Interventions resulting in public infrastructure changes were found to be less effective than household-based interventions; however, both are important aspects of improved health outcomes for women (128, 130). Public water infrastructure requires regular maintenance and periodic replacement and water from these sources is often contaminated (130). However, even public water points that provide good-quality water have had minimal impacts on health outcomes (136). One review estimated that water-source interventions were associated with a 27% reduction in diarrhea risk at all ages, whereas household-based interventions were associated with a 43% reduction (128). This could be associated with bias and confounding, as measuring WASH outcomes is not a blinded process (128). The differential impact could also be related to practice. As compared with public water sources, home water connections were associated with greater odds of handwashing and fecal waste disposal (136). As a significant portion of diarrheal disease is a result of person-to-person transmission and poor hygiene, interventions that improve domestic hygiene behaviors can have a significant impact (136). Behavior change communication and resource provision, e.g., soap and point-of-use water treatment resources, were also important and sustainable aspects of WASH interventions (131, 137).
All of the identified studies focused on LNSs for pregnant and lactating women through antenatal care–based and –affiliated delivery platforms (97–101). These studies relied on antenatal care to recruit mothers but delivered the intervention through home visits. There was no evidence evaluating use of LNSs for women who were not pregnant or lactating. The majority of studies evaluating LNS interventions involved children with severe or moderate acute malnutrition. Although LNS supplementation could be an intervention to provide essential nutrients to women and girls, it is expensive. Filling energy gaps using local foods or other commodities can often be done at a lower cost (97). LNS supplementation should be limited to contexts in which cheaper, more sustainable solutions are not available.
Don't take dramatic steps alone. You need to work closely with an experienced health care professional to lose weight, particularly if you have other medical problems, plan to lose more than 15 to 20 pounds or take medication on a regular basis. An initial checkup can identify conditions that might be affected by dieting and weight loss. Make sure you find out how much experience your health care professional has dealing with nutrition. It's not always well covered in medical schools. You may want to talk to a registered dietitian before embarking on a diet.
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.
Behavioral differences also play a role, in which women display lower risk taking including consume less tobacco, alcohol, and drugs, reducing their risk of mortality from associated diseases, including lung cancer, tuberculosis and cirrhosis. Other risk factors that are lower for women include motor vehicle accidents. Occupational differences have exposed women to less industrial injuries, although this is likely to change, as is risk of injury or death in war. Overall such injuries contributed to 3.5% of deaths in women compared to 6.2% in the United States in 2009. Suicide rates are also less in women.