Our findings identified gaps and limitations in the evaluation, scope, targeting, and delivery platforms of nutrition interventions in low- and middle-income countries. First, the monitoring and evaluation of nutrition programs that reported on women's nutrition outcomes was generally inadequate. Many of the studies we identified included small-scale efficacy trials. Although there were many large-scale programs that targeted women and adolescent girls with nutrition-specific and nutrition-sensitive approaches, they lacked rigorous evaluation. Whether the evidence about women's outcomes was limited because they are not systematically measured or because they are not well reported is not clear. Negative results are often not published, and many evaluations of nutrition interventions that are conducted by the same groups responsible for implementing them are typically presented positively. This may have also skewed our findings. More intentional research-quality program evaluation, including of large-scale programs, would provide a stronger evidence base. Of the studies identified in this review, many reported on short-term findings such as changes in knowledge, dietary behaviors, and program coverage. They were limited in their ability to report clinical and anthropometric outcomes for women, the duration of those outcomes, and the feasibility of scaling up programs. There is also a need for systematic, long-term evaluations of interventions whose effects on nutrition outcomes are more distal (e.g., nutrition education compared with micronutrient supplementation). The effects of multisectoral interventions are even more complex to measure. However, frameworks exist to evaluate complex interventions (102) and could be utilized to evaluate the impact of interventions across the life course.
We use cookies to optimize and personalize your experience, provide relevant content and analyze online traffic. We also share information with our analytics and website partners, who may use it to inform decisions about current or future services. By clicking “Agree,” you consent to use cookies if you continue to our website. You can manage your cookie settings by clicking the "cookie preferences" button.
Osteoporosis ranks sixth amongst chronic diseases of women in the United States, with an overall prevalence of 18%, and a much higher rate involving the femur, neck or lumbar spine amongst women (16%) than men (4%), over the age of 50 (Gronowski and Schindler, Table IV).[6][7][128] Osteoporosis is a risk factor for bone fracture and about 20% of senior citizens who sustain a hip fracture die within a year.[6] [129] The gender gap is largely the result of the reduction of estrogen levels in women following the menopause. Hormone Replacement Therapy (HRT) has been shown to reduce this risk by 25–30%,[130] and was a common reason for prescribing it during the 1980s and 1990s. However the Women's Health Initiative (WHI) study that demonstrated that the risks of HRT outweighed the benefits[131] has since led to a decline in HRT usage.
In the United States, infertility affects 1.5 million couples.[86][87] Many couples seek assisted reproductive technology (ART) for infertility.[88] In the United States in 2010, 147,260 in vitro fertilization (IVF) procedures were carried out, with 47,090 live births resulting.[89] In 2013 these numbers had increased to 160,521 and 53,252.[90] However, about a half of IVF pregnancies result in multiple-birth deliveries, which in turn are associated with an increase in both morbidity and mortality of the mother and the infant. Causes for this include increased maternal blood pressure, premature birth and low birth weight. In addition, more women are waiting longer to conceive and seeking ART.[90]

Women who are socially marginalized are more likely to die at younger ages than women who are not.[21] Women who have substance abuse disorders, who are homeless, who are sex workers, and/or who are imprisoned have significantly shorter lives than other women.[21] At any given age, women in these overlapping, stigmatized groups are approximately 10 to 13 times more likely to die than typical women of the same age.[21]
Eat healthy fats. According to the American Heart Association, women should get at least five to 10 percent of total daily calories from omega-6 fatty acids (equal to 12 to 20 grams), and between 0.5 and 3 grams of omega-3 fatty acids, depending on individual risk for heart disease. Good sources of omega-6 fatty acids include sunflower, safflower, corn, cottonseed and soybean oils. And good sources of omega-3 fatty acids include fatty fish, tofu and other forms of soybeans, canola, walnuts, flaxseed, and their oils. Talk with your health care professional about how much of these beneficial oils you should be getting, how you can best incorporate them into your diet and whether or not you should be taking them in supplement form.
Loss of taste. Some medicines alter your sense of taste making you lose your appetite. Ask your health care professional if there are alternatives to the medicine you're taking. You might also experiment with spices to make foods tastier. Also, rotating tastes of each food on your plate, rather than eating one food at once, can help you taste various flavors better. Foods with strong scents also taste better, since taste and smell are linked.
You can customize your cookie preferences by using the settings next to "Analytical Cookies" and "Marketing Cookies." Click the "Save Preferences" button to save your customized settings. You can access and change your cookie preferences at any time by clicking "Data Protection Settings" icon in the lower left corner of our website. For more detailed information on the cookies we use, please visit the Academy's Privacy Policy.
I subscribed to this magazine thinking it would be about health, fitness, and above all, working out. The headlines on the cover seemed to suggest that was true, with the biggest fonts advertising things like "flat abs now" and "maximize your workout". In reality, the content of the magazine is mostly beauty (how that counts as "health" is beyond me) and weight-loss. Oh, the endless, endless articles about "burn more fat!" "three new foods that will help you burn fat!" "drop pounds with this easy exercise!" I don't need to lose weight and I found that these articles just played into my growing impression, as issue after issue dropped on my doormat, that the magazine views women as vapid, stereotypical beings whose only desire is to look good, whether through exercise (almost inevitably restricted to cardio and yoga), the "right" work-out clothes (really?) or knowing what dress is in fashion or what color make-up to buy. If you enjoy that sort of thing, that's fine- it is essentially one step above Cosmopolitan on the seriousness scale. If you're looking for actual information about working out and building muscle, know that Women's Health magazine is barely aware that these things exist, and when it does, it will come wrapped in the form of "ten minutes a day to tone your bum like a super-model!" or something equally cringe-inducing.
Our findings identified gaps and limitations in the evaluation, scope, targeting, and delivery platforms of nutrition interventions in low- and middle-income countries. First, the monitoring and evaluation of nutrition programs that reported on women's nutrition outcomes was generally inadequate. Many of the studies we identified included small-scale efficacy trials. Although there were many large-scale programs that targeted women and adolescent girls with nutrition-specific and nutrition-sensitive approaches, they lacked rigorous evaluation. Whether the evidence about women's outcomes was limited because they are not systematically measured or because they are not well reported is not clear. Negative results are often not published, and many evaluations of nutrition interventions that are conducted by the same groups responsible for implementing them are typically presented positively. This may have also skewed our findings. More intentional research-quality program evaluation, including of large-scale programs, would provide a stronger evidence base. Of the studies identified in this review, many reported on short-term findings such as changes in knowledge, dietary behaviors, and program coverage. They were limited in their ability to report clinical and anthropometric outcomes for women, the duration of those outcomes, and the feasibility of scaling up programs. There is also a need for systematic, long-term evaluations of interventions whose effects on nutrition outcomes are more distal (e.g., nutrition education compared with micronutrient supplementation). The effects of multisectoral interventions are even more complex to measure. However, frameworks exist to evaluate complex interventions (102) and could be utilized to evaluate the impact of interventions across the life course.
×