The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services declared last week National Women’s Health Week (May 14-20th), but in reality we should be taking care of ourselves and have this awareness all year round, right? To kick this month off inspired by women’s health, let’s talk about health, nutrition, and of course answer your questions from Instagram, Twitter, and email from over this year!
The gym is in the basement with seemed like slow ceiling and dim lighting.  I tried to attend a zumba class -- the class was in the middle floor, cramped and crowded.  I couldn't see the instructor (in fact I didn't even know who the instructor and what was going on)  people looked lost in the class.  I kept bumped into one of the cycles.  After 10mins of frustration, I gave up on zumba and just hopped on a treadmill, only to find the treadmill was placed on unleveled with a hole on the floor!  My treadmill was flip-flopping with each step.  I then went to the stretching area hoping to may just suck it up for the next 30 minutes and call it a day.  I found the mat to be dirty and the corner for stretching was dark and tight.   There's not enough lockers to use.  The shower stalls look small and dirty.  I just didn't get an good feeling after this first class.  
Studies link high sodium intake to higher blood pressure, and evidence suggests that many people at risk for high blood pressure can reduce their risk by consuming less salt or sodium, as well as following a healthy diet. Most Americans consume more sodium than they need. The recommended amount is less than 2,300 mg per day for children and adults to age 50. The limit drops to 1,500 mg per day for those 51 and older or those of any age who are African American or have hypertension, diabetes or chronic kidney disease. You get 2,300 mg in just one teaspoon of salt. One good way to reduce your sodium intake is to eat fewer prepared and packaged foods.
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).
CCTs have been more thoroughly evaluated for nutrition outcomes, particularly in Latin American countries. They were associated with improvements in women's knowledge of health and nutrition, as well as their self-esteem, participation in social networks, control over resources, and decision-making power (5, 202). Although intrahousehold allocation for women is not clear, CCTs increased household food expenditure and were associated with improved household dietary diversity, including increased household consumption of animal protein, fruits, and vegetables, and reduced consumption of staples and grains (14, 192, 202). There was also some evidence that household expenditure on fats and sweets also increased significantly (202). However, these findings were not consistent and some evaluations showed no significant increase (14, 202, 203). Despite this, in Mexico, there was evidence that in-kind and cash transfer programs resulted in excess weight gain in women who were not underweight (5, 93). This warrants future research given the burden of overweight and obesity among women.
Women have also been the subject of abuse in health care research, such as the situation revealed in the Cartwright Inquiry in New Zealand (1988), in which research by two feminist journalists[165] revealed that women with cervical abnormalities were not receiving treatment, as part of an experiment. The women were not told of the abnormalities and several later died.[166]
So we can applaud some of the efforts of Women’s Health. As editor Amy Keller Laird announced in that Jan/Feb issue, the magazine “will no longer be using fitness models in our monthly ‘15-Minute Workout.’ We’ll feature readers of various body types and sizes,” like the refreshingly normal-sized Morgan Gibson Kanner, hurling a weight plate around in stretchy workout clothes. As progressive as the layout is, Laird points out that “it’s logistically difficult to book nonmodels who have day jobs”; sounds like she should hook up with Willcox’s modeling service.
Changes in the way research ethics was visualised in the wake of the Nuremberg Trials (1946), led to an atmosphere of protectionism of groups deemed to be vulnerable that was often legislated or regulated. This resulted in the relative underrepresentation of women in clinical trials. The position of women in research was further compromised in 1977, when in response to the tragedies resulting from thalidomide and diethylstilbestrol (DES), the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) prohibited women of child-bearing years from participation in early stage clinical trials. In practice this ban was often applied very widely to exclude all women.[151][152] Women, at least those in the child-bearing years, were also deemed unsuitable research subjects due to their fluctuating hormonal levels during the menstrual cycle. However, research has demonstrated significant biological differences between the sexes in rates of susceptibility, symptoms and response to treatment in many major areas of health, including heart disease and some cancers. These exclusions pose a threat to the application of evidence-based medicine to women, and compromise to care offered to both women and men.[6][153]
×