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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
Credit: iStock
Delhi-NCR is witnessing a sharp increase in seasonal influenza, with 1,777 confirmed H1N1 (swine flu) cases reported out of 2,392 total Influenza A cases.
According to data from the National Centre for Disease Control (NCDC), the corresponding period last year recorded just 229 H1N1 cases.
Several hospitals in the national capital have reported a significant increase in cases. However, so far there have been no reports of patients requiring ICU care or ventilator support.
“Delhi is fully prepared to deal with the present health situation. There is no shortage of beds, doctors, medicines or essential medical equipment, and every patient will receive timely and appropriate treatment,” health authorities said.
The Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) has confirmed that the current surge is not due to a new strain of H1N1 and has advised people to follow precautions rather than panic, PTI reported.
According to the apex research body, the Influenza A (H1N1) viruses currently circulating in India belong to the A/Missouri/11/2025 (H1N1)pdm09-like virus strain.
“These viruses belong to clade 6B.1A.5a2a, subclade D.3.1.1, and have been in circulation since 2025,” the ICMR said. “Seasonal influenza, including H1N1, is mostly self-limiting,” it added.
The ICMR said the influenza strains currently circulating in India are well matched with the vaccine strains recommended for the Northern Hemisphere.
For both egg-based vaccines and cell culture-, recombinant protein- or nucleic acid-based vaccines, the World Health Organization (WHO) recommends an A/Missouri/11/2025 (H1N1)pdm09-like virus.
HealthandMe spoke to experts to understand whether people should consider getting a flu vaccine amid the current rise in H1N1 cases and who should prioritise vaccination.
Doctors stressed that annual influenza vaccination remains an important tool to reduce the risk of severe illness, complications and hospitalization, particularly among people at higher risk.
“Since the 2009 H1N1 pandemic, H1N1 is no longer given as a separate standalone vaccine. The H1N1 strain is included in the regular seasonal influenza vaccine, whether trivalent or quadrivalent. Therefore, getting the recommended annual flu vaccine also protects against H1N1,” Dr Tushar Tayal, Associate Director, Internal Medicine, CK Birla Hospital, Gurugram, told HealthandMe.
The seasonal influenza vaccine is recommended every year for everyone aged six months and above. Doctors say vaccination is particularly important for:
The Indian Medical Association (IMA) advises that the inactivated influenza vaccine can be given to the above high-risk groups.
“The live attenuated influenza vaccine (intranasal spray) can be given only to persons aged 2-49 years (not to pregnant females),” as per the IMA.
“The H1N1 flu vaccine is typically administered annually before flu season, around October, as a single intramuscular dose at clinics, pharmacies or hospitals,” Dr Atul Gogia, Head, Infectious Diseases, Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, New Delhi, told HealthandMe.
For most adults and children aged over nine years, one dose each year is sufficient. However, children aged six months to eight years who are receiving the flu vaccine for the first time may require two doses at least four weeks apart. After the initial vaccination, one annual dose is generally sufficient.
In India, influenza vaccination is ideally taken ahead of periods when flu activity tends to increase, particularly during the monsoon and winter months. The vaccine is available through hospitals, clinics and vaccination centers.
With H1N1 cases currently rising in Delhi-NCR, people who fall into high-risk groups may particularly benefit from discussing vaccination with their doctor.
“While the shot drastically reduces hospitalizations and complications, its primary limitation is that it does not offer 100% protection against infection, nor does it cover non-influenza viruses. However, even if contracted, vaccination significantly softens the disease’s severity,” Dr Atul said.
Dr Tayal also explained that vaccine effectiveness can vary from season to season, depending on how well the vaccine strains match the influenza viruses circulating at the time.
According to Dr Tayal, annual vaccination can reduce the risk of severe influenza, complications, hospitalization and flu-related deaths. However, it does not provide complete protection against every respiratory infection.
The flu vaccine protects against influenza viruses, including H1N1, but does not prevent illnesses caused by other viruses or bacteria.
Along with annual vaccination, experts advised people to:
Credit: AI
Higher education has changed far more than we often acknowledge. Universities are no longer simply places where students earn degrees. They are where young adults spend some of the most formative years of their lives, away from familiar support systems, making independent decisions, navigating uncertainty and, for many, encountering the first signs of a mental health condition. That quiet shift has expanded the role of educational institutions in ways that were never envisaged a decade ago.
The conversation around student wellbeing has evolved alongside this change. Mental health is no longer viewed as a subject to be discussed only after a crisis. Students are speaking more openly, parents are asking different questions, faculty members are becoming more aware and institutions are recognising that emotional wellbeing is closely linked to learning, participation and long term outcomes. This change deserves to be welcomed because it has helped move mental health from the margins of campus life to the centre of institutional responsibility.
Yet one assumption continues to shape much of this conversation. The presence of a counsellor is often seen as evidence that a campus is equipped to support student mental health. Counsellors remain indispensable and, for many students, they provide exactly the support that is needed. The challenge arises when counselling is expected to fulfil every role within a mental healthcare system.
Every effective healthcare system is built on layers of expertise. A physician does not replace a surgeon. A laboratory does not replace a diagnosis. Emergency care does not replace rehabilitation. Mental healthcare should be viewed no differently. Counselling is often the first point of contact, but the needs of students do not end there.
