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.
(AI Generated)
Rare diseases may be individually uncommon, but together they represent a large and persistent care gap. More than 300 million people globally live with a rare condition, and when families and caregivers are counted, the impact touches over one billion lives. The economic burden is estimated to exceed $7 trillion each year.
In India, the challenge is compounded by geography, uneven specialist availability and the lifelong nature of many rare conditions. The question is no longer whether the system recognises the need, but whether it can deliver continuous care at scale.
For most rare disease patients, the hardest part is not always the science but the pathway to care. Diagnosis is often delayed, sometimes by years. Patients move between providers carrying incomplete records. Specialist centres are concentrated in a few large cities, forcing families to travel repeatedly for consultations that may last only minutes. This is both financially draining and clinically inefficient.
Telemedicine is beginning to ease some of this pressure. Virtual consultations allow specialists to extend their reach beyond metropolitan clusters. For families in tier two and tier three locations, this can mean earlier clinical input and fewer avoidable journeys.
Remote monitoring tools are also shifting care from episodic hospital visits to continuous oversight, which is particularly valuable for conditions that require close tracking over time.
If access is the visible challenge, data fragmentation is the structural one. Rare disease information remains scattered across hospitals, laboratories and individual case files. This weak visibility affects everything from prevalence estimates to therapy development. Policymakers struggle to size the problem accurately. Clinicians miss longitudinal patterns. Industry investment becomes harder to justify.
Digital health systems can address this by creating longitudinal patient records that follow individuals across providers. Even relatively modest steps such as strengthening diagnostic reporting or building disease registries can significantly improve coordination. For rare diseases, where patient numbers are small and widely dispersed, structured data is not a luxury. It is the backbone of effective care.
India has begun building the rails needed for this transition. The Ayushman Bharat Digital Mission is creating a national health data architecture anchored in unique health IDs and interoperable records. If applied rigorously to rare diseases, this infrastructure can support lifelong patient tracking, improve referral accuracy and give policymakers clearer visibility into disease burden.
Interoperability will determine how far this effort goes. The growing adoption of FHIR standards and API led systems is slowly allowing previously disconnected hospital platforms to exchange clinical information. For rare disease patients, whose care often spans multiple providers and years of follow up, this continuity is not technical detail. It is essential to safe treatment.
Artificial intelligence is also starting to show practical value. Globally, AI based clinical decision support tools are being used to flag potential rare disease cases hidden within routine health records. This matters because many rare conditions present with non specific symptoms and are frequently missed in early stages.
Collaborations between technology firms and pharmaceutical companies are demonstrating how electronic health record analysis, suspect patient lists and longitudinal data can help clinicians triage cases earlier for confirmatory testing. As these tools mature and integrate into routine workflows, they could significantly shorten the diagnostic odyssey that rare disease families currently endure.
At the patient level, the shift is becoming more practical and visible. Tools that let people log symptoms, get medication reminders and share updates in real time are helping them stay more consistent with treatment, while giving clinicians better insight between visits. For lifelong conditions, this kind of day to day support brings care into the flow of everyday life, where most disease management actually happens.
Federated data models add an important layer of trust. By enabling analysis across multiple small patient populations without moving sensitive personal data, they address both privacy concerns and the sample size limitations that have historically slowed rare disease research.
Progress is visible across both public and private sectors. Regulated digital health platforms are already supporting rare disease programmes in several countries. Industry collaborations are using AI to detect conditions that often go undiagnosed for years. Public genomic databases are generating new diagnoses by enabling experts to build on shared evidence.
India’s immediate task is to move beyond isolated pilots. Telemedicine networks must be tied to referral protocols and reimbursement pathways. Digital registries must be built with strong governance and patient trust. AI tools need to be embedded into everyday clinical workflows rather than remaining demonstration projects.
Poorly managed rare diseases create avoidable hospitalisations, lost productivity and long term care costs. Evidence increasingly shows that targeted investments in data systems, screening and coordinated care can reduce downstream expenditure. For low- and middle-income countries working within tight health budgets, these are not marginal gains.
India already has many of the building blocks needed to improve rare disease care, from expanding digital health infrastructure to growing AI capabilities and increasing policy focus. The real test now is disciplined execution.
Telemedicine networks must deepen their reach, patient registries need to become reliable and usable, data must move securely across systems, and clinicians should have decision support tools that fit into everyday practice. Taken together, these steps can meaningfully narrow today’s access gaps.
Digital health will not make rare diseases any less complex. But if implemented thoughtfully, it can reduce distance, shorten delays and bring much needed continuity to care journeys that are currently fragmented. For families managing lifelong conditions, that would be a tangible and much overdue shift.
(AI Generated)
In India, it is not uncommon for families to travel across cities, sometimes across states, seeking answers for symptoms that simply don’t make sense. A child who is not meeting developmental milestones. A young adult with unexplained muscle weakness. Recurrent hospital visits with no clear diagnosis.
For many, this long and frustrating search for clarity is what medicine calls the diagnostic odyssey.
Rare diseases are individually uncommon, but collectively they affect millions of people worldwide. Rare diseases affect an estimated 263–446 million people worldwide, spanning every geography, healthcare system, and socioeconomic context. India alone is estimated to have 70 million people living with rare diseases.
Importantly, although 70%–80% of rare diseases are genetic in origin, routine medical practices often consider genetic testing only after years of inconclusive evaluations.
