Looking To The Future: The Next 100 Issues

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

In the roughly year and a half that I have been publishing “Health Tips From The Professor” in its current form, I have tried to go behind the headlines to provide you with accurate, unbiased health information that you can trust and apply to your everyday life. The 100^th issue of any publication is a major cause for celebration and reflection – and “Health Tips From The Professor” is no different.

I am dedicating this issue to reviewing what has been covered in the last year and a half and reflecting on the future direction of this publication. Let’s start by looking at some of the major issues that have been covered.

Environmental Toxins and Our Health

We live in an increasingly toxic world. Some of those toxins come from industrial pollution. Some come from agricultural pollution (pesticides and herbicides). Some come from household pollution (cleaning products and outgassing from carpet, drapery, etc.). And some come from the additives that BIG FOOD adds to the processed foods we eat.

I’ve covered the effects of a few of those toxins on our health in articles like “Do Toxic Homes Cause Asthma?” , “Are Toxic Chemicals Lowering Our IQ?” , and “Do Artificial Colors Cause Hyperactivity?”. Look for more information along those lines in future issues of “Health Tips From The Professor”.

Exercise and Our Health

Many of you exercise on a daily basis and would like more guidance on the best exercises and how you can best support your exercise nutritionally.

I have covered the benefits of exercise in articles like “Run Long and Prosper”. I have covered nutritional approaches that support exercise gains in articles like “Does Leucine Stimulate Muscle Growth?” and “Do Protein Needs Increase As We Age? “.  Finally, I have covered the dangers of many of the sports supplements on the market in articles like “Are Fat Burning Supplements Safe?”, “Are Sports Supplements Safe?”, and “Sports Supplements To Avoid”.

I plan to expand these topics in the coming year and perhaps bring in an expert who can advise you the best exercises for a long and healthy life.

Healthy Eating

Most of you have told me that you are very interested in healthy eating.

I have covered healthy eating in general with articles like “Can Diet Alter Your Genetic Destiny?” , “The Seventh Generation Revisited” and “Are Organic Foods Healthier?”.

I have talked about foods and eating patterns to avoid with articles like “Does Sugar Cause Heart Disease?”, “Do Sodas Cause Arthritis?” and “Do Grilled Meats Cause Prostate Cancer?”.

I have covered controversial areas with articles like “Are Saturated Fats Good For You?” and “When Is GMO not GMO?” and a webinar on “The Truth About Genetically Modified Foods”.

Look for more healthy eating articles like these in upcoming issues.

Obesity

I don’t need to tell you that in today’s world obesity is a huge problem (pun intended).

I have covered some of the less known causes of obesity in articles like “Do Diet Sodas Make You Fat?”, and “Can Gut Bacteria Make You Fat?”.

I’ve covered the risks of obesity in articles like “Belly Fat Could Be Killing You?” and “Does Belly Fat Make You Dumb?”.

Finally, I’ve given you some useful tips on how to lose weight in articles like “What Is The Best Diet For Weight Loss?”, “Are High Protein Diets Your Secret to Weight Loss?”, “7 Easy Ways To Spot Fad Diets”, and “Do Diets Really Work?”.

Look for more informative articles like this in future issues.

Family Nutrition

I have had lots of requests for articles providing nutritional advice for young families.

I have written articles for women such as “Women’s Heart Health Begins At 20” () and “Do Omega-3 Fatty Acids Decrease The Risk Of Depression In Women?” . I have written articles for children such as “Can DHA Help Johnny Read?” and “Do Foods Make Them Fidget?” (coming next month). I have written articles for men such as “A Big, Fat Problem With Testosterone”. I have even written articles about gender differences such as “Is Omega-3 Uptake Gender Specific?”.

Look for more articles like these in future issues.

Debunking The Nutrition Myths

There is a lot of misinformation on the internet, and some of that misinformation has been repeated so often that it has become generally accepted as true. It has become what I refer to as a “nutrition urban legend” or nutrition myth. I have done my best to shine the light of science on these myths and expose them as the untruths that they are.

