In March 8, women celebrated 100 years of advances that have changed their lives irreversibly and in the process have made a monumental impact on our world — from the first woman in space, to the growing list of female Nobel Prize recipients and the steadily increasing number of female business and political leaders.

But a closer look at these achievements spotlights a darker truth: by and large they are the successes of women in the developed world. What about the billions of women in the developing world?

The numbers that signpost the societal changes — and the stark contrasts between women in the developed and developing world — are staggering.

In the U.S., for every two men who get a degree, three women will do the same. In 2010, women became the majority of the workforce for the first time in U.S. history and today the female spouse brings home over 40 percent of her family’s income — while this is not high enough it is still progress.

Yet in rural Africa 70 percent of girls will not finish primary school. In developing countries women produce between 60 percent and 80 percent of all food, yet over 60 percent of the world’s chronically hungry are women and girls.

While millions of women and girls in the developed world are adapting to a new reality that gives them unprecedented opportunities to explore, develop and make a difference, for many others in the developing world, the story is still far from rosy.

It is widely recognized that education is the first step to women’s empowerment. However, even before a girl enters the classroom, assuming this option is even available to her, the level of nutrition she gets in the first 1,000 days of her life will highly likely predetermine her life’s potential (“Under-Five Deaths by Cause,” UNICEF, 2006).

There is a fundamental lack of awareness and understanding of the impact of nutrition on one’s development. The most critical period of a child’s physical and mental development is between the moment of conception and the age of two — called the critical “first 1000 days”. If mothers are not aware of the importance of sufficient nutritional value in their daily diets and if they don’t have access to these vital nutrients and minerals, then the mental and physical development of their children could seriously be impaired, affecting an entire generation.

Girls who start out life with this fundamental setback will most likely never reach their full potential as women. The lack of adequate nutrition can mean a reduction of at least 10 percent of her lifetime earnings. A study in Guatemala that provided adequate nutrition to boys up to the age of three resulted in adulthood wages that were an astounding 46 percent higher than the control group. This illustrates how nutrition truly lies at the foundation of personal development and thus also of female empowerment.

Once this important foundation is laid, girls (and boys) are more likely to succeed as students, be more productive in the work force, and have less health complications. This not only increases their lifetime potential but women’s education also has the greatest impact in reducing childhood malnutrition, accounting for a 43 percent reduction. (“Effect of nutritional intervention during early childhood on economic productivity in Guatemalan adults,” The Lancet, 2008.)

Perhaps most striking when it comes to the idea of providing women and children in developing countries with sufficient vitamins and minerals: it was voted “the single most valuable investment the world could make” by the world’s top 50 economists at the Copenhagen Consensus. Every $1 invested would deliver a return of $17 in increased output and reduced healthcare.

A tiny investment thus has the power to unleash a new wave of female empowerment in the developing world. Given the fact that women in Africa tend to work 50 percent longer each day than men and that women produce most of the food in developing countries, providing with women the power to reach their full potential will also help elevate their position within the community and help them achieve equality and representation.

But malnutrition is not a glamorous subject, nor is it easily associated with women’s rights, and so it is often neglected in favor of more visible causes: not just by the general public, but also by governments and donors. Yet nutrition, while perhaps lacking the media appeal or overt sense of urgency of more well-known issues, can make a monumental difference to people’s lives, and especially those of women and their children.

While the economic, political and social achievements of women, specifically in developed countries have been remarkable, we must not forget that the potential of so many millions of women throughout the developing world has gone mostly untapped. By helping them improve their lives and those of their daughters through nutrition and by ensuring their long-term nutrition security, we can help empower entire generations of women and girls. While it is important to improve nutrition security for boys as well, we cannot ignore that over 60 percent of the world’s chronically hungry are women and girls.

As we celebrate a century of women’s progress, it is wise to reflect on our definition of empowerment and what it means to both women in developed and developing countries, as the definition will differ depending on a woman’s background and culture.

What we can all agree on, however, is that empowerment means giving women the necessary tools to take charge of their own lives and live up to their full potential. By providing them with the nutrients they need to live healthier and happier, we can at least begin to make a difference.

Eighteen healthy subjects followed each diet in a manner that kept their weight stable for four weeks, followed by a four-week washout period. At the completion of each diet phase, diet records were analyzed, fasting blood sampled, and brachial artery reactivity measured (this provides insight into the flow of blood in the brachial arteries, a measure of overall risk of atherosclerosis).

Compared to baseline levels, the Ornish diet resulted in a 16.6% drop in LDL cholesterol; on the South Beach diet it dropped 11.8%. In comparison, LDL increased 8.1% on the Atkins diet. The brachial artery measurements were inversely linked to saturated fat intake, meaning the more saturated fat in the diet, the greater the restriction of flow of blood in the arteries. This correlates well with findings from other studies linking a high saturated fat diet to compromised brachial artery reactivity. The Atkins diet is typically rich in foods high in saturated fat, such as animal protein sources.

The authors concluded that during weight maintenance, less favorable biologic effects were observed when dieters follow the Atkins diet compared to South Beach or Ornish. This could be especially detrimental to people who are obese and have other risk factors for coronary artery disease. More research needs to be conducted in this population.

Nutrition Tip: If you prefer a low-carbohydrate approach to weight loss and maintenance, take steps to choose lower saturated fat food sources, such as lean cuts of meat, fish, skinless poultry, egg substitutes, and low fat cheeses. And remember to bump up low-carbohydrate plant foods like colorful, fresh vegetables.

