Potdar RD, Sahariah SA, Gandhi M, Kehoe SH, Brown N, Sane H, Dayama M, Jha S, Lawande A, Coakley PJ et al. Improving women's diet quality preconceptionally and during gestation: effects on birth weight and prevalence of low birth weight—a randomized controlled efficacy trial in India (Mumbai Maternal Nutrition Project). Am J Clin Nutr  2014;100(5):1257–68.


Women's nutrition is often eclipsed by maternal nutrition. There are important linkages between maternal nutrition and the health, cognitive development, and earning potential of future generations (1). However, with reduced childbearing and longer life spans, women's experiences extend beyond motherhood (2). Interventions and policies that target women solely as mothers fail to account for women before they conceive, after they no longer engage with programs targeting maternal–child health, as well as those who never have children (3, 4). A woman's nutrition should matter not (only) because of her reproductive potential, but because it is fundamental to her rights as a person and to her well-being and ability to thrive (5–7). With increasing attention to the nutritional needs of adolescent girls (8, 9), in addition to the rising prevalence of overweight, obesity, and noncommunicable disease affecting women later in life (10), it is becoming more imperative that interventions reach women at all life stages.
Just like trying to find a guy who meets certain exact standards, trying to reach an exact weight is a lofty—and often unattainable—goal. Having a range, such as losing five to 10 pounds, may lead to a more successful outcome than if you aim to lose precisely 8 pounds in four weeks, according to a study published in the Journal of Consumer Research. Flexible goals seem more feasible, which in turn boosts your sense of accomplishment, encouraging you to stay driven, the study authors say.

Packing your two-piece away for winter means you won't think about how you'll look in it until about April. Avoid any potential “how did my butt get this big?!” panics come spring by keeping your swimsuit handy and putting it on every so often to make sure you like what you see, says Tanya Becker, co-founder of the Physique 57 barre program. You can also toss it on when you're tempted to overindulge, she adds. “There’s no better way to keep yourself from having that after-dinner cookie or slice of cake."
What's a man to do? Fortunately, he does not have to choose between his bones and his prostate. The solution is moderation. The Baltimore Longitudinal Study of Aging, for example, found no link between a moderate consumption of calcium (about 800 mg a day, two-thirds of the RDA) and prostate cancer. In addition, a randomized clinical trial of calcium supplements of 1,200 mg a day found no effect on the prostate, but only 327 men were in the calcium group, and the supplementation lasted just four years. Finally, the Harvard scientists speculate that a high consumption of vitamin D may offset the possible risks of calcium, so a daily multivitamin may also help.
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.).
Women's experience of health and disease differ from those of men, due to unique biological, social and behavioural conditions. Biological differences vary all the way from phenotype to the cellular, and manifest unique risks for the development of ill health.[1] The World Health Organization (WHO) defines health as "a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity".[2] Women's health is an example of population health, the health of a specific defined population.[3]
More power to these women, and sure, you could say that fashion and magazines are aspirational over reality-based. If you want reality, look in a mirror, but that’s just it: The super-cut flat abs of Maria Menounos are a far cry from most of us, and can even more damaging to young girls who would do better to avoid the unrealistic ideals that their mothers and older sisters had to grow up with.

To help you learn how to eat healthfully, start with the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) dietary guidelines system, which you can find at http://www.mypyramid.gov. The MyPyramid system, which looks somewhat like the familiar food pyramid of old, offers guidance based on individual needs and replaces "serving" recommendations with actual amounts of food. It also emphasizes the importance of balancing nutritious (and tasty!) food choices from all food groups every day with daily physical activity.
Research findings can take some time before becoming routinely implemented into clinical practice. Clinical medicine needs to incorporate the information already available from research studies as to the different ways in which diseases affect women and men. Many "normal" laboratory values have not been properly established for the female population separately, and similarly the "normal" criteria for growth and development. Drug dosing needs to take gender differences in drug metabolism into account.[6]
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.”
The major differences in life expectancy for women between developed and developing countries lie in the childbearing years. If a woman survives this period, the differences between the two regions become less marked, since in later life non-communicable diseases (NCDs) become the major causes of death in women throughout the world, with cardiovascular deaths accounting for 45% of deaths in older women, followed by cancer (15%) and lung disease (10%). These create additional burdens on the resources of developing countries. Changing lifestyles, including diet, physical activity and cultural factors that favour larger body size in women, are contributing to an increasing problem with obesity and diabetes amongst women in these countries and increasing the risks of cardiovascular disease and other NCDs.[11][20]
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]
×