Thursday, August 23, 2007

Vegetables and Fruits Double Breast Cancer Survival Rates

Results from the Women’s Healthy Eating and Living (WHEL) study show that, in women previously diagnosed with breast cancer, diets including at least five fruit and vegetable servings daily, when coupled with physical activity, reduce mortality by nearly 50 percent. Increasing fruit and vegetable intake beyond five a day did not lead to further benefit.
A June report in the Journal of Clinical Oncology showed that women who followed the five-a-day recommendation and remained physically active had a nearly 50% reduction in mortality risk during the seven-year study period.1 A report in the July 18, 2007, edition of JAMA shows that recommendations for even greater fruit and vegetable intake did not extend benefits beyond those achieved by the five-a-day group.2 The WHEL study included more than 3,000 women.
Prior reports from the WHEL study have shown that diet changes alter the hormones that influence cancer growth. In a sub-study of 291 participants, increases in fiber and reductions in dietary fat were associated with reduced serum concentrations of estradiol, bioavailable estradiol, estrone, and estrone sulfate.3
Previous studies have shown that low-fat, high-fiber diets improve cancer survival. The Women’s Intervention Nutrition Study (WINS) showed that reducing dietary fat and boosting fiber cut the risk of cancer recurrence by 24 percent.4
1. Pierce JP, Stefanick ML, Flatt SW, et al. Greater survival after breast cancer in physically active women with high vegetable-fruit intake regardless of obesity. J Clin Oncol 2007;25:2345-51.
2. Pierce JP, Natarajan L, Caan BJ, et al. Influence of a diet very high in vegetables, fruit, and fiber and low in fat on prognosis following treatment for breast cancer: The Women’s Healthy Eating and Living (WHEL) randomized trial. JAMA 2007;298:289-98.
3. Rock CL, Flatt SW, Thomson CA, et al. Effects of a high-fiber, low-fat diet intervention on serum concentrations of reproductive steroid hormones in women with a history of breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2004;12:2379-2387.

4. Chlebowski RT, Blackburn GL, Thomson CA, et al. Dietary fat reduction and breast cancer outcome: interim efficacy results from the Women's Intervention Nutrition Study. J Natl Cancer Inst 2006;98:1767-76.

Thursday, May 17, 2007

Flaxseed and Sunshine Prevent the Most Common Cause of Age Related Blindness

A new study published in the Archives of Ophthalmology adds further support for increasing the Consumption of omega-3 fatty acids. It could slash the risk of developing age-related macular degeneration (AMD) by 40 per cent.

"These results and those from other observational analytic investigations suggest that modifying diet to include more food rich in omega-3 [long chain polyunsaturated fatty acids] could result in a reduction in the risk of having [severe] AMD," stated researchers from the Age-Related Eye Disease Study Research Group.

Age-related macular degeneration (AMD) occurs when the macula, the area at the back of the retina that produces the sharpest vision, deteriorates over time. It is the most common cause of blindness among the over-50s.

According to the new research, the prevalence of the condition is likely to increase as the population ages. While there is currently no known way of preventing the condition, more and more research is focusing on potentially modifiable risk factors and nutrient-based approaches, most notably on the carotenoids lutein and zeaxanthin.

Another class of nutrients showing promise is omega-3 fatty acids. The Age-Related Eye Disease Study Research Group assessed 4,519 individuals aged between 60 and 80 at the start of the study. The researchers took photographs of the subjects' retinas to determine whether they had AMD, and if so, to which one of four stages the condition had progressed. Diets were assessed using a 90-item food frequency questionnaire.

At the start of the study 1,115 subjects did not have any symptoms of AMD. They were compared with those who did, including 658 individuals with severe (neovascular) AMD. The authors calculated that dietary omega-3 fatty acid intake was associated with a 39 per cent reduction in neovascular AMD, while docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) was associated with a 46 per cent reduction.

The researchers stated that omega-3 fatty acids might influence processes involved in the development of blood vessel- and nerve-related diseases of the retina. For example, DHA may protect the retina by influencing which genes turn on and off. Fatty acids overall may eventually form compounds that promote cell survival and proper blood vessel function, reduce inflammation and maintain energy balance.

The researchers called for clinical trials to explore the benefits of dietary or supplemental forms of omega-3 in preventing advanced AMD in more detail.

