Second, the scope of nutrition-specific and nutrition-sensitive approaches was largely focused on undernutrition. There were major research and programming gaps in studies targeting overweight, obesity, and noncommunicable disease. In our review, the interventions addressing overweight, obesity, and noncommunicable disease were limited to nutrition education and integrated healthcare. However, overweight and obesity were identified as potential concerns for interventions targeting undernutrition, including food supplementation, and in-kind and cash transfers. This might be a result of the types of interventions that were evaluated, but also speaks to the need to broaden the scope of nutrition interventions that are commonly assessed (5, 13, 14) to explicitly address overweight, obesity, and noncommunicable disease as nutrition outcomes, and not just as unintended consequences. Globally, there is limited evidence of large-scale interventions that effectively prevent, treat, or correctly classify adiposity-related noncommunicable diseases, and this is a growing area of concern around the world (208). Future evaluations of nutrition interventions might also include interventions that influence women's time and physical environment, and that encourage physical activity or change in access to and affordability of certain foods, as these might also influence overweight, obesity, and noncommunicable disease outcomes for women.
Fourth and finally, there was a general lack of focus on the relevant delivery platforms for nutrition interventions. Many studies were not explicit about how and where interventions were delivered, and we had to cross-reference multiple sources to identify the delivery platform for many interventions. Delivery platforms are important and relevant information in terms of replicability, but also for identifying who is effectively reached and missed. Information about delivery platforms is also instrumental in understanding gaps in implementation. A greater emphasis on delivery platforms could enhance the reach of nutrition interventions and could also strengthen the capacity to mobilize resources more effectively. For instance, organizing and grouping interventions by delivery platform (e.g., antenatal care, community centers, schools, clinics) or by the relevant stakeholders required for delivery (e.g., ministries, health care providers, teachers, administrators, transporters, etc.) could have the potential to more efficiently deliver nutrition interventions.
I subscribed to this in MY early 20's way back in the magazines infancy. Back when the cover photo's were black and white and most of the cover "models" were female athletes. It's changed since then, catering a little more to the "Cosmo" crowd. Which is fine, just not for me. It just doesn't feel like it applies as much to someone in their thirties married with kids as someone in their twenties who apparently has the money and lack of self-control to spend $90 on a designer t-shirt (really).
It’s been a while since I’ve picked up any of these, but when I did, the messages weren’t nearly as body-positive. In fact, a quick perusal of other Shape magazine covers from the 1980s (I was probably still reading Seventeen then, but still) shows a bunch of celebrity cover models who would like you to get off the couch immediately, with demands like “Get Strong!” and “Push For Fitness!” Also suspect: “How To Think And Eat Like A Thin Person” and “Is Food Your Lover? How To End The Affair.”
The daily calcium recommendations are 1,000 milligrams a day for women under 50, and 1,500 milligrams a day for women 51 and older. Oddly enough, these are the same requirements for men, who are much less prone to osteoporosis than women. But the recommendation takes into account the fact that women are smaller than men. Thus the amount of daily calcium is greater for women on a proportional basis.
Stress can wreak serious havoc on our bodies, but we actually need stress to a certain extent. For example, if we were running from a bear, we would need our stress response to kick in full force. We would start breathing faster, sending more oxygen to muscles to fuel movement, then our bodies would release stress hormones from our adrenal glands (cortisol) to heighten our focus by tapping into energy reserves for fuel so we could flee the danger. Cortisol isn’t always the bad guy, but when this response is high and chronic it tells your body to eat more than it “needs” because it’s thinking much more about survival, not stress over a work deadline or relationship woe. Cortisol is needed, but high levels of cortisol over time will contribute to those mentioned health impacts, especially abdominal weight gain! The problem is when we’re actually not in danger and our bodies are living in this state chronically. THIS is the magic piece of the puzzle – learning how we can turn off that heightened stress response when it’s not needed.
A year later, a second Harvard study added to the concern. The Physicians' Health Study of 20,885 men did not evaluate diet per se, but it did measure the blood levels of ALA in 120 men who developed prostate cancer and compared them with the levels in 120 men who remained free of the disease. Men with moderately high ALA blood levels were 3.4 times more likely to develop prostate cancer than men with the lowest levels; curiously, though, men with the very highest levels were only 2 times more likely to get the disease.
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.
Nutrition-sensitive approaches are difficult to link to women's nutritional status (5, 102). This is due to limited measurement of benefits to program beneficiaries, families, households, and communities, limited timeframes to evaluate long-term impact, logistical and political realities that make implementation difficult, and different priorities of different stakeholders in multisectoral programs (102). Many nutrition-sensitive approaches, as will be described, thus focus on more distal measures of impact (e.g., coverage, knowledge) and not more proximal measures of women's nutritional status (e.g., BMI, anemia status, etc.).