Of the few studies evaluating nutrition education interventions for women and adolescent girls who were overweight and obese, many were “facility-based” and involved delivery platforms such as health clinics (13, 22), worksites (30), and schools (26, 27, 29). Delivery platforms targeting women and adolescents who were undernourished similarly involved facility-based settings (13), but also included community outreach (16, 28), home visits, community kitchens (15, 28), and text messaging platforms (32). Such community-based platforms could provide additional opportunities for the delivery of nutrition education interventions addressing overweight, obesity, and associated noncommunicable disease in the future.
Vinyasa and power may not be the only forms of yoga that will get you closer to that long, lean, limber look. Research presented at the 73rd Scientific Sessions of the American Diabetes Association found that restorative yoga—which focuses more on relaxing and stress-reducing movements rather than a challenging flow or balancing poses—burns more subcutaneous fat (the kind directly under your skin) than stretching does. By the end of the yearlong study, yogis who practiced at least once a month lost an average of about three pounds, nearly double the amount lost by those who only stretched. So if you don’t feel up for a more athletic yoga class, ease your way into a practice with a gentle one.
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.
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.).