For example, I have debunked the myths about soy in articles like “Does Soy Increase The Risk Of Breast Cancer Recurrence?”, “Should Women With Breast Cancer Avoid Soy?” and my video “The Truth About Soy”. I have debunked myths about antioxidants in articles like “Do Antioxidant Supplements Cause Cancer?” and “Do Selenium & Vitamin E Cause Prostate Cancer?”. I have debunked myths about omega-3 fatty acids in articles like “Do Omega-3 Fatty Acids Cause Prostate Cancer?”. I have debunked the myths about calcium in articles like “Do Calcium Supplements Increase Heart Attack Risk?”.

However, debunking nutrition myths is a lot like the “Whack a Mole” game you see at state fairs. As soon as you debunk one myth, another one pops up somewhere else. For that reason I will continue to expose nutrition myths in future issues of “Health Tips From The Professor”.

Exposing The Lies

Unfortunately, there are a lot of charlatans in the food supplement industry, and some of their more sensational claims are popularized by doctors who should know better.

I have tried to expose the worst of these unsubstantiated claims in articles like “Can Chocolate Help You Lose Weight?”, “Water Is Water” and “Is Green Coffee Bean Extract Bogus?”.

Unfortunately, the charlatans truly believe that a “sucker is born every minute” so there will always be new products and new outrageous claims. I will do my best to protect you from products that drain your pocketbook but do not provide you with any substantiated benefits.

Telling The Truth About Supplementation

On one hand you have experts who tell you that supplements are a waste of money. They don’t do any good. On the other hand, you have people who tout supplements as cure for whatever ails you. Neither extreme is accurate. I have done my best to bring balance and scientific rigor to this discussion with articles like “The Two Biggest Misconceptions About Supplementation”.

The Naysayers base their advice on studies of supplementation in healthy populations, something we scientists refer to as primary prevention studies. Because 95% or more of the healthy test population will never develop the disease being tested for within the time period of the study it is almost impossible to demonstrate a beneficial effect of supplementation in that kind of studies. I have illustrated that point by highlighting the difficulty in proving that statins provide any discernable effect on heart disease risk in healthy populations of people who have not experienced a prior heart attack in my book “The Myths of the Naysayers” and my article “Can An Apple A Day Keep Statins Away?”. If you can’t even show that statins prevent disease in healthy populations, why would you expect to be able to show that supplements prevent disease in those populations?

However when you look at the effects of supplementations in populations at high risk of developing disease (because of age, poor diet, increased need, genetics or pre-existing disease) supplementation does appear to be effective. I have highlighted these studies in articles like “Is Fish Oil Really Snake Oil?”, “Do B vitamins Slow Cognitive Decline?”, and “Do Vitamin D Genes Affect Mortality?”.

In future issues I will continue to highlight the benefits of supplementation. Unlike, the more sensational blogs, however, I will also be quite clear about which population groups are most likely to benefit.

Of course, I can’t cover all 100 issues in this one article. Suffice it to say that I have also provided you with information on nutritional breakthroughs that may dramatically decrease your risk of cancer, diabetes, heart disease and much more. You can find many of these articles just by going to https://www.chaneyhealth.com/healthtips and entering the appropriate term in the search box.

What Does the Future Hold?

I have just touched on a few of my most popular articles in the list I gave you above. You may want to scroll through that list to find articles of interest to you that you might have missed. If you don’t see what you are looking for, just go to https://www.chaneyhealth.com/healthtips and type the appropriate term in the search box.

In the coming year you can look for more articles debunking myths, exposing lies and providing balance to the debate about those health topics that affect you directly. As always I pledge to provide you with scientifically accurate, balanced information that you can trust. I will continue to do my best to present this information in a clear and concise manner so that you can understand it and apply it to your life.

Based on input that I have received from many of you I will increase my coverage of exercise and topics of interest to young families. I will also be bringing back Julie Donnelly as a guest expert for a series of articles on how to relieve back pain. Julie is an expert on deep muscle massage therapy and her articles on self-treatment for muscle pain have been among the most popular over the last year and a half. I know you will be happy to have her back.

If you have other topics that you would like me to cover, please click on this link to enter your suggestions in the comment box.

 

These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This information is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease.

What You Don’t Know About Heart Health Can Hurt You

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

If you are a young mom, heart disease is the furthest thing from your mind. You have your kids and your husband to look after. You have work. You don’t have time to look after yourself. Besides, you may think that heart disease in women doesn’t really apply to you. Perhaps it’s time to review some of your assumptions.

