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.
It has affected more than 200 million women and girls who are alive today. The practice is concentrated in some 30 countries in Africa, the Middle East and Asia. FGC affects many religious faiths, nationalities, and socioeconomic classes and is highly controversial. The main arguments advanced to justify FGC are hygiene, fertility, the preservation of chastity, an important rite of passage, marriageability and enhanced sexual pleasure of male partners. The amount of tissue removed varies considerably, leading the WHO and other bodies to classify FGC into four types. These range from the partial or total removal of the clitoris with or without the prepuce (clitoridectomy) in Type I, to the additional removal of the labia minora, with or without excision of the labia majora (Type II) to narrowing of the vaginal orifice (introitus) with the creation of a covering seal by suturing the remaining labial tissue over the urethra and introitus, with or without excision of the clitoris (infibulation). In this type a small opening is created to allow urine and menstrual blood to be discharged. Type 4 involves all other procedures, usually relatively minor alterations such as piercing.
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services declared last week National Women’s Health Week (May 14-20th), but in reality we should be taking care of ourselves and have this awareness all year round, right? To kick this month off inspired by women’s health, let’s talk about health, nutrition, and of course answer your questions from Instagram, Twitter, and email from over this year!
First off, if you suspect you have a vitamin deficiency or you fall into one of those groups, you should definitely chat with your doctor or dietitian to determine which are lacking in your diet. And like I stated earlier, if you want to be sure you getting the recommended levels of vitamins and nutrients, I recommend a multivitamin like New Chapter’s Every Woman’s One Daily Multivitamin. It’s expertly formulated for active women with nutrients for energy, stress, immune, heart and bone support*. My favorite thing about them is that they’re made with superfood herbal blends that include ginger, organic turmeric, chamomile and European elderberry. The cool thing about New Chapter’s supplements is that they’re fermented with probiotics and whole foods, so they’re gentle enough to take on an empty stomach.** They’re also Non-GMO Project Verified, gluten-free, and vegetarian, which is great for so many lifestyles.
Iron helps to create the hemoglobin that carries oxygen in your blood. It’s also important to maintaining healthy skin, hair, and nails. Due to the amount of blood lost during menstruation, women of childbearing age need more than twice the amount of iron that men do—even more during pregnancy and breastfeeding. However, many of us aren’t getting nearly enough iron in our diets, making iron deficiency anemia the most common deficiency in women.
WASH interventions, such as toilet facilities, access to improved and safe water supply, and hand washing are associated with improved nutrition and health of entire communities (13, 14, 125–128). For women and adolescent girls, WASH interventions were associated with improved menstrual hygiene (126), reduced diarrhea and intestinal worm infections (128–131), and reduced maternal mortality (132). Women and young girls are also more affected by the physical and time burdens of collecting water (126), and harassment and violence associated with inadequate and unsafe toilet facilities (133, 134). Closer water points and sanitation facilities eased these gendered burdens (126, 135). WASH interventions and perceived water availability were associated with less time spent on water-related chores, and improved school attendance, women's empowerment, and self-esteem (126, 135, 136).
Home visits ↓ anemia, ↑ Hgb, ↑ food consumption, ↑ weight gain (underweight adolescents), NC mortality, ↓ fatigue ↓ anemia, ↑ serum folate, ↑ serum B-12, NC mortality, NC depression ↓ anemia, ↑ MN status (Hgb, ferritin, folate, B-12, zinc, riboflavin), ↑/NC serum retinol, ↓/NC night blindness, ↑ weight gain, NC maternal mortality, NC depression
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.