The aims of the current study, therefore, were to compare (1) free-living MPS and (2) muscle and metabolic adaptations to resistance exercise in South Asian and white European adults. Eighteen South Asian and 16 White European men were enrolled in the study. Free-living muscle protein synthesis was measured at baseline. Muscle strength, body composition, resting metabolic rate, VO2max and metabolic responses (insulin sensitivity) to a mixed meal were measured at baseline and following 12 weeks of resistance exercise training. Free-living muscle protein synthesis was not different between South Asians (1.48 ± 0.09%/day) and White Europeans (1.59 ± 0.15%/day) (p = 0.522). In response to resistance exercise training there were no differences, between South Asians and White Europeans, muscle mass, lower body strength or insulin sensitivity. However, there were differences between the ethnicities in response to resistance exercise training in body fat, resting carbohydrate and fat metabolism, blood pressure, VO2max and upper body strength with responses less favourable in South Asians. In this exploratory study there were no differences in muscle protein synthesis or anabolic and metabolic responses to resistance exercise, yet there were less favourable responses in several outcomes. These findings require further investigation.
Abstract-Progress toward universal health coverage (UHC) requires making difficult trade-offs. In this journal, Dr. Margaret Chan, the World Health Organization (WHO) Director-General, has endorsed the principles for making such decisions put forward by the WHO Consultative Group on Equity and UHC. These principles include maximizing population health, priority for the worse off, and shielding people from health-related financial risks. But how should one apply these principles in particular cases, and how should one adjudicate between them when their demands conflict? This article by some members of the Consultative Group and a diverse group of health policy professionals addresses these questions. It considers three stylized versions of actual policy dilemmas. Each of these cases pertains to one of the three key dimensions of progress toward UHC: which services to cover first, which populations to prioritize for coverage, and how to move from out-of-pocket expenditures to prepayment with pooling of funds. Our cases are simplified to highlight common trade-offs. Though we make specific recommendations, our primary aim is to demonstrate both the form and substance of the reasoning involved in striking a fair balance between competing interests on the road to UHC.
The goal of achieving Universal Health Coverage (UHC) can generally be realized only in stages. Moreover, resource, capacity, and political constraints mean governments often face difficult trade-offs on the path to UHC. In a 2014 report, Making fair choices on the path to UHC, the WHO Consultative Group on Equity and Universal Health Coverage articulated principles for making such trade-offs in an equitable manner. We present three case studies which illustrate how these principles can guide practical decision-making. These case studies show how progressive realization of the right to health can be effectively guided by priority-setting principles, including generating the greatest total health gain, priority for those who are worse off in a number of dimensions (including health, access to health services, and social and economic status), and financial risk protection. They also demonstrate the value of a fair and accountable process of priority setting.