Heart Disease Is For Men – Wrong

The misconception that heart disease is primarily a man’s concern arises because estrogen helps protect women from heart disease prior to menopause. However, after menopause women’s heart attack rates exceed men’s. Overall, women account for over half of all heart attack deaths in this country, and if a woman has a heart attack before age 50, it is twice as likely to be fatal for her than for a man.

Women Should Be More Concerned About Breast Cancer Than About Heart Disease – Wrong

While I would never advise a woman not to take precautions to avoid breast cancer, you should know that your lifetime risk of developing heart disease is 6-fold greater than your lifetime risk of developing cancer. In fact, heart disease is the leading cause of death in women over 40 years old. For 25% of heart attack victims their first symptom is sudden death! And many other will never experience the same quality of life again.

 

Women Don’t Need To Worry About Heart Disease Until After Menopause – Wrong

It is true the likelihood of having a heart attack increases significantly after menopause. That is because menopause dramatically increases a number of risk factors associated with heart disease such as increases in LDL cholesterol, blood clot formation, blood pressure, and inflammation. However, within 10 years after the onset of perimenopause (usually around age 45) your risk of a heart attack will skyrocket past that of a man of the same age. That means in those 10 years all of the not-so-good things you have been doing to your heart since age 20 catch up with you!

What Can You Do?

Don’t wait until after menopause. Start your heart health program today. Here is what the experts recommend.

• Lose weight and/or maintain ideal body weight. Overweight and obesity dramatically increase all of the major risk factors for heart disease – LDL cholesterol, triglycerides, diabetes, hypertension and inflammation.

• Exercise for more than 30 minutes – more than 3 times/week. Regular exercise reduces the risk of heart disease by 30-40%.

• Follow a diet low in saturated fat and trans-fat (substitute monounsaturated fats like olive oil and omega-3 fats); low in sugars and artificial sweeteners; and high in fiber, whole grains, legumes, fruits, vegetables, and fish.

• Work with your physician to control predisposing diseases such as diabetes and hypertension.

• All these help to reduce heart disease in women
  

More Resources

For more information on heart health for women visit http://www.webmd.com/heart-disease/guide/women-heart-disease, http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/007188.htm, and https://www.goredforwomen.org/home/know-your-risk/factors-that-increase-your-risk/

 

These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This information is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease.

How Can You Be Sure You Are Getting What You Paid For?

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

Two weeks ago the headlines claimed that most supplements containing grape seed extract were bogus. Just last week the New York Attorney General claimed that four of the largest retailers in the state were selling bogus herbal supplements.

We already knew that it is “buyer beware” in the food supplement industry. Is it really this bad? Are most herbal supplements a waste of money? How can we be sure that we are getting our money’s worth when we buy herbal supplements?

Do Herbal Supplements Work?

Supplements Containing Grape Seed Extract

The headlines about supplements containing grape seed extract were based on a recent study by botanical and medicinal chemistry experts at Rutgers University (Villani et al, Food Chemistry, 170, 271-280, 2015). They obtained 21 commercially available supplements containing grape seed extract from vitamin supplement retailers, supermarkets and online vendors.

The scientists used HPLC/UV/MS to analyze the supplements for the polyphenols that should be found in authentic grape seed extracts. (HPLC/UV/MS is an analytic method that is the gold standard for identifying and quantifying the chemical composition of the final product. However, it is a very expensive procedure, and many manufacturers do not use it.)

The results of their analysis were quite alarming.

• Only 6 of the 21 products tested had the specific polyphenols found in authentic grape seed extract.

• 9 of the samples had less than 15% of the polyphenols found in grape seed extract.

• 5 of the samples had less than 3% of the polyphenols found in grape seed extract.

• One of the samples had no detectable grape seed extract

• 9 of the samples contained polyphenols that were characteristic of peanut skin extracts rather than grape seed extract. Peanut skin extract is a much cheaper source of polyphenols than grape seed extract. Substitution of peanut skin extract for grape seed extract is a concern because:
  • While polyphenols from peanut skin extract have health benefits, they have not been tested. There is currently no clinical evidence that they are beneficial.
  • There is no label information on the products indicating that peanuts were used in their manufacture. This could be a concern for people with peanut allergies.

