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.

Breastfeeding is important not only for babies' health and nutrition but also for protecting mothers from serious diseases, the World Health Organization (WHO) said.

It urged governments to strengthen access to services and interventions that support breastfeeding as part of World Breastfeeding Week, observed annually from August 1–7.

The 2026 theme, "Breastfeeding for a Sustainable Start in Life: Strengthen What Works," focuses on tracking progress, evaluating impact, and scaling proven approaches that improve breastfeeding outcomes.

Breastfeeding Could Save Hundreds of Thousands of Lives

"Scaling up breastfeeding could prevent almost 400,000 child deaths and around 140,000 maternal deaths each year," said UNICEF Executive Director Catherine Russell and WHO Director-General Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus in a joint statement.

"Every US$1 invested in breastfeeding promotion generates an estimated US$59 in economic returns through lower health-care costs, improved cognitive development, higher educational attainment, and increased lifetime earnings," they added.

Health Benefits for Babies and Mothers

The experts noted that breastfeeding is one of the simplest and most powerful ways to protect a child's health. It provides infants and young children with essential nutrition, boosts immunity, helps protect against serious illnesses, and supports cognitive development.

For mothers, breastfeeding also offers significant health benefits by reducing the risk of noncommunicable diseases such as breast and ovarian cancers, and type 2 diabetes.

Global Breastfeeding Rates Have Improved

The WHO said breastfeeding rates have improved globally due to sustained investments in policies and programs supporting mothers and families.

Exclusive breastfeeding during the first six months increased from around 37 per cent in 2012 to more than 47 per cent today. Over the past five years, the prevalence of breastfeeding up to two years of age has risen from 38 per cent to 50 per cent.

Progress Remains Uneven

Despite these gains, the WHO said many countries continue to lag behind global targets.

"Coverage of services supporting breastfeeding remains low, policies are inconsistently enforced, and service quality is often inadequate, especially in low-income, fragile, and humanitarian settings," the WHO said.

The agency noted that cost-effective interventions include skilled breastfeeding support within health systems, community-based counselling, maternity protection policies, and protection from the exploitative marketing of commercial milk formulas.

WHO, UNICEF Call for Stronger Support

WHO and UNICEF called on governments, health systems, workplaces, communities, civil society organizations, and families to strengthen the "Warm Chain of Support" for breastfeeding.

During World Breastfeeding Week, the agencies urged countries to:

• Strengthen health systems to provide quality breastfeeding support for mothers and newborns.
• Expand community-based counselling and peer support programs.
• Fully implement and enforce the International Code of Marketing of Breast-milk Substitutes.
• Invest in paid maternity leave and supportive workplace policies.
• Integrate breastfeeding interventions into antenatal, perinatal, and postnatal health-care services.
• Sustain breastfeeding support in humanitarian and fragile settings.

"Breastfeeding is vital. By investing in proven solutions, we can give every child the best possible start in life and ensure every mother gets the care and services she needs," the agencies said.

A new study published in The Lancet Regional Health–Southeast Asia has found that India accounts for 68% of all childhood cancer cases in the SAARC region.

While the country's large child population contributes to the high numbers, experts say underdiagnosis and incomplete cancer registration may mean the actual burden is even greater.

An international team of researchers, including from the US, India, and Canada, estimated that nearly 37,700 children aged up to 14 years were diagnosed with cancer across South Asia in 2022, with 17,700 deaths reported. India alone accounted for an estimated 25,939 cases and 12,028 deaths.

The researchers noted that because cancer registration remains incomplete, particularly in rural areas, the true number of childhood cancer cases in India could exceed 50,000 annually.

India's Large Child Population Drives Numbers

India is home to more than 380 million children, accounting for nearly 69% of the child population in the SAARC region. This naturally contributes to the country's higher share of childhood cancer cases and deaths.

However, experts emphasize that population size is only part of the explanation. Delayed diagnosis, limited access to specialized treatment, and gaps in cancer registration continue to affect both disease estimates and patient outcomes.

Leukemia Most Common Cancer

Dr. Narendra Agrawal, a leading Hematologist and Bone Marrow Transplant Physician and Senior Consultant and Unit Head of Haemato-Oncology at Rajiv Gandhi Cancer Institute & Research Centre, told HealthandMe that childhood cancer remains a major public health concern in India.

"Current estimates suggest that around 70,000–80,000 children and adolescents develop cancer each year, although the exact number remains uncertain due to expanding cancer registration systems". The most common childhood cancers in India include:

• Leukemia
• Lymphomas
• Brain tumors
• Bone tumors

What Causes Childhood Cancer?

Unlike many adult cancers, most childhood cancers do not have a clearly identifiable or preventable cause. Dr. Agrawal explained that, in most children, cancer develops because of genetic changes that occur during early development. These changes are usually not linked to lifestyle factors or inherited from parents.

Recognized Risk Factors

Although the causes of most childhood cancers remain unclear, some well-established risk factors include:

• Ionizing radiation: High-dose exposure before birth or during childhood increases the risk of leukemia and certain other cancers.
• Genetic syndromes: Conditions such as Down syndrome, Li-Fraumeni syndrome, and neurofibromatosis increase susceptibility to specific childhood cancers.
• Certain infections: Epstein–Barr virus (EBV) is associated with some lymphomas, HIV increases lymphoma risk, and chronic hepatitis B infection raises the risk of liver cancer.
• Environmental and parental exposures: Tobacco smoke, certain chemicals, pesticides, and some occupational exposures have been investigated as possible risk factors, although evidence remains inconclusive.