In India, this challenge is amplified by several factors, including limited awareness of rare conditions, uneven access to specialized testing across regions, and a tendency to treat symptoms individually rather than look for a unifying cause.
A child may see a neurologist for seizures, a gastroenterologist for feeding issues, and a developmental pediatrician for delays, without anyone connecting the dots.
Studies have shown that patients and their families frequently wait years before receiving a confirmed diagnosis. Globally, rare disease diagnosis can take anywhere between 5–30 years.
In a country like India, where healthcare expenses are often paid out-of-pocket, this prolonged uncertainty can be devastating. Beyond cost, there is the psychological toll; parents wondering if they missed something and adult patients often questioning whether their symptoms are “all in their head”. During this period, families undergo repeated tests, face conflicting opinions, and bear significant emotional and financial strains.
Research shows that families experience profound emotional burden during the diagnostic odyssey, including stress, anxiety, and feelings of isolation.
In many cases, the explanation is written into a person’s DNA. Genetic disorders rarely announce themselves clearly; instead, they often mimic common illnesses. Fatigue may look like anemia, developmental delay may resemble a learning difficulty, and repeated infections might be treated as isolated events rather than part of a larger pattern. Because the symptoms overlap with more familiar conditions, doctors naturally begin by treating what appears most likely.
Most healthcare systems also follow a step-by-step diagnostic approach; rule out the common causes first, then move to less common ones if symptoms persist. While this method works well for typical illnesses, it can significantly delay answers for rare genetic conditions. Without looking directly at the genetic blueprint, the underlying cause may remain hidden, even as the visible symptoms are managed one at a time.
Today, advances in genomic technologies such as whole-exome sequencing (WES) and whole-genome sequencing (WGS) allow us to examine thousands of genes simultaneously. Rather than guessing which gene might be responsible, we can comprehensively analyze a patient’s DNA to search for answers.
Evidence increasingly supports the use of genomic sequencing earlier in the diagnosis and care of rare diseases. Similarly, studies highlight how genomic testing not only provides diagnoses but also directly influences treatment decisions and long-term care planning.
In the Indian context, integrating genetic testing earlier could transform care. Instead of years of fragmented consultations, patients could receive a precise diagnosis sooner. This clarity can:
Encouragingly, awareness around rare diseases is growing in India, and conversations around early genomic testing are becoming more mainstream. As technology becomes more affordable and accessible, we have an opportunity to fundamentally change the patient journey.
No family should spend years searching for answers when science has the tools to help. By embracing genomic medicine earlier in the diagnostic pathway, we can shorten the odyssey, reduce suffering, and empower families with clarity.
Because when symptoms don’t add up, sometimes the answer lies written in our genes.
Former US president Bill Clinton’s recent public appearance has sparked inquires of Parkinson’s disease in the media. The video was made public by the GOP-led House Oversight Committee, and it showed Clinton alongside his legal team giving his testimony concerning his past associations with the late convicted sex offender Jeffery Epstein.
Social media users quickly pointed out that during the video, the former president’s hand visibly trembled as he raised his glass of water. Hand tremors are often associated with cognitive decline, as it is known as an early sign of Parkinson’s.
The footage, captured at his home in Chappaqua, New York, showed a specific moment where Clinton’s hands shook as Representative Nancy Mace questioned him.
According to Parkinson’s Foundation, for many, a tremor (shaking) is the first sign of Parkinson’s. The most common type is a "resting tremor." This means your hand or leg might shake while you are sitting still or walking, but the shaking usually stops or gets better when you actually use that body part like reaching out to grab a glass of water.
Most people with Parkinson’s (70% to 90%) will have a tremor at some point. Interestingly, patients who have a resting tremor often see their symptoms progress more slowly than those who don't.

WashU Medicine explains that essential tremor is the most common reason for shaky hands, but it’s different from Parkinson’s. With essential tremors, your hands shake while you are using them, like holding a deck of cards. Parkinson’s usually causes shaking only when hands are resting. So what are some factors that can cause hand tremors?
Almost everyone has a tiny, invisible tremor. However, things like high stress, being very tired, or feeling angry can make that shake visible. Drinking too much caffeine or smoking cigarettes can also cause your hands to tremble temporarily until the stimulants leave.
While anyone can develop a tremor, it is most common in people over age 65. This type of shaking is usually "benign," meaning it isn't dangerous. It mostly affects the hands, head, or voice, and rarely spreads to the legs or feet.
Sometimes, the medicine you take for other things is the culprit. Drugs for asthma, seizures, or depression can cause shakiness. Shaking can also happen if you are going through alcohol withdrawal or using tobacco, as these substances directly affect your nervous system.
Hand tremors can sometimes be a "warning light" for other health issues. Problems like an overactive thyroid, or rare conditions where copper builds up in the body, can cause shaking. A doctor can run simple tests to see if these are the cause.
While the footage may appear concerning to new viewers, these tremors are a documented part of Clinton's health history. As far back as 2013, the 42nd President addressed similar concerns, clarifying that he had undergone medical testing to rule out Parkinson’s.
At the time, Clinton explained that his doctors attributed the shaking to a "normal aging phenomenon." He noted that while he was initially concerned enough to seek a professional diagnosis, he felt relieved to learn the tremors were not related to a progressive disease.
© 2024 Bennett, Coleman & Company Limited