If you do decide to diet, you still need to maintain good nutrition. You want to cut back on calories, not nutrients. And while you want to reduce fat, don't eliminate it entirely. Some studies suggest that older women who maintain a higher body-fat percentage are less likely to suffer from osteoporosis and other conditions associated with menopause. Fat cells also retain estrogen, which helps maintain the calcium in your bones. Younger women should be careful, too: a low body fat percentage can lead to infertility; below 17 percent may lead to missed periods, also known as amenorrhea.
Sleeping seven to nine hours a night for five days straight may stave off bags under your eyes as well as saddlebags on your thighs. When women get enough sleep, they don’t take in extra, unnecessary calories to stay awake, according to a study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Read: Adequate beauty rest can help you pass up pick-me-up snacks and head off added pounds.
Although there is evidence that interventions can address widespread malnutrition among women, there is a lack of operational research and programs to tackle the issue. There is an imperative for the nutrition community to look beyond maternal nutrition and to address women's nutrition across their lives (3). How we reach women matters, and different delivery platforms are more appropriate for some women than others. Delivery platforms for reaching young mothers are different from those for adolescents and postmenopausal women. There is a need to intentionally consider strategies that appropriately target and deliver interventions to all women. This means that nutrition researchers and practitioners need to further adapt existing strategies and modes of delivery to adequately engage women who might not be in clinic settings (78). This also requires that researchers and practitioners explore how to deliver nutrition interventions to women and at different stages of life in order to reduce inequities in the delivery of nutrition services and to reach women missed by programs focusing on maternal nutrition alone.
To optimise women's control over pregnancy, it is essential that culturally appropriate contraceptive advice and means are widely, easily, and affordably available to anyone that is sexually active, including adolescents. In many parts of the world access to contraception and family planning services is very difficult or non existent and even in developed counties cultural and religious traditions can create barriers to access. Reported usage of adequate contraception by women has risen only slightly between 1990 and 2014, with considerable regional variability. Although global usage is around 55%, it may be as low as 25% in Africa. Worldwide 222 million women have no or limited access to contraception. Some caution is needed in interpreting available data, since contraceptive prevalence is often defined as "the percentage of women currently using any method of contraception among all women of reproductive age (i.e., those aged 15 to 49 years, unless otherwise stated) who are married or in a union. The “in-union” group includes women living with their partner in the same household and who are not married according to the marriage laws or customs of a country." This definition is more suited to the more restrictive concept of family planning, but omits the contraceptive needs of all other women and girls who are or are likely to be sexually active, are at risk of pregnancy and are not married or "in-union".
Delivery platforms for women across the life course. This Venn diagram represents the delivery platforms for different interventions by target population. The overlapping regions indicate delivery platforms that are shared by the target groups: adolescent girls, women of reproductive age, pregnant and lactating women, mothers of young children, and older women.
WASH interventions, such as toilet facilities, access to improved and safe water supply, and hand washing are associated with improved nutrition and health of entire communities (13, 14, 125–128). For women and adolescent girls, WASH interventions were associated with improved menstrual hygiene (126), reduced diarrhea and intestinal worm infections (128–131), and reduced maternal mortality (132). Women and young girls are also more affected by the physical and time burdens of collecting water (126), and harassment and violence associated with inadequate and unsafe toilet facilities (133, 134). Closer water points and sanitation facilities eased these gendered burdens (126, 135). WASH interventions and perceived water availability were associated with less time spent on water-related chores, and improved school attendance, women's empowerment, and self-esteem (126, 135, 136).
One of the challenges in assessing progress in this area is the number of clinical studies that either do not report the gender of the subjects or lack the statistical power to detect gender differences. These were still issues in 2014, and further compounded by the fact that the majority of animal studies also exclude females or fail to account for differences in sex and gender. for instance despite the higher incidence of depression amongst women, less than half of the animal studies use female animals. Consequently, a number of funding agencies and scientific journals are asking researchers to explicitly address issues of sex and gender in their research.
The increasing focus on Women's Rights in the United States during the 1980s focused attention on the fact that many drugs being prescribed for women had never actually been tested in women of child-bearing potential, and that there was a relative paucity of basic research into women's health. In response to this the National Institutes of Health (NIH) created the Office of Research on Women's Health (ORWH) in 1990 to address these inequities. In 1993 the National Institutes of Health Revitalisation Act officially reversed US policy by requiring NIH funded phase III clinical trials to include women. This resulted in an increase in women recruited into research studies. The next phase was the specific funding of large scale epidemiology studies and clinical trials focussing on women's health such as the Women's Health Initiative (1991), the largest disease prevention study conducted in the US. Its role was to study the major causes of death, disability and frailty in older women. Despite this apparent progress, women remain underepresented. In 2006 women accounted for less than 25% of clinical trials published in 2004, A follow up study by the same authors five years later found little evidence of improvement. Another study found between 10–47% of women in heart disease clinical trials, despite the prevalence of heart disease in women. Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death amongst women, but while the number of women enrolled in lung cancer studies is increasing, they are still far less likely to be enrolled than men.
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.