Postmortem tests confirmed that he had rabies, a diagnosis that shocked doctors since his family said he had not been around any animals.
The unexpected diagnosis pushed doctors to take another look at the kidney donor, a man from Idaho. In the Donor Risk Assessment Interview, he had mentioned that a skunk had scratched him. At the time, this detail did not raise major concern. When investigators spoke to the donor’s family again, they learned more about the incident. A couple of months before his death, the donor had been holding a kitten in a shed on his rural property when a skunk approached and behaved aggressively. He stepped in to protect the kitten and managed to knock the skunk unconscious. Before that happened, the animal scratched his shin deeply enough to draw blood. He believed he had not been bitten, and the incident was never viewed as a medical emergency.
Around five weeks after the skunk encounter, the donor began showing symptoms that closely resemble rabies. He became confused and had trouble swallowing and walking. His family said he experienced hallucinations and complained of a stiff neck. Two days later, he was found unresponsive at home after what was believed to be a cardiac arrest. He was resuscitated and hospitalized but never regained consciousness. He was declared brain dead after several days, and his organs, including his left kidney, were donated.
Once rabies was detected in the kidney recipient, authorities examined stored laboratory samples from the donor. These tests were initially negative. However, kidney biopsy samples revealed a strain that matched silver-haired bat rabies. This finding suggested that the donor had in fact died of rabies and unknowingly passed the virus to the transplant recipient.
Investigators believe a likely three step transmission occurred. A bat infected a skunk, the skunk infected the donor, and the donor’s kidney infected the recipient. The CDC noted that only three other cases of rabies transmission through organ transplantation have been reported in the United States since 1978.
Three other people had received cornea grafts from the same donor. Once the risk was identified, the grafts were removed and all three individuals received Post Exposure Prophylaxis. They remained healthy and showed no symptoms.
Rabies is not routinely tested for in organ donors because human cases are extremely rare and difficult to diagnose. In this situation, the donor’s earlier symptoms were attributed to existing health conditions. Speaking to the New York Times, Dr Lara Danziger-Isakov said the case was exceptionally rare and reminded the public that the overall risk to transplant recipients remains very small.
Credits: Canva
Delhi continues to wake up to thick haze on Wednesday morning, with 28 stations in 'poor' category, while nine stations remained under 'very poor'. Though there is a slight improvement as the average AQI stood at 269, in poor category. The Chief Minister of Delhi has enforced stricter measures like imposing fines up to Rs. 5,000 for open burning, and use of coal and firewood.
Delhi pollution has now affected people way beyond their respiratory health, it has now attacked almost all organs of their body, including fetus, reproductive health, liver, kidneys, and even chronic diseases like diabetes, obesity, blood pressure, and even mental health illness.
But could Delhi do more? Right now all the measures, including emergency measures like GRAP have not worked more than a dent. However, China seems to have reverse its pollution problem.
In 2013, Beijing was battling with pollution problem. As per the data by the World Health Organization (WHO), in 2013, the annual means of PM2.5 levels reached 64.9 micrograms per cubic meter, whereas, in India, it was at 58.2. However, by 2019, China was able to bring it down to 38.15 micrograms per cubic meter while India remained at 50.17.
Since 2013, almost 80% of China has experienced air quality improvement. Beijing declared a war on pollution by shutting 3,000 coal boilers, which slashed coal use by 30%. It also forced factory to either close or comply with the guidelines. Clean energy also replaced soot and electric buses replaced diesel ones. The subway was expanded to 1,000 kilometers and by 2020, 40% of new cars were electric.
In the late 2000s, China began taking air pollution more seriously than ever. As per the UCLA Law professor Alex L Wang, China's 11th FYP (2006-10) made pollution a priority and used the "cadre evaluation system". This pushed officials to meet environmental targets. The system evaluates governors, mayors, and local leaders based on how well they perform compared to others in tackling pollution problem, which influences their promotions.
To cut pollution, China invested heavily in cleaner technology and shut down old, highly polluting factories such as power plants, smelters, and chemical units. The government also encouraged the shift to electric vehicles. Even though much of China’s electricity comes from coal, EVs still produce fewer emissions overall and create no tailpipe pollution in cities.
By 2017, Shenzhen became the first city in the world to fully electrify its 16,000 buses. Shanghai too followed its lead.
Studies by Tsinghua University and the Beijing Environmental Bureau showed that between 2013 and 2017, major improvements in air quality came from reducing coal boiler use, cleaner home heating, shutting down polluting industries, and controlling vehicle emissions.
The result was nothing less than remarkable. From 2013 to 2017, Beijing’s PM2.5 levels dropped by 35%, and life expectancy rose by 4.6 years.
© 2024 Bennett, Coleman & Company Limited