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
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.
Credit: AI
Men who consume higher amounts of dietary nitrite may have a greater risk of colorectal cancer, particularly the type affecting the distal colon, according to a new study published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.
The study followed 82,009 middle-aged and older adults in Sweden for more than two decades and identified 3,170 cases of colorectal cancer.
Researchers found that men in the highest category of nitrite intake had a 23% higher risk of colorectal cancer overall compared with those in the lowest category. The strongest association was for for distal colon cancer, where the risk was 50% higher.
The findings were not seen in women, and dietary nitrate was not associated with colorectal cancer in either men or women.
Researchers from Karolinska Institutet in Sweden used dietary information collected in 1997 and updated in 2009 and 2019. They linked this information with Sweden's cancer registry to identify colorectal cancer cases through 2022.
Rather than relying only on participants' diet at the beginning of the study, researchers used repeated measurements to capture changes in nitrite and nitrate intake over time. Among men, the highest versus lowest levels of nitrite consumption were associated with a hazard ratio of 1.23 for colorectal cancer. For distal colon cancer, the hazard ratio rose to 1.50.
Also read: How Genetic and Genomic Testing Can Help Women Make Smarter Cancer Decisions
Nitrite and nitrate are related compounds, but they are found in different foods and behave differently in the body. Nitrate occurs naturally in vegetables, particularly leafy greens, as well as drinking water. Nitrite is also naturally present in some foods but is commonly used as a preservative in processed meat and other animal products.
The researchers found no association between dietary nitrate and colorectal cancer, making the distinction particularly important.
Also read: Moderna-Merck’s Personalized mRNA Vaccine: Ushering In A New Era In Cancer Care?
A possible explanation involves N-nitroso compounds, which can form when nitrate and nitrite undergo chemical reactions in the body. Some N-nitroso compounds are known to be carcinogenic in animals.
The researchers saw that previous studies have also investigated possible links between nitrite exposure and cancers of the gastrointestinal tract. However, the exact biological mechanism behind the association observed in this study remains uncertain.
The researchers also found that the association was specific to men, and they said the reason for this difference is unclear.
The authors noted that the higher risk associated with nitrite intake was confined to men and suggested several possible biological explanations, including differences in oxidative stress and other sex-specific factors.
But they stressed that these mechanisms have not been established as the reason for the finding. The study concludes that further research should examine nitrite and colorectal cancer separately in men and women and.
The study was observational, meaning researchers identified an association between dietary nitrite intake and cancer risk but could not prove a direct cause and effect relationship.
Credit: AI
For people who work, laptops and computers are something we use every day. Sitting in front of a screen for hours can be bad for your neck and spine. When you sit and use your laptop the way you position yourself can hurt your neck over time.
This is true even when you are just scrolling on your phone. Keeping your head bent for a long time can put stress on the muscles and joints in your neck.
The problem is not the laptop itself but how we use it. Many people spend hours looking down at a screen without realizing it. This can cause muscle fatigue, stiffness, headaches and neck pain that will not go away.
Your neck is meant to support your head and let you move it around. When you keep your head tilted forward for hours the muscles in your neck have to work hard to keep it that way. Over time this can cause discomfort. Make it harder to move your neck.
If you sit with posture it can also affect the normal curve of your neck. Poor posture may not cause spinal problems on its own but it can cause wear and discomfort. This is especially true for people who already have neck or spine problems.
Also read: The Hidden Health Risk of Sitting for Long Hours: What Young Professionals Need to Know
One simple way to reduce strain on your neck is to make your workspace more comfortable. Your laptop or monitor should be at eye level so you do not have to look down all the time. Your back should be. Your arms should be comfortable too. Keep your feet flat on the floor. Do not sit still for too long.
It is also important to move regularly. Of sitting for hours get up and move every 30-40 minutes. Stand up walk around and move your neck and shoulders gently. This can help prevent stiffness and reduce strain on your neck. Your neck is meant to move not be stuck in one position for hours.
If your neck is stiff after a day, it may feel better with rest and better posture. If the pain gets worse or does not go away, you should see a doctor. If you have pain in your arm or if your arm feels numb tingling or weak you should see a doctor too.
To protect your neck, you do not have to make changes. Just make small adjustments to how you sit and use your laptop and move around more during the day. This can make using your laptop more comfortable. Reduce strain, on your neck and spine.
By Dr. Zahir Abbas Merchant, Consultant Spine Surgeon, Saifee Hospital, Mumbai
© 2024 Bennett, Coleman & Company Limited