Social protection programs typically target the most marginalized members of communities and typically families with children (5, 196). Cash transfers are often targeted to women in these households because they more often invest the transfers in household and food expenditures than men do (192, 202, 204, 205). Cash transfer programs were also targeted to older adults through government-coordinated programs (196, 198, 206). The delivery of transfers involved community centers (town halls, post offices) and banks, as well as locations associated with other services, e.g., schools or health centers (192, 206, 207). These latter platforms were relevant not only for the distribution of social protection programs (i.e., the receipt of transfers), but also for enrollment in and “conditions” of those programs. Conditional transfers required that recipients had access to certain delivery platforms (e.g., schools and health centers) in order to meet the “conditions” of their transfer, and this was a limitation in very rural areas. Although social protection programs are intended for the most vulnerable populations, their delivery platforms can serve as barriers to individuals’ receipt of services, particularly if they require engagement with health care, school, or work-related systems.
Most vegetarians eat milk products and eggs, and as a group, these lacto-ovo-vegetarians enjoy good health. A healthful vegetarian diet falls within the food pyramid guidelines offered by the USDA. However, meat, fish and poultry are major sources of iron, zinc and B vitamins, so pay special attention to these nutrients. Vegans (those who eat only plant-based food) should consult a health care professional about adding vitamin and mineral supplements; make sure you consume sufficient quantities of protein, vitamin B12, vitamin D and calcium.
Women and men differ in their chromosomal makeup, protein gene products, genomic imprinting, gene expression, signaling pathways, and hormonal environment. All of these necessitate caution in extrapolating information derived from biomarkers from one sex to the other. Women are particularly vulnerable at the two extremes of life. Young women and adolescents are at risk from STIs, pregnancy and unsafe abortion, while older women often have few resources and are disadvantaged with respect to men, and also are at risk of dementia and abuse, and generally poor health.
“It was a privilege to have taken the course with you. Already, I have used the cueing methods on 2 clients. I have also taken the initiative to ask one of my post-natal client today about her birthing journey and she was so open and excited to share with me. It struck me that usually nobody asks them about it as more attention is focused on the baby.”
Trimming some fat may eliminate some guilt, but be warned: Buying foods labeled “low-fat,” “non-fat,” or “fat-free” may encourage you to eat up to 50 percent more calories, according to three studies by Cornell University’s Food and Brand Lab. Fat’s not the issue when it comes your weight since most of these foods only have about 15 percent fewer calories than their regular counterparts. Go for the full-fat version and eat less—you probably will naturally since they taste better.
As women, many of us are prone to neglecting our own dietary needs. You may feel you’re too busy to eat right, used to putting the needs of your family first, or trying to adhere to an extreme diet that leaves you short on vital nutrients and feeling cranky, hungry, and low on energy. Women’s specific needs are often neglected by dietary research, too. Studies tend to rely on male subjects whose hormone levels are more stable and predictable, thus sometimes making the results irrelevant or even misleading to women’s needs. All this can add up to serious shortfalls in your daily nutrition.
The ’90s turned toward a lot more talk about “fat-blasting” in the Snackwell’s/heroin chic era. But as the new millennium dawned, front cover messages started to sway from scolding to encouraging. Which makes sense: Why would someone want a magazine to yell at them? That’s why the current crop of women’s health magazine headlines stress taking time for yourself over how flat your abs might get. As Elizabeth Goodman, editor-in-chief of Shape magazine, explained via email: “As a women’s magazine, it’s our job to help women be their best selves—both inside and out. However, we don’t want to set the standard for normal or tell women what normal is; we want to encourage women to find and be proud of their normal… Our approach with our readers is not to judge or demand, just to inspire and support.”
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. 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.