If it's aimed at teenagers then they could've used more than one teenager in the advert. To my mind, it's still following the same "preoccupied with how I look" thought process that pervades many women's lives and stops them from doing / wearing a great number of things, but realistically it's probably more effective to engage with the audience in that way, and demonstrate women who are appearing to be happy with how they are looking than to try and tell someone in 90 seconds that it doesn't matter what their body looks like when they are active, it's all about what it can do for them. Don't think anyone's mode of thinking is going to change after watching an ad, but if it can kickstart them into doing the activities that might make them change the way they think about their bodies, then it's about as good as it is going to get?
UKAD have said this year that the most common explanation of infringements is the unknowing use of supplements that contain substances which can produce a positive result. It's a bit of a gamble for elite athletes to use supplements when they're not 100% sure of their content, but I wholeheartedly agree with the policy of strict liability when it comes to what you have (even unknowingly) put into your body.
We stayed in a caravan park in Sainte-Genevieve-Des-Bois (more handy with small children in tow); it was a 600 metre walk to the train station, then two transfers on the Metro to get to Franklin Roosevelt. I think it took about 50 odd minutes, but I actually appreciated all the sitting down on the train to get ready.