In a related study in the same journal, Niyati Parekh, from the University of the Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey, New Brunswick, and the University of Wisconsin-Madison, reports that increased levels of vitamin D may be associated with a reduced prevalence of early AMD.

The researchers used data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, and focused on 7,752 individuals (including 11 per cent with AMD) seen as representative of the general U.S. population. As with the AREDS study, subjects had photographs taken of their retinas, questionnaires assessed dietary intakes, and blood samples were taken to calculate blood vitamin D (25-hydroxyvitamin D) levels.

When participants were split into five groups based on the level of vitamin D in the blood, those in the highest group had a 40 per cent lower risk of early AMD than those in the lowest group.

"The present study conducted in a large, representative sample of the US population provides evidence for inverse associations between AMD and higher serum vitamin D levels" explains Parekh.

Parekh and co-workers speculated that the beneficial effects of vitamin D might be via an anti-inflammatory effect or by preventing the growth of new blood vessels in the retina, which contributes to some forms of AMD.

"The results of the present research warrant further investigation for confirmation of the vitamin D-AMD association in other population studies," they concluded.

Source: Archives of Ophthalmology
May 125, Volume 125, Pages 661-669
"Association Between Vitamin D and Age-Related Macular Degeneration in the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 1988 Through 1994"
Authors: N. Parekh, R.J. Chappell, A.E. Millen, D.M. Albert, J.A. Mares

Archives of Ophthalmology
May 125, Volume 125, Pages 671-679
"The Relationship of Dietary Lipid Intake and Age-Related Macular Degeneration in a Case-Control Study: AREDS Report No. 20"
Authors: Age-Related Eye Disease Study Research Group

Friday, April 27, 2007

New Studies Suggest Eating Extra-Virgin Olive Oil Instead of Ulcer Medications

Polyphenols found in olive oil may prevent infection with the Helicobacter pylori bacteria, said to be the cause of millions of cases of gastritis and peptic ulcer disease each year.

In February of this year (2007) new research from the Spanish Institute de la Grasa, and the University Hospital of Valme, reported that, under their simulated in vitro conditions, the polyphenol-rich extra virgin olive oil exerted anti-bacterial effects against eight strains of H. pylori, three of which were said to be resistant to antibiotics.
"These results open the possibility of considering extra virgin olive oil a chemoprotective agent for peptic ulcer or gastric cancer, but this bioactivity must be confirmed in vivo in the future," wrote lead author Concepcion Romero in the Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry.
The researchers state that previous studies have shown that green tea, cranberry juice and certain other natural foods inhibit the growth of H. pylori, the only bacteria that can survive in the acidic environment of the stomach and known to cause peptic ulcers and gastritis.
The new study, the first to look at the potential anti-H. pylori role of olive oil polyphenols, used laboratory experiments to demonstrate that under simulated conditions the healthful phenolic compounds in extra virgin olive oil remain stable in the acidic environment of the stomach for hours.
Indeed, the results show that, under the simulated conditions, over half of the polyphenols found in olive oil could diffuse into the aqueous (water) phase of the gastric juices. Moreover, these polyphenols were found to exert the greatest anti-H. pylori activity.
“The results indicate that the secoiridoid aglycons are not hydrolysed in the acidic environment of the gastric juice,” wrote Romero. “It has just been demonstrated that these secoiridoid aglycons, in particular the dialdehyde form of decarboxymethyl ligstroside aglycon, are the most powerful anti-H. pylori compounds of the olive oil.”
The olive oil extract’s anti-bacterial effects were found to be dose-dependent, and only the weakest extract (one per cent) failed to exert a significant bactericidal activity.
“In view of the low concentration required to exert bactericidal action against H. pylori by the dialdehydic form of decarboxymethyl ligstroside aglycon, it is promising to carry out studies in vivo with extra virgin olive oil to prevent and control peptic ulcers and gastric cancer caused by this bacteria,” concluded the researchers.
The results of the study may keep consumer interest in olive oil high, following other studies linking the diet to lower incidence of cardiovascular disease (CVD) and certain types of cancer.
Source: Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
Volume 55, Pages 680-686
“In vitro activity of olive oil polyphenols against Helicobacter pylori”
Authors: C. Romero, E. Medina, J. Vargas, M. Brenes, A. de Castro

Tuesday, April 10, 2007

The World's Best Power Breakfast!