• 3 of the samples contained polyphenols that were more characteristic of pine bark extract than grape seed extract. Again this is a concern because that particular blend of polyphenols has not been shown to provide the same health benefits as grape seed extract.

The authors concluded that “adulteration of grape seed extract in commercial preparations is a significant problem.” They suggested that substitution of much cheaper polyphenol sources such as peanut skin extract or pine bark extract offered significant “economic gain” to the manufacturers.

They went on to say “due to reliance of inferior…assays [or complete lack of quality control assays in some cases] across the value chain, adulteration can go undetected by others in the distribution chain, such as those involved in distribution, packaging, wholesale and retail sales.”

To put that in lay terms it means that suppliers and manufacturers often cheat by substituting cheaper polyphenol sources, primarily for financial gain. Furthermore, because most companies don’t use high cost quality control assays such as HPLC/UV/MS they actually have no idea whether their products actually contain grape seed extract or not.

Supplements Containing Ginko Biloba, St. John’s Wort, Ginseng & Echinacea

The recent headlines about ginko biloba, St. John’s wort, ginseng, echinacea and other herbal products arose from an announcement by the New York Attorney General the he had just ordered GNC, Target, Walmart and Walgreens to take a number of herbal supplements off their shelves because almost 80% of them didn’t contain the ingredients listed on the label or contained non-listed ingredients.

Specifically, the Attorney General claimed that:

• The ginko biloba and St. John’s wort supplements that they tested from those stores did not test positive for active ingredients.

• Ginseng and Echinacea supplements also failed their tests.

• In some cases the supplements contained no organic material. They contained sand instead of active ingredients.

The Attorney General claimed that these and other herbal supplements they tested were bogus. Even worse, they were deceptive and could endanger people’s health. For example, people generally use St. John’s wort to relieve depression. If the supplement is bogus, they are not just wasting money. Their mental health is also being compromised.

While the Attorney General’s announcement is alarming, it is also a bit misleading. It is based on an analytic method called “DNA barcoding”. In simple terms, DNA barcoding means that DNA is extracted from the sample and the genetic information in that DNA is compared with the genetic information characteristic of the herbal ingredient.

DNA barcoding is an important analytic test that every manufacturer should use to validate the identity of their herbal raw ingredients. However, DNA is often removed in the process of preparing an herbal extract, so DNA barcoding is an inappropriate assay to use for validating the quality of the finished product. Assays such as the HPLC/UV/MS are more appropriate or the final product.

In short, the Attorney General identified a potential problem with the herbal supplement industry, but further tests are required before we know how significant the problem actually is. The most troubling aspect of the whole incident is that some of the retailers had not run their own quality controls on the products, so they actually had no idea whether the products they were selling were bogus or not.

How Can you Make Sure the Supplements you Buy Aren’t Bogus?

Now that you know that many herbal supplements may be bogus, how do you protect yourself? How do you make sure that you are not wasting your money and jeopardizing your health?

The answer is actually pretty simply.

• Ignore the slick marketing.

• Don’t base your decision on price alone.

• Do your research. Only choose reputable companies that do quality controls on both the raw ingredients and the finished product.

The Bottom Line

Herbal supplements have been in the headlines lately, and the news isn’t good.

• One study (Villani et al, Food Chemistry, 170, 271-280, 2015) reported that only 6 out of 21 supplements listing grape seed extract on their label actually contained pure grape seed extract. The rest were adulterated with less expensive polyphenol sources which may not provide the same health benefits, such as peanut skin extracts and pine bark extracts. That report was based on HPL/UV/MS, which is the gold standard of quality controls assays for herbal supplements.

• Two weeks later the New York Attorney General ordered GNC, Target, Walmart and Walgreens to stop selling herbal supplements containing ginko biloba, St. John’s wort, ginseng, echinacea and other herbal ingredients. He claimed that 80% of the supplements tested didn’t contain the ingredients on the label and some contained sand instead of any active ingredients. His claim was based on DNA barcoding, an assay that is appropriate for identifying the herbs used in manufacturing the supplements, but is not valid for determining whether the finished product contains extracts prepared from those herbs. In short the Attorney General’s report identified a potential problem with those supplements, but further tests will be required to determine how significant that problem is.

• Both reports serve to remind us that many supplement manufacturers fail to run adequate quality control tests on their products. Neither they nor you know whether their products actually contain any active ingredients. Your best bet is to choose food supplement companies that run appropriate quality controls on both their raw ingredients and on their final products.