Source: Miller M, Beach V, et al. Comparative effects of three popular diets on lipids, endothelial function, and c-reactive protein during weight maintenance. JADA

Conclusion: Eat both

Cleveland Clinic
Heart and Vascular Health & Prevention
Two Sources of Omega-3 Benefit the Heart – In Different Ways

In a small study supported by the California Walnut Commission, diets containing walnuts or fish both derived cardiovascular benefit – although each diet had a different effect on lipid parameters.

Twenty-five adults with normal to mild hyperlipidemia were randomly assigned to a control diet that did not include nuts or fish, a walnut diet providing 42.5 grams of walnuts (about 1.5 ounces), or a fish diet containing 113 grams (4 ounces) of fish twice a week. The feeding periods lasted for four weeks each, and all participants crossed over to the others. All diets contained the same number of calories.

Compared to the control diet, the walnut diet resulted in reductions in total and LDL cholesterol. The fish diet showed no improvements in total and low-density lipoprotein (LDL or “bad”) cholesterol, but reduced triglycerides and raised high-density lipoprotein (HDL or “good”) cholesterol.

Nutrition Tip: Although walnuts are a source of omega-3 fat (derived from the plant form of omega-3, called alpha-linolenic acid), they do not produce the same impact on lipids as fish consumption. This study just adds to the growing body of evidence linking both nuts and fish to improved overall cardiovascular health. It also encourages us to choose a variety of food sources rather than a single food or nutrient to improve our hearts.

Citation:
Rajaram S, Haddad EH, Mejia A, Sabate J. Walnuts and fatty fish influence serum lipid fractions in normal to mildly hyperlipidemic individuals: a randomised controlled study. AJCN 2009; 89(5):1657S-1663S

“These findings merit confirmation in additional large, prospective studies and in experimental studies on possible biological mechanisms,” they add.

The study was published online December 16, 2010 in Stroke.

The prospective population-based study included 34 670 Swedish women aged 49 to 83 years who were part of the Swedish Mammography Cohort study and completed a diet and lifestyle questionnaire in 1997.

In addition to providing information on education, weight, height, smoking, physical activity, aspirin use, medical history, family history of MI, and alcohol consumption, study subjects also reported how often they consumed various food items, including meat.

For the study, researchers grouped meats into red meat, fresh meat, and processed meat such as sausage, hot dog, salami, ham, and liver pâté. Red meat was the sum of fresh and processed meat.

Over a mean follow-up of 10.4 years, there were 1680 incident strokes: 1310 cerebral infarctions, 154 intracerebral hemorrhages, 79 subarachnoid hemorrhages, and 137 unspecified strokes.

Compared with women in the lowest quintile of red-meat consumption, the multivariable relative risk (RR) of cerebral infarction for women in the highest quintile was 1.22 (95% CI 1.01-1.46; p=0.04). The association between red meat and cerebral infarction was stronger when the first three years of follow-up were excluded (RR 1.35, 95% CI, 1.10-1.66; p=0.005)

Among those who had never smoked and who did not have diabetes, there was a 68% increased risk of cerebral infarction among the biggest meat eaters compared with those who ate the least.

The researchers found no significant association between fresh meat consumption and the risk of intracerebral hemorrhage or subarachnoid hemorrhage. Poultry was not associated with risk of any stroke subtype or total stroke.

Possible mechanisms

The authors cited several possible mechanisms for the association between meat consumption and cerebral infarction. At least one previous study has shown that the risk of hypertension, which is implicated in stroke, is higher among meat eaters.

Red meat contains saturated fat and cholesterol, which have also been linked to poor cardiovascular health. Red meat is also rich in heme iron, a nutrient known to catalyze the formation of hydroxyl radicals, which are powerful pro-oxidants.

Commenting on this research, Dr Thomas W Wolever (University of Toronto, ON) agreed that the high heme iron content of red meat could be a factor in the association between this type of meat and some types of stroke.

“High hemoglobin, high iron, is associated with cardiovascular disease, but it’s unclear whether that’s because the blood becomes more viscous when there are more red cells or whether it’s because the iron itself is a kind of pro-oxidant that causes oxidative stress and that would promote atherosclerosis.”

Another possible factor is sodium. The association between meat and cerebral infarction in this study was stronger for processed meat than for fresh meat. Processed meats are high in sodium, which could at least partly account for the study’s findings, said the authors.

The study findings are not that surprising, Wolever added, given the fact that stroke and coronary heart disease share so many of the same risk factors, including metabolic syndrome and insulin resistance as well as hypertension. All these factors are associated with red-meat intake, he said.

Wolever noted the small number of hemorrhagic strokes in the study and wondered whether this would limit its statistical strength. “There were so few bleeds that probably the study had no power to pick it up.”

Also, he said, if meat and protein are associated with excess blood clotting, “then maybe you don’t get bleeds because the blood doesn’t clot.”

Wolever also commented that the highest level of meat consumption in the study (102 g daily) is not all that high. He pointed out that women generally eat less meat than men.

And while many aspects of the North American diet have been linked to increased risks for cardiovascular disease and cancer, this diet has also been associated with longevity and good health, he said.

“Some people would say that the fact we can live long enough to get strokes is a testament to how good our diet is.”

He cautioned that the associations uncovered by the study do not prove causality, “athough, being a vegetarian, it would be tempting to think they did.”

Full Article