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
America is aiming to align with global trends in sun protection. On December 11, the Food and Drug Administration proposed allowing the use of bemotrizinol in sunscreens — an ingredient that has been widely used in other countries for years.
Bemotrizinol provides stable, long-lasting defence against both types of UV rays that can harm the skin. According to the FDA announcement, it is gentle enough to be safe for young children and could be on shelves in time for next summer.
"The agency has historically moved too slowly in this area, leaving Americans with fewer options than consumers abroad. We’re continuing to modernize the regulation of sunscreen and other over-the-counter drug products,” FDA Commissioner Marty Makary said in a press statement. “Americans deserve timely access to the best safe, effective, and consumer-friendly over-the-counter products available.”
Bemotrizinol, also called BEMT, is a chemical that absorbs both UVB and UVA rays. If those terms sound familiar, it’s likely because you’ve seen them on nearly every sunscreen bottle. The sun emits ultraviolet (UV) radiation, which is exactly what sunscreen is designed to block.
UVB and UVA describe different kinds of rays, according to the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center. For our skin, the difference isn’t huge. UVA causes tanning and burns faster than UVB, while UVB can be partially blocked by barriers like windows or clouds.
About 95% of UV reaching the ground is UVA, with UVB making up the remaining 5%, according to the Anderson Cancer Center. Sunscreens work in two ways: creating a physical barrier with minerals or using chemicals that absorb rays before they reach the skin. BEMT falls into the latter category.
BEMT ticks many boxes for an effective sunscreen ingredient. It is broad-spectrum, shielding against both UVA and UVB, and achieves higher SPF protection in smaller amounts than some other popular chemicals, according to Certified Laboratories and the FDA via USA Today. It is also photostable, meaning it breaks down more slowly when exposed to sunlight, and being oil-soluble makes it easy to mix into creams.
The ingredient is minimally absorbed into the body through the skin and rarely causes irritation, which is why the FDA considers it safe for children as young as six months old.
Following the proposal, the FDA has opened a 45-day public comment period. Once the agency reviews feedback and confirms safety, it will issue a final order to allow the ingredient. Over-the-counter approvals are generally faster than the one-to-two years typical for prescription drugs. The FDA told Today that BEMT sunscreens could be available by summer or fall of 2026.
Recent holdups at the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in clearing new sunscreen ingredients have largely stemmed from long-standing regulatory slowdowns, which left American shoppers with fewer choices than those offered in many other countries.
The agency’s plan to permit the use of bemotrizinol, a filter already common abroad, marks a step toward updating its approach to sunscreen oversight and giving people access to more advanced formulas. Updates from the agency note that bemotrizinol delivers steady, broad-spectrum defense against UVA and UVB rays and is mild enough for children, bringing U.S. standards closer to what is widely available worldwide.
Credits: Canva
As a strong wave of “superflu” and other seasonal infections moves through the country, large numbers of people have fallen ill this winter. The rise has been serious enough for some NHS officials to advise anyone with symptoms to wear a mask. Newly released data shows how quickly the situation has worsened, with flu admissions jumping by 55 percent in a single week.
This sharp climb has pushed the NHS into what leaders describe as a “worst case scenario” for December. As per The Independent, over the past week, hospitals saw an average of 2,660 daily admissions for flu, the highest figure ever recorded at this point in the year. With so many people under the weather, many are trying to work out which pain reliever offers better comfort. An expert previously spoke to the Mirror on this exact point.
Figures released today highlight the severity of the situation, with flu hospitalisations having surged by more than half (55%) in just one week. This massive increase has officially plunged the NHS into a "worst case scenario" situation for the month of December. Last week, an average of 2,660 patients per day were admitted to hospital beds with flu, marking the highest number ever recorded for this time of year.
With so many people falling poorly, it can be helpful to know which medicine is best to take. Thankfully an expert previously spoke to the Mirror about ibuprofen and paracetamol. Abbas Kanani, the superintendent pharmacist at Chemist Click, said: "Paracetamol is probably more effective at bringing down temperature, so it's almost like a double-whammy, you get rid of your headache and bring your temperature down. "But if you feel that you have more body aches, that's your main symptom, then ibuprofen is probably slightly better as it's an anti-inflammatory."
However, he cautioned users to be mindful of potential allergies to ibuprofen, which belongs to a specific class of drugs.
He also revealed that many people are unaware that they can actually take both medicines together when feeling particularly unwell. "If you feel that one isn't enough you can take ibuprofen as well as paracetamol, you can take them together. A lot of people don't know that it's not one or the other, you can put them together as they work in different ways."
