A new report published in The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology challenges the conventional definition of obesity, and urges a shift from the reliance on Body Mass Index (BMI) to a more nuanced approach. This is supported by over 50 global medical experts. The report also recommends splitting the term "obesity" into two categories: "Clinical obesity" and "Pre-clinical obesity". This aims to improve diagnosis and treatment for over a billion people worldwide living with obesity.

Clinically Obese

This applies to individuals whose obesity has progressed to a disease state, manifesting in organ damage, heart disease, type 2 diabetes, or other health complications. These individuals could also experience symptoms like breathlessness, joint pain, or impaired daily functioning. Treatment also involves medical interventions, including weight-loss medications or surgery.

Pre-Clinic Obese

Whereas the term "pre-clinic obese" refers to those who are overweight but not yet exhibiting health issues. While they may be at risk of developing obesity-related conditions, their organ function and overall health remain intact. What they need is preventive care, which includes dietary guidance, counselling, and regular monitoring to avoid and reduce future health risks.

What does the study say?

The study, led by Professor Francesco Rubino from King's College London emphasizes that obesity is not one-size-fits-all condition. This means it should rather be treated as a spectrum as some individuals maintain normal organ function despite being classified as obese. There are others who may face severe health complications too. However, the current method of calculating obesity based on BMI often leads to misdiagnosis or inadequate care.

The report also states that BMI, while is useful for analyzing population trends, is a flawed unit of measuring individual health. Therefore, there is a need to redefine obesity, and healthcare professionals can provide more precise care by distinguishing those who need immediate medical intervention and those who require preventive strategies.

Limitations of BMI, Why It Falls Short?

BMI is used to classify individuals as underweight, healthy weight, overweight, or obese based on their height and weight. It is calculated by dividing weight in kilograms by health in meters squared. However, there are reasons while it falls short.

•Muscle vs Fat: Athletes or muscular individuals often have high BMIs despite the low body fat

•Fat Distribution: BMI does not measure fat around the waist or organs, which could be more dangerous to one's health.

•Individual Health Variation: It also overlooks the specific health conditions such as heart diseases or diabetes, or any other, while evaluating a person's category in terms of weight.

ALSO READ: Is It Time To Say Goodbye To BMI?

Scope Of Study

By redefining obesity, the study could transform the approach to diagnosis and treatment. It can focus on individual health risks rather than BMI alone. Healthcare providers can also offer tailored care. This also will ensure hat weight-loss medications like Wegovy or Mounjaro are prescribed only to those who genuinely require it.

As per Professor Louise Baur from the University of Sydney, a Children's obesity expert said that this redefinition allows both adults and children to receive more appropriate care while reducing over-diagnosis and unnecessary treatments.

As India steps into 2026, two familiar yet unsettling names have returned to the public health conversation. Nipah virus cases reported from West Bengal and fresh bird flu detections among crows in Bihar have raised questions about how dangerous these infections really are for humans. While both diseases originate in animals and can cross over to people, their risks, spread patterns and fatality levels are very different.

Two zoonotic threats, very different risks

Nipah virus and avian influenza are both zoonotic, meaning they jump from animals to humans. Beyond that similarity, the comparison largely ends. Nipah is rare but extremely lethal when it infects humans. Bird flu, on the other hand, spreads widely among birds and poultry, but only occasionally infects people.

Health experts note that understanding this distinction is crucial. Nipah alarms public health systems because even a small cluster of cases can lead to severe illness and death. Bird flu triggers large scale surveillance mainly due to its impact on poultry and the economy, with human cases remaining uncommon.

Read: Bird Flu In India: How Safe Is It To Eat Chicken And Eggs?

Nipah virus and why it worries health officials

The Nipah virus was first identified in Malaysia in the late 1990s and has since caused multiple outbreaks in South and Southeast Asia. Fruit bats are its natural carriers, and humans can get infected through contaminated food, contact with infected animals or close contact with an infected person.

Symptoms often begin like a common viral illness, with fever, headache and cough. In many patients, the disease progresses rapidly. Within days, some develop encephalitis, seizures, confusion and coma. Respiratory distress is also common in severe cases.

According to the World Health Organization, Nipah’s fatality rate ranges between 40 and 75 percent, depending on the outbreak and access to timely medical care. There is no approved vaccine or specific antiviral treatment. Doctors rely on intensive supportive care, which makes early detection and isolation critical.

In January 2026, West Bengal reported multiple Nipah cases, prompting contact tracing and monitoring of nearly 200 people. Most tested negative, and the WHO assessed the risk of wider spread as low. Still, the high death rate keeps Nipah firmly on India’s list of priority pathogens.

Bird flu and its limited human impact

Bird flu, or avian influenza, is caused by influenza A viruses that primarily infect birds. Strains such as H5N1 and H9N2 have been detected repeatedly in India among poultry and wild birds. Bihar’s Darbhanga district recently reported thousands of bird deaths, triggering containment measures.

Humans usually get infected through close contact with sick or dead birds or contaminated environments. When infection does occur, symptoms can resemble seasonal flu at first, but severe cases may progress to pneumonia or acute respiratory distress.

Some bird flu strains have shown high fatality rates among confirmed human cases, sometimes close to 50 percent. However, experts stress that these numbers come from very small case counts. Sustained human to human transmission remains rare, which limits large outbreaks in people.

Read: Nipah Virus Outbreak In India: Myanmar Airport Tightens Health Screenings

Which virus is deadlier for humans?

In terms of individual risk, Nipah virus is considered deadlier for humans. Its consistently high fatality rate, lack of treatment options and potential to cause severe brain inflammation make it especially dangerous, even when case numbers are low.