Challenges Beyond Disease Burden

Dr. Agrawal said India's substantial childhood cancer burden is largely driven by its population size. However, improving outcomes requires addressing several systemic challenges.

Key issues include:

• Delayed diagnosis
• Limited access to specialized pediatric oncology services in some regions
• Treatment abandonment
• Incomplete cancer registration

One of the patients I operated on recently had every reason to undergo surgery as early as possible. His reports were clear. His diagnosis was straightforward. From a medical standpoint, there was little ambiguity about the next step. Yet he did not schedule the surgery.

Not because he did not trust me or because he wanted another opinion. He simply was not ready. When we spoke again, it was not his cancer that was worrying him, but whether he would be able to leave a normal life after surgery. He was worried about whether his relationship with his wife and becoming a burden on his children. Somewhere along the way, he had also spent a few nights reading forwarded messages and YouTube comments that convinced him life after prostate surgery would never be the same again.

None of those fears appeared in his MRI. None of them were mentioned in his blood reports. But every one of them had the power to delay the treatment that could save his life.

This is not a rare story in Indian hospitals. It is, in fact, an everyday one. In a country where families, not individuals, usually carry a diagnosis together, these moments happen in almost every cancer ward, every single day. No scan, blood test or surgical robot can detect them.

As clinicians, we learn to recognise these patterns almost instinctively. We know which patient is quietly terrified despite appearing calm. We know when a wife is more anxious than the patient himself. We know when a family has understood the diagnosis and when they are simply too overwhelmed, or too far from a good hospital, to process it. The conversation around artificial intelligence in Indian healthcare is missing something important.

Efficiency Is Not Where AI Will Matter Most

Most discussions here focus on efficiency, and understandably so. India carries a genuine shortage of doctors relative to its population, and the government has been working to close that gap by pushing toward the World Health Organisation's recommended doctor-to-patient ratio. Against that backdrop, it is natural that AI gets framed as a force multiplier: it will reduce documentation, summarise records, automate hospital workflows, help one doctor do the work of three. All of that is valuable, especially for a country of our size and diversity.

But efficiency is not where AI will have its greatest impact on Indian healthcare. Its greatest opportunity lies in understanding and supporting human behaviour, at a scale our clinics were never built to handle.

India has, over the last few years, quietly built the infrastructure to make this possible. Through the Ayushman Bharat Digital Mission, the country has created one of the largest digital health identity systems anywhere in the world, with digital health accounts now numbering in crores, connecting patients, hospitals, laboratories and pharmacies through a common digital framework. Clinical decision-support tools built on this backbone are already being rolled out across tens of thousands of hospitals, cross-referencing symptoms and treatment protocols while leaving the final call with the doctor. That last part matters more than it might seem. The scaffolding exists. What we build on top of it is still an open question, and it is a question doctors cannot afford to sit out.

Also read: Ayush Ministry, IndiaAI Join Hands To Boost AI-Driven Innovation In Traditional Medicine

Imagine the Version That Was Built Around the Patient

Imagine if the patient who went home after meeting a doctor did not have to rely on midnight searches and forwarded videos to make sense of his diagnosis. Imagine if he could ask questions in Kannada, Hindi, or any other language he was most comfortable in, and get answers grounded in his own treatment plan, not someone else's story from an online forum. In a system where a single specialist may be the only uro-oncologist within reach of several districts, that kind of early flag can be the difference between a curable case and one that is not.

None of this replaces medicine. It strengthens it. And this is precisely why Indian doctors need to play a much bigger role in shaping healthcare AI, not as advisors brought in at the end, but as co-architects from the start.

Also read: Bryan Johnson's New 2.6M Women's Health Project Centers on Girlfriend's Menstrual Blood

Why This Has to Be Doctor-Led, and Why It Has to Be Indian

Technology companies are exceptionally good at building software. But they don't spend every day sitting across from a patient whose biggest obstacle is overcoming everything that comes with it: the fear of becoming a financial burden on the family, the silence that comes from a diagnosis nobody wants to say out loud at home, the distance between a district hospital and the nearest oncology centre.

Doctors witness those moments every day. We know where patients hesitate. We know which questions never get asked, often because asking them feels like admitting weakness in front of the family. We know where a well-meaning relative's advice, or a health forward on WhatsApp, can undo weeks of careful counselling in a single evening. Those observations are incredibly valuable, and right now, most of them stay locked inside consultation rooms.

An AI model trained largely on Western clinical and behavioural data will not automatically understand what it means to deliver a cancer diagnosis in a joint family setup, or why a patient in a smaller town might trust a local health worker's word over a hospital pamphlet, or why "cost of treatment" is often the real first question a patient wants answered but is too hesitant to ask directly. These are not edge cases in India. They are the norm. If Indian doctors don't help shape these systems, we will end up importing tools that are clinically sound but culturally tone-deaf, and patients will simply stop using them.

If we want artificial intelligence to genuinely improve healthcare in India, this is where we should begin: not with diseases, but with journeys. Not with technology for its own sake, but with a deeper understanding of how Indian patients and Indian families actually navigate illness. We already have the digital foundation for it. What we need now is for enough doctors, across enough specialities and enough parts of the country, to insist on being in the room when these systems are designed, not just when they are ready to be deployed.