While these two medications can alleviate aches, pains and fevers, as well as mild cold and flu symptoms, Abbas notes that they won't be particularly effective for those struggling with coughs and nasal congestion.
To address these specific symptoms, you'd need to utilise cold and flu products instead.
Many people assume one medicine works better for all flu complaints, but the expert’s guidance shows that the right choice depends on what you’re feeling. Fever and headache respond more readily to paracetamol, while body aches and inflammation may ease faster with ibuprofen. For coughs or blocked sinuses, cold-and-flu formulas are needed because standard pain relievers do not target those issues.
Credits: Canva
Public forums often turn into places where people share worries they hesitate to bring up with a doctor. Reddit, especially, saw a surge of unusual yet genuinely important questions about sexually transmitted infections this year in 2025. A large number of these posts came from young adults who felt unsure about new symptoms, confused about how infections spread or overwhelmed by the flood of sexual-health content circulating online.
The ten questions below may seem odd at first glance, but each one raises a medically sensible point. Together, they show how gaps in sexual-health awareness still shape the way people talk about intimacy and illness on the internet.
STI refers to a Sexually Transmitted Infection. It is an infection passed through sexual activity such as oral, vaginal or anal contact, and in some cases through non-sexual routes such as blood exposure or mother-to-child transmission.
These infections can be caused by bacteria, viruses or parasites. Some lead to clear symptoms while others remain silent, but untreated cases can result in serious health problems. When an STI begins to cause notable medical issues, it is often described as a Sexually Transmitted Disease (STD).
One user who had only engaged in oral and anal sex with another virgin noticed marks on their legs and wondered if infections could be “passed down by parents.” The spots disappeared on their own, likely due to shaving irritation, yet the question reveals a common misconception. STIs cannot be inherited genetically. They require actual transmission through sexual contact, blood or childbirth.
This question came from someone who had watched too many alarming clips about PrEP and safe sex on social media. They became so uneasy that they avoided going on dates until they understood the risks. Some infections can spread through oral sex and deep kissing, though the degree of risk varies. Their fear felt intense, but the doubt itself was completely reasonable.
A user in a regional subreddit asked whether STIs even “exist here” because no one talked about them openly. The framing sounded odd, but it reflected the silence that still surrounds sexual health in many places. STIs appear everywhere, though in some communities the subject is rarely discussed.
One of the year’s most unusual but earnest threads came from someone trying to understand whether anonymous sexual setups increase risk. They asked about skin-to-skin contact, bodily fluids and the impact of poor visibility. Though the question seemed strange, experts often point out that uncertainty about partners and surroundings can raise the chance of exposure.
Another thread took a more confrontational tone, suggesting that anyone who uses a glory hole “either already has an STD or doesn’t care.” Replies pushed back, saying that anonymity has many motives and that what truly matters is the use of protection and clarity about risk, not assumptions about a person’s character.
This question was framed like a moral dilemma, but the situation involved real medical timing. A woman had contracted an STI from a partner who had tested too early for the infection to show up on his results. One commenter suggested that the timing hinted at sexual activity very close to the start of their relationship. The discussion blended relationship boundaries with the science of incubation periods.
A worried user described swollen tonsils, tiredness, muscle twitching, stomach cramps, cracking joints, night sweats and more. None of this lined up with any single STI, yet their panic was sincere. The thread showed how anxiety can turn normal bodily sensations into something that feels catastrophic.
A person who had their first sexual experience by giving oral sex to an AFAB partner developed painful cracks on their genitals a few days later, even though there was no genital contact. They feared they had caught an infection. While genital cracks from oral contact alone are unlikely, some infections can move through oral-genital routes. Their confusion made sense even if the symptoms did not match the exposure.
Several users described bumps, redness and irritation, convinced they must have an STI. Many replies explained that chafing, sweat, allergic reactions or grooming habits can look similar to infection symptoms.
Some posters were puzzled when new bodily changes appeared long after a sexual encounter. They mentioned stomach issues, headaches or tiredness. While certain infections do have incubation windows, many unrelated issues can appear around the same time, which can lead people to make the wrong connection.
These questions may sound strange, but nearly all came from people trying to understand their bodies and risks. They also show how much sexual-health education remains incomplete. Proper testing, routine medical visits and clear conversations with professionals are still far more dependable than guessing through anonymous internet threads.
© 2024 Bennett, Coleman & Company Limited