When it comes to breakfast there are several issues that need to be understood in order to make good choices for this "most important meal of the day."

First, the word breakfast literally means to break our fast. We have been fasting through our sleep period and the result is low blood sugar. It is this low blood sugar level that typically motivates our first food picks of the day. The body's call is for sugar! Our brains are not even fully functioning until we get blood sugar levels up because they rely entirely on simple sugars. With these forces understood it becomes easy to see why sugar cereals, doughnuts, pastries, pancakes, waffles, yogurt, sweetened coffee beverages, juice, jelly, instant breakfast drinks, smoothies and fruit are all popular choices.

Our next issue is of course how to manage blood sugar optimally. We need to bring it up quickly, but not too quickly. We need to maintain it through the day and we need to avoid dramatic or rapid fluctuations. Working within these guidelines will keep the body on an even energy burn without periods of tired and wired. These guidelines also result in protection from and reversal of blood sugar disorders, including insulin dependency!

Now we need to understand that it is all about the carbohydrates in the diet and that they are far from equal. Carbohydrate must be eaten with fiber. Fiber is the time release mechanism provided by nature. Without it we are essentially injecting ourselves with sugar. Carbohydrates are absorbed into the bloodstream through the intestines, primarily the small intestine. Without the buffering effect of the fiber sugar is taken up too quickly resulting in a spike in blood sugar and insulin. It is the spiking that we feel as being tired or wired. This is not the roller coaster we want to hop on first thing in the AM!

Starting the day with the right food choices sets the stage for successful blood sugar management throughout the day. In addition to blood sugar management we should also take the opportunity at breakfast, as with all meals, to load up on antioxidants. Generous liquids or high water content foods are also important to flush away the elimination that has taken place through our rest period. The best breakfast choice to cover all of these bases is the humble smoothie. Ok, maybe not so humble by the time I'm finished with it, but a smoothie nonetheless.

My top picks for a real POWER breakfast smoothie include; flesh and coconut water from young coconut, (check Whole Foods and other natural foods stores but Asian markets are the best place to find them/ they have white husks) bananas, acai,(check the freezer section in Whole Foods and other natural foods retailers/ Sambazon is the best quality and the frozen packets are smoothie ready!) blueberries, strawberries, mango, and pineapple juice.

Open the coconut with a thick bladed sharp knife. The coconut will be filled with water, it should be clear and have a delicate odor, the flesh should be white. If it has started to turn pink it is not fresh. Pour the water into the blender and scrape the flesh out with a spoon. The consistency of the flesh is like pudding and is rich in fatty acids critical for proper immune function. Use half of the coconut water and meat along with one half of an acai package unless preparing multiple servings. Unused coconut meat and water can easily be stored frozen in a zip-lock bag until needed. Add remaining frozen fruit and top off with pineapple juice. Pour the juice only to the level of the fruit and blend until smooth; add more juice a little at a time until the desired consistency is achieved.

Adding various boosters can supercharge this basic smoothie. I like to keep half a dozen boosters on hand and mix them up from day to day. My top picks include flax seed, raw hemp protein (Manitoba Harvest brand is the best, made simply from ground whole raw hemp seed), raw cacao (chocolate, nibs or whole bean is best)), raw carob, powdered greens (Amazing Grass brand is best, wheat grass, barley grass, alfalfa), raw oat bran, raw wheat germ, macca, Siberian ginseng, dates, fresh figs, nut butters, nutmeg and cinnamon.

Fresh ingredients are always better! However, using frozen fruit is also fantastic and there is no waste. I like to buy my bananas for example, ripen them, peel and freeze them. When I find really nice fresh fruit that is in season I will stock up and store it in the freezer. Portioning out individual ziplock bags of fruit and keeping them in the freezer is a great time saver for those mornings when there is no extra time and it makes it easy for kids too.

Start the day with a generous glass of water with a squeeze of lemon, followed by the smoothie approximately 15 minutes later.

