Body Tools

BMI alone does not. It is a population-level metric that helps with broad health-context conversations but does not directly measure body composition or fat distribution. Two patients with the same BMI can have different fat compartments, different proportions of pinch-able subcutaneous fat versus visceral fat, and different skin-quality and laxity pictures — all of which matter for contouring candidacy. The BMI tool at DDC produces the standard calculation; the body-contouring suitability quiz adds the inputs that contouring candidacy actually depends on. The consultation integrates both alongside examination, pinch-test, and weight-stability history.

The quiz takes inputs on weight stability over the past several months, identifiable pinch-able subcutaneous fat in target zones, skin-laxity self-grading where relevant, expectations regarding zonal-versus-whole-body change, willingness to commit to a multi-session multi-month timeline, and broad medical-history flags that bear on contouring candidacy. It produces a routing output indicating whether contouring is plausibly suitable, suitable-with-caveats, or unlikely-to-fit-well. The output is a starting picture; the consultation pinch-test, laxity grading, and weight-history review integrate alongside.

Paradoxical adipose hyperplasia (PAH) is a rare but documented complication of cryolipolysis in which the treated zone develops increased fat over months rather than reducing. It is more commonly reported with older devices and in certain demographic patterns. The CoolSculpting candidacy tool flags awareness of PAH as part of the consent framing — a candidate who is unaware of the rare-but-real complication is not adequately consented. The full discussion of incidence, demographics, and management happens at consultation as part of the procedural-consent conversation. The tool does not predict PAH risk; no tool reliably does at present.

No. HIFU suitability outputs depend on patient-supplied laxity self-grading, which is subjective and often inaccurate at the boundary between mild-moderate (where HIFU performs well) and significant-excess (where surgical referral is the right answer). The tool helps patients understand the framework — non-surgical tightening for mild-to-moderate laxity, surgical evaluation for significant excess — but the clinical laxity grading happens at consultation. Patients whose self-grading suggests they are at the boundary benefit from earlier consultation rather than continued self-assessment.

It produces an honest range based on size, colour, depth-input, and skin-type considerations. Actual session counts depend on factors the estimator cannot fully account for — exact ink composition (variable across artists and inks), depth and density (different from artist to artist), individual immune response to ink-fragmentation, and laser-platform calibration for the specific case. Treat the estimator output as a starting range; the consultation provides a more refined estimate after examination of the specific tattoo and a test-patch where appropriate. Patients who plan around the worst-case session count are usually safer than patients who plan around the best-case.

Unexplained weight gain or loss, suspected thyroid imbalance, suspected PCOS or insulin resistance, suspected diabetes or metabolic syndrome, interest in prescription weight-loss medication, and bariatric-surgery questions sit outside dermatology scope and route to primary care, endocrinology, dietetics, or bariatric medicine. Body tools at DDC are honest about this — where the right next step is outside dermatology, the framework refers rather than treating outside scope. Patients with these patterns should not rely on body tools for definitive guidance; the consultation maps the right specialist referral.

Indian-specific body-composition patterns — particularly the metabolic-disease risk at lower BMI thresholds than Caucasian populations — are reflected in the tool framing where applicable. The Indian-specific risk thresholds (e.g., metabolic risk at BMI 23+ rather than 25+) are mentioned in the tool output framing. Tools whose underlying logic was developed against non-Indian populations are flagged for clinician supplementation. The framework prevents confidently-wrong outputs simply because the scoring was developed against a different population than the patient using the tool.

Tools at DDC are free to use, with no account creation required and no input storage. The next step for any decision-grade body-side question is a dermatologist consultation, which starts from ₹1,999*. Tools route to the right pathway; consultation is where examination, pinch-test, laxity grading, and weight-history review integrate to produce the diagnostic picture and the written plan. Body-side tools sit outside any paywall by design; the body-tool library is presented as public-good education on weight, composition, and contouring questions for the broader adult population rather than as a sales-pipeline component for the clinic.