Bird flu poses a broader threat to animal health and livelihoods, but its direct impact on human life has so far been limited. Public health officials continue to monitor both closely, knowing that vigilance, early reporting and strong surveillance are the best tools to prevent either virus from spiralling into a larger crisis.

What won't people do to get that gold. In the quest for so, Olympians re injecting hyaluronic acid in their penises. The reason? For skiing, it helps them fly better and further.

In January, a German newspaper, Bild reported that jumpers were injecting, what now is dubbed as Penisgate in their penis. The newspaper claimed that athletes inject the acid in the penis before they are measured for their suits.

Does Bigger Penis Help You Ski Better?: What Does Penisgate Do To The Penis?

Hyaluronic acid is used for cosmetic surgery, especially as a filler. Surgeons have also used it for penile girth enlargement. This is exactly why it is being used by the Olympians.

Injecting hyaluronic acid will increase the penile girth. However, experts point out that this means, one has to insert a lot of it in the penis to have this worked out. It is not a permanent solution, and can only last up to six to 12 months, depending on the absorption.

Inserting this will increase the penile girth or the penis circumference by one or two centimeters. As per the International Ski and Snowboard Federation, FIS, the surface area of their suits during competition could be increased by this, which increases their flight in the air, reported BBC.

"Every extra centimetre on a suit counts. If you suit has a 5% bigger surface area, you fly further," said FIS ski jumping's men race director Sandro Pertile, reported by BBC.

Does Bigger Penis Help You Ski Better?: Why Are Olympians Injecting Their Penises With Hyaluronic Acid?

Ahead of each season, ski jumpers undergo measurements using 3D body scanners and are required to wear only elastic, body-tight underwear during the process.

Regulations allow suit measurements a tolerance of just 2–4 cm. As part of this assessment, athletes’ crotch height is also recorded. The suit’s crotch height must match the athlete’s own measurement, with an additional 3 cm permitted for men.

Hyaluronic acid injections into the penis can last for up to 18 months.

Athletes have previously faced scrutiny for attempting to boost performance through alterations or manipulation of their suits.

Does Bigger Penis Help You Ski Better?: What Are The Risks Of Injecting Hyaluronic Acid In Penis?

Experts caution that penile injections using hyaluronic acid can pose serious short- and long-term risks.

They warn that improper technique or incorrect dosing may lead to pain, disfigurement, deformity, infection, inflammation, altered sensation, and sexual dysfunction. In rare cases, infections can worsen, causing tissue death (gangrene) and even loss of the penis.

A large population-based study from Linköping University in Sweden has found no evidence that COVID-19 vaccination caused a decline in childbirth during the pandemic, countering persistent rumors that mRNA vaccines affect fertility. The findings have been published in the peer-reviewed journal Communications Medicine.

The study was conducted amid widespread misinformation, particularly on social media, suggesting that COVID-19 vaccines reduce the chances of becoming pregnant. These claims gained traction as several countries, including Sweden, recorded a drop in birth rates during the later stages of the pandemic, prompting questions about a possible link to vaccination.

“Our conclusion is that it’s highly unlikely that the mRNA vaccine against COVID-19 was behind the decrease in childbirth during the pandemic,” said Toomas Timpka, professor of social medicine at Linköping University and one of the study’s authors.

Why Researchers Investigated the Claim

Since the early months of the pandemic, unverified claims about vaccines and fertility have circulated widely online. When official data later showed fewer babies being born in some regions, researchers decided to examine whether vaccination could plausibly explain the trend or whether other social and demographic factors were at play.

Read: Ahmedabad Toddler Swallows Hulk Toy, Showed X-Ray, Doctors Remove It Via Endoscopy

To address the issue, the research team carried out an extensive analysis using real-world healthcare data rather than surveys or self-reported outcomes.

Study Looks at Nearly 60,000 Women

The study analyzed health records of all women aged 18 to 45 years living in Region Jönköping County, a region with a total population of around 369,000 people. This amounted to nearly 60,000 women included in the analysis.

Between 2021 and 2024, about 75 per cent of these women received at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine. Researchers examined data on childbirths, registered miscarriages, vaccination status and deaths using official healthcare records, allowing for a comprehensive comparison between vaccinated and unvaccinated groups.

Importantly, the researchers adjusted their analysis for age, recognizing that age is one of the most significant factors influencing fertility and pregnancy outcomes.

No Difference in Births or Miscarriages

When childbirth rates were compared between vaccinated and unvaccinated women, the researchers found no statistically significant difference. The same held true for miscarriage rates among women who became pregnant during the study period.

“We see no difference in childbirth rates between those who have taken the vaccine and those who haven’t,” said Timpka. “We’ve also looked at all registered miscarriages among those who became pregnant, and we see no difference between the groups there either.”

These findings align with several earlier international studies that have similarly found no association between COVID-19 vaccination and reduced fertility.

Other Factors Likely Behind Falling Birth Rates

According to the researchers, the decline in childbirth observed during the pandemic is more plausibly explained by broader demographic and social trends.

People currently in their 30s, the age group most likely to have children, were born in the second half of the 1990s. That period was marked by economic challenges and lower birth rates in Sweden, meaning today’s pool of potential parents is smaller than in previous generations.

In addition, pandemic-related factors such as health concerns, economic uncertainty, delayed family planning and lifestyle changes during lockdowns may have contributed to fewer pregnancies.

One of the study’s key strengths is its large, representative sample drawn from an entire region rather than a selected group. By using verified healthcare records and accounting for age-related effects, the researchers aimed to minimize bias and improve reliability.

The study received financial support from several sources, including the Swedish Research Council.