Ideally the smoothie can be followed in 30-45 minutes by sprouted or whole grain breads and cereal. Carbohydrates found in the fruit will typically reach the blood stream within 15 minutes if consumed on an empty stomach. The sugar in fruit is in a simple ready to use form; it does not require the stomach or much digestive activity at all. Carbohydrates found in grains on the other hand can take hours for the body to break down into the simple sugars it actually uses. By starting with the smoothie we are providing a source of immediately available energy fully buffered by the fiber naturally found in all fruit. The smoothie will carry us for hours, plenty of time for the complex carbs found in the grains to be broken down and prepared for use.
By following the simple sugars in the fruit with the complex sugars in the grains we are setting the stage for proper blood sugar management through the day.
Smoothies are sweet, rich and delicious and even the kids love them.

Boundless energy throughout the day is ours for the taking. This simple breakfast regimen is the foundation on which to build. Enjoy!

Thursday, March 29, 2007

Beef Not On The Menu For Environmentalists

Greenhouse gasses from cars, trucks,and busses are less than what results from animal agriculture.A United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization report published in 2006 points the finger at livestock operations globally. The study asserts that a 50% decrease must be achieved in order to avoid increasing the current level of environmental damage.

Animal farms around the world generate 18% more greenhouse emissions than all of the previously mentioned transportaion methods combined. Further, livestock production currently occupies 30 percent of earths land surface. The areas used for grazing are a major source of deforestation, particularly in Latin America, where 70% of former forest lands are used for grazing.

By far the most important non-CO2 greenhouse gas is methane, and the number one source of methane worldwide is animal agriculture.[1]
Methane is responsible for nearly as much global warming as all other non-CO2 greenhouse gases put together.[2] Methane is 21 times more powerful a greenhouse gas than CO2.[3] While atmospheric concentrations of CO2 have risen by about 31% since pre-industrial times, methane concentrations have more than doubled.[4] Whereas human sources of CO2 amount to just 3% of natural emissions, human sources produce one and a half times as much methane as all natural sources.[5] In fact, the effect of our methane emissions may be compounded as methane-induced warming in turn stimulates microbial decay of organic matter in wetlands—the primary natural source of methane.[6]
With methane emissions causing nearly half of the planet’s human-induced warming, methane reduction must be a priority. Methane is produced by a number of sources, including coal mining and landfills—but the number one source worldwide is animal agriculture.[7] Animal agriculture produces more than 100 million tons of methane a year.[8] And this source is on the rise: global meat consumption has increased fivefold in the past fifty years, and shows little sign of abating.[9] About 85% of this methane is produced in the digestive processes of livestock,[10] and while a single cow releases a relatively small amount of methane,[11] the collective effect on the environment of the hundreds of millions of livestock animals worldwide is enormous. An additional 15% of animal agricultural methane emissions are released from the massive “lagoons” used to store untreated farm animal waste,[1] and already a target of environmentalists’ for their role as the number one source of water pollution in the U.S.[13]
The conclusion is simple: arguably the best way to reduce global warming in our lifetimes is to reduce or eliminate our consumption of animal products. Simply by shifting to a plant-based diet[14][15][16] we can eliminate one of the major sources of emissions of methane, the greenhouse gas responsible for almost half of the global warming impacting the planet today.