Some require structured therapy, others psychiatric evaluation, some ongoing clinical monitoring, and a few immediate crisis intervention. A mature campus mental healthcare system should be equipped to respond across this entire spectrum. The conversation should therefore move beyond whether campuses have counsellors to whether they have a system capable of supporting every stage of care.
Also read: Why People With Mental Health Conditions Are More Likely To Struggle With Tobacco Addiction
Encouragingly, public policy is beginning to recognise this changing reality. The University Grants Commission’s draft guidelines on mental health and wellbeing for higher educational institutions, with recommendations on counsellor ratios, dedicated wellbeing centres, round the clock helplines and mechanisms for early identification of distress, mark an important step in strengthening institutional support. More importantly, they open the door to a broader conversation on what comprehensive mental healthcare within higher education should look like over the coming years.
Building such a system requires looking beyond individual appointments. One of the most valuable lessons from developing healthcare services is that outcomes are rarely determined by the first consultation alone. They depend on how seamlessly care continues afterwards. If a counsellor recognises that a student needs specialised assessment, how quickly can that happen?
Also read: Lindsay Clancy Trial: What Postpartum Psychosis Really Looks Like, From A Survivor
If medication becomes necessary, is psychiatric care available without delay? If a student experiences a crisis outside campus hours, is there a clearly defined pathway to immediate support? If treatment begins, who ensures continuity during semester breaks or after the student returns home? These are not administrative questions. They are questions that shape recovery.
A comprehensive campus mental healthcare ecosystem should therefore bring together different levels of expertise rather than rely on one profession alone. Counsellors, clinical psychologists, psychiatrists, experienced mental health specialists and emergency support services each play a distinct role. Their contribution becomes most effective when they work as part of an integrated network with clear referral pathways, shared clinical responsibility and continuity of care that extends beyond the physical boundaries of the campus.
Also read: Sugar Rationing In First 1,000 Days Linked To Lower Depression, Cancer Risk In Adulthood
Equally important is recognising that mental healthcare should not begin only after a student seeks help. Institutions have long understood the value of preventive healthcare through regular physical health assessments, vaccination drives and awareness programmes. Mental health deserves the same thoughtful approach.
Periodic, voluntary mental health check ins, appropriate screening, trained faculty and peer support networks, backed by specialist expertise, can help identify concerns early while respecting privacy, dignity and informed consent. Early recognition is not about labelling students. It is about ensuring that support reaches them before distress becomes disabling.
Technology can strengthen this ecosystem, but it cannot replace it. Digital consultations, secure follow up, coordinated records and access to specialists across locations can make care more continuous, particularly for students studying away from home. Their real value lies in connecting different parts of the system rather than functioning as isolated solutions.
The quality of a university has traditionally been measured through its academic standards, faculty and research. Increasingly, it will also be measured by how well it supports the people who make learning possible. Mental healthcare deserves to be seen as part of that institutional foundation, not as an additional welfare service that sits alongside education.
The conversation has already moved beyond whether student mental health matters. The next step is to recognise that no single professional, however skilled, can meet every need that students may bring with them. Every campus needs more than a counsellor because every student deserves access to a mental healthcare system that is prepared not only to listen, but also to respond, support and care through every stage of that journey.
By Dr. Jothi Neeraja, Founder, Chairwoman and Managing Director, Maarga Mindcare
Credit: iStock
Anxiety and depression are major concerns in adulthood, but could nutrition during the earliest stages of life influence health decades later? Two new studies suggest that lower sugar exposure during the first 1,000 days of life may be associated with lower risks of anxiety, depression and even several cancers later in life.
The findings, from studies published in Translational Psychiatry and PNAS point to the potential long-term effects of early-life nutrition. However, the findings do not mean that restricting sugar in infancy directly prevents these diseases.
A 2026 study led by researchers from the University of Surrey, UK, analyzed 46,448 people born between October 1951 and March 1956.
Participants were grouped according to how long they were exposed to sugar rationing: from in utero only to 24 months. People conceived after food rationing had ended served as the main comparison group.
Researchers also analyzed brain MRI data from 5,990 participants.
Compared with people conceived after rationing ended, those exposed to sugar rationing for the three longest periods had significantly lower hazards of both anxiety and depression.
When later-life sugar intake was considered, the association with anxiety persisted among those exposed throughout pregnancy and the first two years of life, while the association with depression weakened and was no longer statistically significant.
Further, MRI analysis found differences across rationing groups in 80 of 139 gray matter regions. Analysis identified 11 regions that differed from participants conceived immediately after rationing ended, including the brainstem, occipital fusiform gyrus and several cerebellar regions.
A separate study published in PNAS examined whether sugar exposure during the first 1,000 days could influence cancer risk later in life.
Researchers from China Agricultural University and the University of Cambridge used the abrupt end of UK sugar rationing in September 1953 as a natural experiment. The analysis included 64,761 UK Biobank participants born between 1951 and 1956.
Compared with those whose first 1,000 days were not affected by rationing, participants exposed to rationing showed lower incidence of several cancers:
The researchers identified two possible pathways behind the association.
Sugar is an important source of energy for the brain, and very low blood glucose can impair brain function. However, excess sugar intake has also been associated with metabolic problems that can affect long-term health.
When it comes to cancer, sugar does not directly cause cancer, and cutting out all sugar does not “starve” cancer cells. Both healthy and cancer cells use glucose for energy.
However, consistently consuming excessive amounts of added sugar can contribute to weight gain and obesity, which are established risk factors for several cancers.
© 2024 Bennett, Coleman & Company Limited