 

These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This information is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease.

Got Milk? Maybe Not

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

 

 

You’ve probably seen the ads featuring your favorite celebrities sporting a white mustache and saying “Got milk?” Those ads all suggest that milk is essential for strong bones and a healthy body.

And you are probably aware of dietary recommendations from learned experts saying that you should be consuming at least 2-3 servings of milk every day – more if you’re over 65.

If so, you are probably really confused by the recent headlines saying things like: “Milk Consumption May Increase the Risk of Fractures” and “High Consumption of Milk May Increase Mortality Risk”.

Can milk be bad for you?

Before you pour all your milk down the drain and put Bessie the cow out to pasture, we should examine the study behind the headlines.

Does Milk Actually Increase Fracture Risk?

The study in question (Michaelsson et al, British Medical Journal, 2014; 349; g6015 doi: 10.1136/bmj.g6015) followed 61,433 Swedish women (aged 39-74) for an average of 20.2 years and 45,339 Swedish men (aged 45-79) for an average of 11.2 years. The women filled out two food frequency questionnaires, one at the beginning of the study and another approximately 10 years later. The men filled out one food frequency questionnaire at the beginning of the study.

Mortality and cause of death were obtained from the Swedish Cause of Death Registry. Bone fracture information was obtained from the Swedish National Patient Registry (In countries like Sweden big brother knows everything about you).

The results were pretty dramatic. When they compared women who were drinking three or more glasses of milk per day to women who drank less than one glass of milk a day, the highest level of milk consumption was associated with a:

• 93% increased risk of dying from all causes.
• 90% increased risk of dying from cardiovascular disease.
• 44% increased risk of dying from cancer.
• 16% increased risk of having a bone fracture of any kind.
• 60% increased risk of having a hip fracture.

In contrast, consumption of fermented milk products (cheeses, soured milk and yoghurt) was associated with a decreased risk of mortality and bone fracture in women (a 10-15% decrease in risk for every serving consumed).

What Are The Dangers of Drinking Milk?

The authors speculated that that the increased mortality and fracture risk was due to galactose (a sugar formed from lactose, the primary naturally occurring sugar in unfermented milk). Their argument supporting this hypothesis was four fold:

1) In our intestines lactose is split into two sugars, glucose and galactose.

2) In animal models (primarily mice and rats) lifelong consumption of galactose is associated with shortened lifespan caused by, among other things, oxidative damage and chronic inflammation.

3) There is a rare genetic disease called galactosemia in humans that is caused by the lack of a crucial enzyme required to metabolize galactose. Patients with this disease die at a very early age without treatment. Even with dietary restriction of galactose they experience oxidative damage, inflammation and an increased risk for chronic diseases, including osteoporosis.

4) In a subset of patients enrolled in this study, high milk consumption was associated with an increase in blood markers of oxidative stress and inflammation.

While the results seem clear and the hypothesis seems plausible, we should perhaps look at the limitations of the study before making significant dietary changes.

Limitations of the Study

There are a number of significant limitations to this study.

1) It simply measures associations, not cause and effect.

2) The statistics were not entirely consistent. For example, while consumption of three or more glasses of milk (average = 3.4 glasses/day) was associated with 90% increased risk of mortality and cardiovascular mortality in women, there was only a 15% increase in risk associated with every glass of milk consumed. 15%/glass times 3.4 glasses/day = 51% – not 90%. A little bit of higher math tell us that these numbers don’t quite add up.

3) In men the effects were much smaller to nonexistent. In men high milk consumption was associated with a 10% increased risk in overall mortality and a 16% increased risk cardiovascular mortality, but milk consumption had essentially no effect on cancer mortality, fracture risk or hip fracture risk.

4) The galactose hypothesis is interesting, but far from convincing. Mice and rats don’t necessarily metabolize galactose in the same way as humans. Furthermore, in humans galactosemia is a very rare disease, and there is currently no evidence that dietary galactose poses a problem for people without the genetic defect that causes galactosemia.

5) Most importantly, there have been a number of previous studies examining the effects of milk consumption on both fracture risk and mortality, and those studies have been remarkably inconsistent. Some show increased risk and others show decreased risk. Meta-analyses of all previous clinical studies have shown no significant association between milk consumption and mortality (American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 93: 158-171, 2011) or hip fracture (Journal of Bone Mineral Research, 26: 833-839, 2011).