1. Animal agriculture is also a major source of nitrous oxide emissions, another important greenhouse gas 310 times more powerful than carbon dioxide. 73% of U.S. emissions of nitrous oxide come from animal grazing, manure management, and crop growing practices—with half of U.S. crops grown for livestock feed. Agricultural emissions of nitrous oxide in the U.S. increased 9% from 1990 to 2002. “Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions: 1990-2002,” EPA 430-R-04-003, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 15 April 2004, p. ES-16, emissions.
2. Hansen and Sato, supra note 11. Estimated climate forcing of methane from 1850 to 2000 is 0.7 W/m2, while estimated forcing of CFCs, tropospheric ozone, and nitrous oxide combined is 0.9 W/m2.
3. “Global Warming Potentials”, supra note 10.
4. Atmospheric CO2 concentrations have risen from 278 parts per million (ppm) in 1750 to 365 ppm in 1998. Atmospheric concentrations of methane have increased by 149% since 1750, from .700 ppm to 1.745 ppm. “Emissions of Greenhouse Gases in the United States 2002”, Chapter 1, Energy Information Administration, U.S. Department of Energy, October 2003,
5. Natural sources emit 770 billion metric tons of CO2, and 239 million metric tons of methane, compared to 23.1 billion and 359 million, respectively, for anthropogenic sources. “Emissions of Greenhouse Gases in the United States 2002”, supra note 20.
6. Hansen, et al, supra note 5. It is also possible that warming may dampen natural sources of methane by drying out wetlands.
7.Animal agriculture is responsible for 32% of global methane emissions from human activity, including 28% from domesticated livestock and 4% from livestock manure. Natural gas is the second largest source, accounting for 15% of emissions. Kruger, Dina, “The Role of ‘Other Gases’ in Addressing Climate Change”, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 12 Feb 2004, output_all/workshop/usjapan/pdf/06Kruger.pdf.
8. “Emissions of methane from livestock”, Climate Change Fact Sheet 32, Information Unit on Climate Change (IUCC), UNEP, 1 May 1993,
9. World meat production reached 242 million tons in 2002, from 122 million tons in 1977, and from 44 million tons in 1950. Additionally, per capita meat consumption has more than doubled since 1950, from 17 to 39 kg per person. Vital Signs 2003, Worldwatch Institute, May 2003, p.30-31, The majority of the meat is consumed by developed countries. Delgado, Christopher et al., Livestock to 2020: The Next Food Revolution, “Food, Agriculture, and the Environment Discussion Paper 28”, International Food Policy Research Institute, May 1999,
10. “The Role of ‘Other Gases’ in Addressing Climate Change”, supra note 23. Methane emissions come particularly from ruminant animals, like cows, sheep, buffalo, and goats, but also from non-ruminants like pigs and horses. “Emissions of methane from livestock”, supra note 24.
11.Not including methane released from manure, an adult cow produces 80-110 kg of methane a year. “Frequent Questions”, Ruminant Livestock, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
12.“The Role of ‘Other Gases’ in Addressing Climate Change”, supra note 23.
13.“Water Quality Conditions in the United States”, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, August 2002,
14.Herein, the term “vegetarian” is used to refer not just to a meatless diet, but to one free of animal products, i.e. a “vegan” diet. Dairy cows, for example, produce even more methane per animal than beef cattle. Logically, the same concerns extend beyond diet to the consumption of other consumer goods derived from livestock, like wool and leather.
15.Because ruminant livestock produce far more methane than non-ruminant livestock, reductions in agricultural methane can also be achieved by shifting consumption away from cows and sheep in favor of chickens and pigs. However, the benefits of such shifts are not simple; for example, in the U.S., manure from pigs produces more than five times as much methane as manure from beef cattle. (“Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions: 1990-2002”, p. 181, supra note 17.) Moreover, the large scale production of these animals in concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) is associated with numerous other environmental harms already extensively documented by environmental organizations, making the trade of one environmental danger for another a Faustian bargain.
16.The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s efforts to address methane from livestock amount to encouraging changes in feed and increasing the amount of product (meat, milk, offspring) per animal. Even at best such efforts are unlikely to achieve large reductions in emissions per animal, and any such reductions are easily swamped by increases in the number of animals raised overall. Methane emissions from manure can also be captured and used to produce energy.

Thursday, March 22, 2007

Lose Weight by Eating More Dairy?...Maybe Not So Fast

Dairy Diet Myth

You’ve probably seen the ads in magazines or on TV. “Milk, cheese-
yogurt. Burn more fat, lose weight.” Drink 24 ounces
of milk every 24 hours and that skinny hourglass figure will be
yours. Eat three servings of yogurt every day and squeeze into
that itsy-bitsy bikini...

Beginning October 2003 "Drink Milk... Lose Weight" ads ran in over 30 newspapers and magazines when the dairy industry launched an entire "Healthy Weight with Milk" campaign to boost sales. Curiously, that also happened to be the same year a review of that exact subject was published in the Journal of Nutrition. The review found nine randomized controlled studies in the medical literature on body weight and dairy. Seven of the nine studies found no significant change in body weight compared to controls and the last two found that those who increased their dairy consumption gained significantly more weight than the nondairy control groups.[1] Subsequent and even larger studies published in 2004[2] and 2005[3] showed the exact same thing.

So, wait a second. How can the dairy industry's ads claim that "a clinical study shows it helps you burn more fat and lose more weight than just cutting calories alone?" Well, because there are actually three small published studies that found greater weight loss in people who were told to cut calories and eat dairy foods and all were done by one researcher with a patent on the claim. Michael Zemel of the University of Tennessee, found that study participants instructed to eat more dairy did seem to lose more weight. Yes, of course the studies were bought and paid for by the dairy industry, but it goes further than that. This guy Zemel owns a patent on the claim that dairy foods aid weight loss, which is licensed to dairy food manufacturers. As the Center for Science in the Public Interest noted, "In the world of patents and PR, a little science can go a long way."[4] For an in depth analysis of Zemels work and how it is assisting the Dairy Industry check out the Nutrition Action Health Letter Spetember 2005 available online at

Similar maneuverings were involved in the increased dairy recommendation in the new USDA Dietary Guidelines, even though a recent World Health Organization review found no significant relationship at all between low dairy consumption and osteoporotic fracture risk.[5] Assigned to write the dairy guideline was Connie Weaver, head of nutrition at Purdue University and a funding favorite of the National Dairy Council. Walter Willet, head of nutrition at Harvard, calls the guideline committee's report "egregious," accusing them of ignoring the evidence linking dairy to cancer. "There is no nutritional requirement for dairy," Dr. Willet told the Wall Street Journal, "at all."[6]
To hopefully clear up the dairy/weight question once and for all, on June 6, 2005, Harvard researchers published what may be considered the definitive study on the subject in the Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine. A study which followed the milk-drinking habits of not 11 kids, or even 12 kids, but over 12,000 kids! After following these 9- though 14-year-olds for years, they found that "children who reported higher total milk intake experienced larger weight gains." The more milk they drank, the heavier they became. Boys who drank the "recommended" three servings of milk a day were 35% more likely to become overweight and girls who drank three servings were 36% more likely to become overweight over time.[7]
"Given the high prevalence of lactose intolerance, the energy content and saturated fat in milk, and evidence that dairy products may promote both male (prostate) and female (ovarian) cancers, we should not assume that high intakes [of dairy] are beneficial," the researchers told reporters. "Furthermore, these cancers may be linked to consumption during adolescence."[8]
What most surprised the researchers was that those who drank low-fat milk (skim and 1%) gained the most weight of all! The weight gain seemed tied more to the dairy protein intake than the dairy fat intake (extra whey protein is often added to low-fat milk during processing). Although there are at least four human studies that show that the dairy protein whey itself may promote weight gain, the researchers guessed that the blame lay in the growth hormones in milk, like the sex steroid estrone found in whey. After all, milk is designed by mother nature to start an 80-pound calf on her way to 1,400 pounds by her second birthday.
This new study has serious implications for our childhood obesity epidemic, which not only has devastating health consequences but social consequences as well. A study released the same week by researchers at the Centers for Disease Control found that teens who perceived themselves as overweight were more than twice as likely to attempt suicide.[9]

[1] Barr SI. "Increased Dairy Product or Calcium Intake: Is Body Weight or Composition Affected in Humans?" Journal of Nutrition 133(2003):245-8S.
[2] Obesity Research 12(2004):A23.
[3] Gunther CW, Legowski PA, Lyle RM, et al. "Dairy Products Do Not Lead to Alterations in Body Weight or Fat Mass in Young Women In A 1-Y Intervention." Am J Clin Nutr 2005;81:751-6.
[4] "Dairy Does Diets." Nutrition Action Healthletter September 2004:8.
[5] Kanis JA, et al."A Meta-Analysis of Milk Intake and Fracture Risk: Low Utility For Case Finding." Osteoporisis International 21 October 2004.
[6] Zamiska N. "How Milk Got a Major Boost By Food Panel." Wall Street Journal 30 August 2004:B1.
[7] Berkey CS, et al. "Milk, Dairy Fat, Dietary Calcium, and Weight Gain ." Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine 1599(2005):543-50.
[8] Fox M. "Milk may make for heavier kids, study finds." Reuters 6 June 2005.
[9] Eaton DK, et al. "Associations of Body Mass Index and Perceived Weight With Suicide Ideation and Suicide Attempts Among US High School Students." Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine 1599(2005):513-9.