Calories. Most times, women need fewer calories. That’s because women naturally have less muscle, more body fat, and are usually smaller. On average, adult women need between 1,600 and 2,400 calories a day. Women who are more physically active may need more calories. Find out how many calories you need each day, based on your age, height, weight, and activity level.
Healthy eating is a way of eating that improves your health and helps prevent disease. It means choosing different types of healthy food from all of the food groups (fruits, vegetables, grains, dairy, and proteins), most of the time, in the correct amounts for you. Healthy eating also means not eating a lot of foods with added sugar, sodium (salt), and saturated and trans fats.
Women's reproductive and sexual health has a distinct difference compared to men's health. Even in developed countries pregnancy and childbirth are associated with substantial risks to women with maternal mortality accounting for more than a quarter of a million deaths per year, with large gaps between the developing and developed countries. Comorbidity from other non reproductive disease such as cardiovascular disease contribute to both the mortality and morbidity of pregnancy, including preeclampsia. Sexually transmitted infections have serious consequences for women and infants, with mother-to-child transmission leading to outcomes such as stillbirths and neonatal deaths, and pelvic inflammatory disease leading to infertility. In addition infertility from many other causes, birth control, unplanned pregnancy, unconsensual sexual activity and the struggle for access to abortion create other burdens for women.
I subscribed to this magazine thinking it would be about health, fitness, and above all, working out. The headlines on the cover seemed to suggest that was true, with the biggest fonts advertising things like "flat abs now" and "maximize your workout". In reality, the content of the magazine is mostly beauty (how that counts as "health" is beyond me) and weight-loss. Oh, the endless, endless articles about "burn more fat!" "three new foods that will help you burn fat!" "drop pounds with this easy exercise!" I don't need to lose weight and I found that these articles just played into my growing impression, as issue after issue dropped on my doormat, that the magazine views women as vapid, stereotypical beings whose only desire is to look good, whether through exercise (almost inevitably restricted to cardio and yoga), the "right" work-out clothes (really?) or knowing what dress is in fashion or what color make-up to buy. If you enjoy that sort of thing, that's fine- it is essentially one step above Cosmopolitan on the seriousness scale. If you're looking for actual information about working out and building muscle, know that Women's Health magazine is barely aware that these things exist, and when it does, it will come wrapped in the form of "ten minutes a day to tone your bum like a super-model!" or something equally cringe-inducing.
Omega-3s: These essential fatty acids, EPA and DHA, play many roles in the body, including building healthy brain and nerve cells. Some studies show that omega-3s, especially DHA, can help prevent preterm births. Even women who don't plan to have children should be sure to get plenty of omega-3s. These healthy oils have been shown to reduce the risk of heart disease, the number one killer of women.

Frankly, looking around, it seems your choice is either a magazine that barely addresses fitness, or going straight to the hardcore muscle-building mags. I was hoping for something reasonably in-between with Women's Health, but failed to find it. If someone knows of such a magazine, I'd be interested to hear it (I tried Women's Fitness, which suffers from the same problems as Women's Health). The good news is that my subscription to Women's Health seemed to get me a good price on Men's Health, which I am switching over to because some reviewers recommended it for those disappointed with the content of WH. I'll see how that works out.

Women and men have approximately equal risk of dying from cancer, which accounts for about a quarter of all deaths, and is the second leading cause of death. However the relative incidence of different cancers varies between women and men. In the United States the three commonest types of cancer of women in 2012 were lung, breast and colorectal cancers. In addition other important cancers in women, in order of importance, are ovarian, uterine (including endometrial and cervical cancers (Gronowski and Schindler, Table III).[6][120] Similar figures were reported in 2016.[121] While cancer death rates rose rapidly during the twentieth century, the increase was less and later in women due to differences in smoking rates. More recently cancer death rates have started to decline as the use of tobacco becomes less common. Between 1991 and 2012, the death rate in women declined by 19% (less than in men). In the early twentieth century death from uterine (uterine body and cervix) cancers was the leading cause of cancer death in women, who had a higher cancer mortality than men. From the 1930s onwards, uterine cancer deaths declined, primarily due to lower death rates from cervical cancer following the availability of the Papanicolaou (Pap) screening test. This resulted in an overall reduction of cancer deaths in women between the 1940s and 1970s, when rising rates of lung cancer led to an overall increase. By the 1950s the decline in uterine cancer left breast cancer as the leading cause of cancer death till it was overtaken by lung cancer in the 1980s. All three cancers (lung, breast, uterus) are now declining in cancer death rates (Siegel et al. Figure 8),[121] but more women die from lung cancer every year than from breast, ovarian, and uterine cancers combined. Overall about 20% of people found to have lung cancer are never smokers, yet amongst nonsmoking women the risk of developing lung cancer is three times greater than amongst men who never smoked.[119]

WHO (1948). "WHO definition of Health". Archived from the original (Preamble to the Constitution of the World Health Organization as adopted by the International Health Conference, New York, 19–22 June 1946; signed on 22 July 1946 by the representatives of 61 States (Official Records of the World Health Organization, no. 2, p. 100) and entered into force on 7 April 1948.) on 7 July 2016. Retrieved 6 July 2016., in WHO (2016)
 Micronutrient supplementation  Health clinics  ↓ anemia and Fe-deficiency anemia, ↑ Hgb, ↓ soil-transmitted helminth infection, ↑ cognitive function  ↓ anemia and Fe-deficiency anemia, ↑ Hgb, ↑ serum ferritin, ↓ soil-transmitted helminth infection  ↓/NC anemia, ↑/NC MN status (Hgb, folate, zinc, retinol), ↑ MN status [ferritin, B-12, 25(OH)D], ↓/NC gestational hypertension and pre-eclampsia, NC gestational diabetes, ↓/NC hyperthyroidism, ↓/NC night blindness, ↓ bone mineral content, ↑ weight gain (among underweight women), ↓ maternal mortality, ↓/NC placental malaria, NC parasitemia, NC maternal infection, ↓/NC depression and perceived stress   
Our findings identified gaps and limitations in the evaluation, scope, targeting, and delivery platforms of nutrition interventions in low- and middle-income countries. First, the monitoring and evaluation of nutrition programs that reported on women's nutrition outcomes was generally inadequate. Many of the studies we identified included small-scale efficacy trials. Although there were many large-scale programs that targeted women and adolescent girls with nutrition-specific and nutrition-sensitive approaches, they lacked rigorous evaluation. Whether the evidence about women's outcomes was limited because they are not systematically measured or because they are not well reported is not clear. Negative results are often not published, and many evaluations of nutrition interventions that are conducted by the same groups responsible for implementing them are typically presented positively. This may have also skewed our findings. More intentional research-quality program evaluation, including of large-scale programs, would provide a stronger evidence base. Of the studies identified in this review, many reported on short-term findings such as changes in knowledge, dietary behaviors, and program coverage. They were limited in their ability to report clinical and anthropometric outcomes for women, the duration of those outcomes, and the feasibility of scaling up programs. There is also a need for systematic, long-term evaluations of interventions whose effects on nutrition outcomes are more distal (e.g., nutrition education compared with micronutrient supplementation). The effects of multisectoral interventions are even more complex to measure. However, frameworks exist to evaluate complex interventions (102) and could be utilized to evaluate the impact of interventions across the life course.
×