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.
Grains, vegetables and fruits are essential to getting the vitamins, minerals, complex carbohydrates (starch and dietary fiber) and other nutrients you need to sustain good health. Some of these nutrients may even reduce your risk of certain kinds of cancer. But experts say we rarely eat enough of these foods. To make matters worse, we also eat too much of unhealthy types of food, including fat (and cholesterol), sugar and salt.
Gender differences in susceptibility and symptoms of disease and response to treatment in many areas of health are particularly true when viewed from a global perspective. Much of the available information comes from developed countries, yet there are marked differences between developed and developing countries in terms of women's roles and health. The global viewpoint is defined as the "area for study, research and practice that places a priority on improving health and achieving health equity for all people worldwide". In 2015 the World Health Organization identified the top ten issues in women's health as being cancer, reproductive health, maternal health, human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), sexually transmitted infections, violence, mental health, non communicable diseases, youth and aging.
Downloading that new weight-loss app may not be as beneficial as you think. A study published in American Journal of Preventive Medicine rated the top 30 weight-loss apps using criteria set by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Diabetes Prevention Plan, which consists of 20 behavior-based strategies, including willpower control, problem solving, stress reduction, motivation, and relapse prevention. Twenty-eight of the programs offered 25 percent or fewer of these essential tummy-trimming tactics. If you’re into tech, use your apps to log food and share your progress on social networks, but don't rely on either too heavily to make lasting lifestyle changes.
Women who are socially marginalized are more likely to die at younger ages than women who are not. 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. 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.
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.