While some of the media articles were characterizing this study as ground-breaking and one that should lead to changes in dietary recommendations, the authors were far more cautious in their interpretation of the data. They said: “The results of this study should be interpreted cautiously given the observational design of our study. The findings merit independent replication before they can be used for dietary recommendations.” I agree.

Where Else Can You Find The Nutrients That Milk Provides?

In summary, there is no consistent evidence that milk consumption increases your risk of mortality and bone fractures. However, there is also no consistent evidence that milk consumption decreases your risk of mortality or fracture.

Since milk provides no proven benefit and may pose some risk many of you may be wondering where else you can get the nutrients that milk provides.

Milk is an excellent source of calcium, magnesium, vitamin D, protein and riboflavin. When you carefully evaluate alternative food sources for these nutrients you will quickly discover that your choices are not straight forward. You need to be a knowledgeable consumer and careful label reader. For example:

• Green leafy vegetables are a high in calcium, but many of them also contain oxalate, which chelates the calcium and reduces its bioavailability. In short, green leafy vegetables are a healthy source for some of the calcium we need for healthy bones, but they should not be our primary source because of the relatively low calcium bioavailability.

• Cheeses are an excellent source of calcium, but many cheeses are high in fat and sodium.

• Yoghurts and other fermented milk products are an excellent source of calcium, but many of them are high in added sugars and artificial ingredients, which I do not recommend (see my article “Do Artificial Colors Cause Hyperactivity?” (https://www.chaneyhealth.com/healthtips/do-artificial-colors-cause-hyperactivity/).

• Tofu and tempeh provide only 1/3 to ½ the calcium found in milk and provide no vitamin D.

• “Milk substitutes” made from soy, rice or other sources are often high in added sugars and may not provide the same nutrient profile as real milk. You have to read the labels carefully.

• Calcium supplements are an excellent source of calcium, but they have been controversial in recent years (see my article “Does Calcium Increase Heart Attack Risk?” (https://www.chaneyhealth.com/healthtips/calcium-supplements-increase-heart-attack-risk/). My take on the controversy is that the latest studies have shown fairly convincingly that calcium supplements do not increase heart attack risk. However, if there is any risk, it is associated with calcium supplements that were not designed properly for incorporation of calcium into bone. My recommendation is to only choose calcium supplements that have been clinically proven to increase bone density.

• Well designed protein supplements can also be a good source of calcium and vitamin D, but many of them contain artificial sweeteners, which I do not recommend (see my articles “Do Diet Sodas Make You Fat?” (https://www.chaneyhealth.com/healthtips/do-diet-sodas-make-you-fat/), “Does Sugar Cause Heart Disease?” (https://www.chaneyhealth.com/healthtips/does-sugar-cause-heart-disease/), and “Can Soft Drinks Cause Heart Disease?” (https://www.chaneyhealth.com/healthtips/soft-drinks-and-heart-disease/).

The Bottom Line:

1) A recent study suggested that high milk consumption (> 3 glasses per day) in women might be associated with a:

• 93% increased risk of dying from all causes.
• 90% increased risk of dying from cardiovascular disease.
• 44% increased risk of dying from cancer.
• 16% increased risk of having a bone fracture of any kind.
• 60% increased risk of having a hip fracture.

2) That study has a number of limitations and is not consistent with previous studies. Even the authors of the study stated: “The results [of this study] should be interpreted cautiously…”

3) Previous studies looking at the association of milk consumption and both fractures and mortality have been inconsistent. Meta-analyses of all previous studies show no significant association between milk consumption and either fractures or mortality.

4) In short, there is no consistent evidence to support the recent headlines suggesting that milk consumption might increase your risk of mortality and bone fractures, but there is also no consistent evidence that milk consumption decreases your risk of mortality or fractures.

5) Since milk provides no proven benefits and might pose some risk, you may be asking where else you can find the nutrients that milk provides. While there are a number of other dietary sources of the calcium needed for strong bones, each of them has potential limitations (for details, see the article above). You have to be a knowledgeable consumer and careful label reader if you are looking for non-milk sources of calcium.

These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This information is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease.