Nearly every woman has anxiety over them. I’m talking about stretch marks. They are one of the most discussed and common concerns voiced by my female patients.

Stretch marks are caused when the skin is stretched to the point that it actually breaks down. The marks are scars that represent weaknesses in the skin’s supporting structure. Stretch marks are a normal occurrence in women, men and children. In women, stretch marks are exacerbated by times of quick growth, such as pregnancy, weight gain and growth spurts. In men, stretch marks are usually a result of rapid weight gain or from body building. In children, stretch marks are caused by extreme growth associated with puberty or obesity.

Stretch mark scars usually first appear red or purple and over time may fade to white or hypopigmented as the scar matures. Stretch marks can be seen on different body parts including hips, breasts, buttocks, thighs, and abdomens. They can even present on the chest, arms and legs of obese people.

Both heredity and ethnicity play a key role in one’s susceptibility to stretch marks. Patients may have a genetic predisposition to stretch marks. So… if your mother had them, you may, too. While ethnicity plays a roll, people with greater amounts of melanin are less prone.

Preventing stretch marks is difficult, but there are three key things you can do to help curb their appearance.

Drink Water: Drinking water keeps your entire body and your skin well hydrated. This keeps your skin supple and less prone to the tears associated with stretch marks.

Moisturize: Ladies, if you are pregnant, it’s especially important during the 7th or 8th month of pregnancy when your skin is stretching so much that it becomes itchy that you DON’T scratch! Instead, keep your stomach well hydrated from the outside. Rub lotion on, especially an ultra rich moisturizing cream like Cocoa Butter.

Exercise: Doing some form of daily exercise and stretching can keep your skin agile and free of toxins. Sweat helps clean out and hydrate the skin while purifying the body.

When it comes to treatment, two types of light sources have been used to improve the appearance of stretch marks. The first is a light source designed to re-pigment the skin. This therapy called narrow band UVB, or NB-UVB is primarily used to re-pigment the skin in patients with Vitiligo. Some studies indicate that NB-UVB can help reduce the appearance of stretch marks.

The second option is to use a fractional laser such as the Fraxel. Multiple treatments may be needed to minimize the appearance of the stretch mark scar in terms of tone and texture.

Bottomline… Even though these treatments can minimize the appearance of the stretch mark scar, nothing promises complete resolution. Your best bet is to drink water, moisturize and exercise.

Dr. Neil Sadick is one of the most renowned dermatologists and researchers whose multiple discoveries have strongly influenced and transformed the future of dermatology. He is a Professor of Dermatology at Weill Cornell Medical College and President of the Cosmetic Surgery Foundation. Dr. Sadick is author, or co-author, of more than 500 articles in peer-reviewed scientific journals and has contributed more than 75 chapters of medical books. Read more at www.sadickdermatology.com.

Don’t those models look so good with their milk mustaches? Well you should try one! Studies show that drinking 3 glasses of low-fat or fat -ree milk a day can help maintain a healthy weight and have better quality diets, compared to those who didn’t.

Milk provides you with essential nutrients such as:
• Calcium: Which helps build strong bones and teeth.
• Potassium: Which helps maintain normal blood pressure.
• Protein: Which serves as a source of energy.
• Vitamin A: Which helps maintain normal vision and skin
• Vitamin D: Reduces the risk of heart disease and protects against many cancers.
• Vitamin B12: Which is required for normal cell activity. It also protects against the risk of stroke and Alzheimer’s disease.

Today, there are many different varieties of milk,  but here are some other alternatives to your typical milk:

Soy Milk:
For people who are vegans or lactose intolerant, soy milk is the perfect drink for you. People who drink soy milk have much to gain because it is made from beans which contain fiber, while dairy milk has none. Soy milk is also a good source of protein, and although it contains more fat than reduced-fat 2 percent milk, it is low in saturated fat and cholesterol free. Although it is not a good natural source of calcium, some brands of soy milk are fortified with calcium and vitamin D. Soy milk is a good source of isoflavones — estrogen compounds that seem to have a myriad of health benefits.

Lactaid Milk:
Approximately 75 percent of the world’s population (including 40 million Americans) is lactose intolerant. Lactaid milk contains the same nutrients as regular milk — the only difference is that lactose has been broken down so that it is easily tolerated by those people who are intolerant to it. Lactose is the predominant sugar in milk products. An enzyme called lactase is produced in the small intestine and breaks down lactose so it can be absorbed into the blood stream. It is not usually serious, but symptoms can be bothersome, so Lactaid milk is the perfect option for a dairy-free diet.

Organic Milk:
Organic milk is the purest and healthiest form of milk. Organic milk means that cows’ feed, such as corn, soy and hay were grown organically. In addition, organic regulations prohibit the use of antibiotics and synthetic growth hormones. Organic regulations also mandate specific humane animal standards including access to fresh air and pasture. However, organic milk can be at least twice the price of regular milk, and there is still a debate over whether this milk is really worth your money.

Don’t worry, you don’t have to force yourself to drink a glass of plain milk! Here are some helpful and tasty ways to receive your three servings of milk a day:

• Use milk instead of water in your oatmeal
• Pour it over a bowl of cereal
• Stir it up into hot chocolate
• Blend it with frozen fruit for a delicious smoothie
• Grab a skim latte or cappuccino
• Substitute cream in soup for milk

Tanya Zuckerbrot, MS, RD is a nutritionist and founder of Skinnyandthecity.com.    She is also the creator of The F-Factor Diet™, an innovative nutritional program she has used for more than ten years to provide hundreds of her clients with all the tools they need to achieve easy weight loss and maintenance, improved health and well-being.  For more information log onto www.FFactorDiet.com.

Bristol Palin, 18, went “On the Record” Monday with Greta Van Susteren in her first TV interview since giving birth to her 2-month-old son, Tripp. 

On the one hand, she was touted by some as a new spokesperson against teen pregnancy.  After all, she stated that she would have preferred waiting to give birth until she was much older.  But that was the weaker hand being played, regardless of what Palin intended.  As a pretty, intelligent, poised and smiling teenager on national television with a cute baby, Palin has, perhaps unwittingly, become a spokesperson for teen pregnancy.

Palin told Van Susteren that her baby brings “so much joy,” she doesn’t regret giving birth to him at all.  She just wishes he had entered her life about ten years later.  She, like Jamie Lynn Spears, is helping paint a picture of teen mothers as happy, strong and confident young women, enjoying the limelight and making the best of things with the support of their loving families.

Palin looked as well-kempt and well-rested as she was well-spoken.  There was no desperation in her voice.  She shed no tears of panic or guilt.  She hasn’t sworn off sex.  She hasn’t sworn off unprotected sex.  By all appearances, she genuinely loves her baby and is committed to him.  Just like Spears.

So what’s the problem?  Why would American teenaged girls, who are desperately seeking something genuine to cling to in their lives, something more to believe in than their friends’ Facebook profiles, take Palin’s life story as a cautionary tale?  Why wouldn’t they see it, instead, as an antidote to the meaninglessness of ceaseless instant messaging, the interpersonal black hole of cyberspace, the emptiness of hooking up with one sexual partner after another, often beginning in seventh grade, if not sooner?

In a world where the stock market is crashing, major industries are dissolving, drugs are rampant and the government desperately needs to regain credibility, the gaze of an infant looking back into one’s eyes can be the kind of humanity that teenagers intuit will anchor them to something genuine.

For millions of American girls, Palin and Spears are, whether they like it or not, defining the leading edge of what I believe is a new social, cultural moment in America in which girl-women aged 15 through 17 are actually losing their fear of motherhood and entertaining the concept of having babies as a matter of free choice and free will. 

This is just the beginning of the example Palin and Spears are setting.  There will be countless very cute photographs of their babies.  Magazines will cover these girls as they take their children to their first day of nursery school. There will be coverage of their love affairs, engagements and weddings.  If they hold themselves together and life brings them joy (which I sincerely hope it does), they will be glamorized for their boldness, their commitment to their kids and their inevitable personal achievements.

Teenagers are not going to look at Palin or Spears and think how horrifying it would be to be them.  More than likely, they are going to look at these trailblazers and be envious — whether consciously or unconsciously.  These “girl-women” look like they have it all.

All we need now to seal the deal and create even more of a groundswell in favor of early childbirth is a special bailout plan for young, unwed mothers.  Maybe a free General Motors Hybrid SUV and government-insured mortgage would do the trick?

Dr. Keith Ablow is a psychiatry correspondent for FOX News Channel and a New York Times bestselling author. His newest book, “Living the Truth: Transform Your Life through the Power of Insight and Honesty” has launched a new self-help movement. Check out Dr. Ablow’s website at livingthetruth.com or e-mail him at info@keithablow.com.

The more I hear about Dr. Michael Kamrava, who practices some facsimile of reproductive medicine in California, the more outraged I become.

From what I’ve been reading, I am already convinced that he should probably be considered for malpractice based on the Nadya Suleman case because of a departure from standard medical practice. Consider that the American Society for Reproductive Medicine suggests one or two embryo transfers maximum for a woman of Nadya’s age (33), and she received six embryos. Consider that in vitro fertilization, a billion dollar industry which has doubled in terms of procedures to 135,000 with 50,000 live births over the past decade, has also been policed increasingly by the ASRM and that multiple births (triplets or more) have decreased from 7 percent to 2 percent over this period of time. We don’t have proper laws in the U.S. to police medical criminals like Octodoc, but we do have standards of care.

A malpractice claim is unlikely though, because the patient, Nadya Suleman, doesn’t seem inclined to bring a suit. But even if she signed a consent for the embryo transfer, it also seems likely that she is suffering from a psychiatric disorder and was not correctly informed about the risks. Does Nadya know that the risk of postpartum depression in a normal woman, even without her social and financial difficulties, is close to 25 percent?

I was getting ready to blog about the need for the state of California to go after Octodoc’s license on ethical grounds (each state has a medical ethics committee which governs licensure), when I heard about the second case. A 49-year-old woman was apparently impregnated by seven donor eggs (from a woman in her twenties which increases their chance of being viable substantially). She is now carrying quadruplets.

The ASRM suggests no more than five embryos for a woman in her 40s, and if you add to that the fact that the woman herself reportedly only wanted one child, and at her age is at risk for medical complications including high blood pressure and stroke, the handling of her case appears to be another abomination.

Octodoc’s low success rate at successful births is no excuse for tawdry practices. I’m glad to hear that ASRM is investigating him. The state of California should stop him in his tracks.

Dr. Marc Siegel is an internist and associate professor of medicine at the NYU School of Medicine. He is a FOX News medical contributor and writes a health column for LA Times, where he examines TV and movies for medical accuracy. Dr. Siegel is the author of “False Alarm: The Truth About the Epidemic of Fear“ and “Bird Flu: Everything You Need to Know About the Next Pandemic.”  Read more at www.doctorsiegel.com

Dear Yvonne,
What is the most popular question you get from your readers? And why do you think that is?
—Rhoda

Dear Rhoda,
I would say that there’s more of a most popular theme than question I get from readers when it comes to their curiosities or dilemmas. The theme is: Am I normal? Many readers want to know if certain kinds of sex and such intimacy is “dirty,” “immoral” or “wrong.” Most people are uncomfortable that such unattractive labels could be applied to their sex life. They also want to make sure that they’re doing things “right,” as people like to be rewarded or the thought of being accomplished at something. They are mortified at the prospect of being labeled terrible at an activity, especially one that is so natural, yet involves so much judgment from others.

  Dr. Yvonne Kristín Fulbright is a sex educator, relationship expert, columnist and founder of Sexuality Source Inc. She is the author of several books including, “Touch Me There! A Hands-On Guide to Your Orgasmic Hot Spots.”

Flip through any fashion magazine and you’ll see models donning long, dark, full eye lashes. So, how can ordinary women get the same glamorous look?

Well, there are always reusable false eyelashes, layers of thick mascara or a trip to the salon for individual lash extensions.  But, these are temporary solutions, which may come with some risk.

With the application of false eyelashes, patients often come in to my practice with complications.  They may have an allergic reaction to the glue, an eye infection due to reusing strips of false lashes, or skin allergies from the false lashes, which can collect and accumulate dust and germs. 

At the other extreme, we also help patients who come in because they have cut their own lashes in an effort make the false lashes look better.  Patients ask us if natural lashes grow back after they’ve been plucked or cut.  Sometimes they do – and sometimes they don’t.

The good news is — these ‘long lash’ problems could become a thing of the past with the help of a new treatment. In December 2008, Allergan, Inc., the company behind Botox, announced FDA approval for LATISSE™, a new treatment for growing longer lashes. Today, with help from a doctor with prescribing rights, consumers may be able to grow long, striking lashes. 

Latisse is a product with the same formula as a solution used to treat glaucoma patients.  A side effect of the treatment is that it tends to make the lashes longer and fuller.  Some experts are already worried about the side effects of Latisse which may include: red, itchy eyes and changes in eye pigmentation (especially on lighter eyes). 

However with that said, many women are overjoyed by its arrival and hope to lose dependency on other temporary eyelash solutions. 

So far, my patients are seeing very positive results from the use of this new product.

Dr. Neil Sadick is one of the most renowned dermatologists and researchers whose multiple discoveries have strongly influenced and transformed the future of dermatology. He is a Professor of Dermatology at Weill Cornell Medical College and President of the Cosmetic Surgery Foundation. Dr. Sadick is author, or co-author, of more than 500 articles in peer-reviewed scientific journals and has contributed more than 75 chapters of medical books. Read more at www.sadickdermatology.com.

Here’s a Valentine’s Day quiz to test your knowledge and put you in the mood.

1. Who created the first box of Valentine’s Day Candy?
a) Richard Cadbury, 1868
b) George Hershey, 1910
c) Phil Snickers, 1880

ANSWER: A — Richard Cadbury, the son of John Cadbury, the founder of Cadbury’s cocoa and chocolate company was the first one to invent the famous box of Valentine Day candy, in 1868.

2. Which of these foods doesn’t belong and why?
a) Banana
b) Asparagus
c) Cantaloupe

ANSWER: C — Cantaloupe.  Bananas and asparagus are erotic stimulants because of their phallic resemblance. Asparagus contain folate, which boosts histamine production necessary for the ability to reach orgasm in both sexes. Bananas are rich in potassium and B vitamins, necessities for sex hormone production.

3. Which food will not make you frisky?
a) Oysters
b) Eggs
c) Beans

ANSWER: B — Eggs. Oysters have long been considered the food of love and legend has it that Casanova ate dozens of oysters a day, once even seducing a vestal virgin by sliding an oyster from his lips.  Oysters and beans both carry a hefty dose of zinc. Zinc has been linked to male fertility, potency, sex drive, and is essential to sperm production.

4. How many calories are in one chocolate-covered strawberry?
a) 45 calories
b) 60 calories
c) 30 calories
d) 75 calories

ANSWER: A — 45 calories.  One chocolate-covered strawberry contains 45 calories. Not only do these contain the fewest amounts of calories as opposed to other chocolate candies, like nut or caramel filled, but strawberries contain fiber and beneficial nutrients as well.

5. How many calories are there in one glass of champagne?
a) 75 calories
b) 100 calories
c) 150 calories
d) 200 calories

ANSWER: B — One glass of champagne contains 100 calories. Champagne is the wine of choice on Valentine’s Day because it will lower inhibitions and help any couple into an amorous mood.

6. Which is the sexiest nut?
a) Pine nuts
b) Pistachios
c) Almonds

ANSWER: B — Pistachios. Besides providing protein to help increase stamina, pistachios are heavy in healthful mono-saturated fats, zinc and other nutrients that are linked with increased sexual desire. Pistachios have a greater portion size than any other nut, so you can eat 49 kernels (1 serving) and still feel sexy.

7. According to the Doctrine of Signatures, food aids in the part of the body it resembles. Which food did the Aztecs value as an aphrodisiac?
a) Avocado
b) Orange
c) Grapes

ANSWER: A — Avocado. The Aztecs valued the avocado as an aphrodisiac and named it “ahuacale”which means testicles, because they grow in pairs. This fruit will give you fuel in the form of healthy fats, protein and potassium.

8. According to studies at the Smell and Taste Foundation in Chicago, men find the smell of which food to be sexually arousing?
a) Beef Jerky
b) Buttered Popcorn
c) Licorice
d) Steak

ANSWER: B — Buttered popcorn.

9. Which fruit is known as the “love apple?”
a) Tomato
b) Grapes
c) Cherries

ANSWER: A — Tomatoes are known as the love apple. Upon arrival in Italy, the heart-shaped tomato was considered an aphrodisiac, thus tomato in Italian poma amoris means “love apple.”

10. Which spice won’t spice up your sex life?
a) Cayenne
b) Curry
c) Ginger
d) Basil

ANSWER: D — Basil. The right spices not only heat things up on the tongue, but also in the bedroom.  Capsaicin, the substance that gives kick to peppers, stimulates nerve endings to release chemicals, raising the heart rate and possibly triggering the release of endorphins, giving you the pleasurable feeling of a natural high.  Hot spices like cayenne, curry and cumin help warm the body.  The intoxicating aromas of exotic spices help infuse romance into the atmosphere.

11. How many pounds of chocolate does the average American consume each year?
a) 6.5
b) 11.5
c) 7.5

ANSWER: B —  According to ABC News, Americans consume 11.5 pounds of chocolate a year.

Tanya Zuckerbrot, MS, RD is a nutritionist and founder of Skinnyandthecity.com.    She is also the creator of The F-Factor Diet™, an innovative nutritional program she has used for more than ten years to provide hundreds of her clients with all the tools they need to achieve easy weight loss and maintenance, improved health and well-being.  For more information log onto www.FFactorDiet.com.

Lost in the media storm surrounding Nadya Suleman, the mother of new octuplets born through in vitro fertilization, is the father of those babies.

Incidentally, the octuplets’ father is also the father of Suleman’s six other children, who were also conceived via in vitro fertilization. 

According to Suleman’s mother, Angela, the octuplets’ father, is one of her daughter’s “admirers.”

Reportedly, the name David Solomon appears on four of the first six kids’ birth certificates. Earlier this week, the Associated Press reported that the octuplets last names would be Solomon. But, no one knows for sure if David Solomon is actually the name of the hopefully-not-so-proud father.

Whomever donated the sperm that resulted in Suleman giving birth to a total of 14 children likely feels he bears no responsibility for the chaos these children will experience in life.  After all, once he provided his sperm to doctors, they were the ones who presumed Suleman to be a competent person and used that sperm to fertilize her eggs.  They acceded to her wishes to implant the resulting embryos in her uterus.  They tended to her during the pregnancy and delivered the children into the world. 

What possible moral failing could be assigned to a man who merely provided the genetic material for a sterile laboratory procedure sanctioned by the law of our land, a procedure that has helped bring millions of beloved children into the arms of good and decent parents?

I believe the octuplets’ father does bear a moral burden for providing the sperm used in this birthing calamity.  The 14 children fathered by Suleman’s sperm donor were born to an unemployed mother with psychological problems and no apparent insight into the consequences of her actions.  But they are also the offspring of someone she apparently knows, and that person apparently has even less concern for the human lives he helped create. 

Imagine having a self-centered mother who is using you and your 13 siblings to feel less lonely (because she’s angry she was an only child herself) and having been fathered by someone who has no particular interest in how or why you were created or what happens to you.  If that sounds like a prescription for low self-esteem, not to mention potential depression or drug addiction or an anxiety disorder, it is.

The Suleman case exposes gnawing ethical questions that are not asked frequently enough about the whole process of sperm and egg donation.

At what ethical cost does a society decide to sever every meaningful connection between millions of human beings and their offspring?  When the medical system is shown to be capable of the kind of reprehensible, misdirected creative impulse evident in the Suleman case, doesn’t it begin to support the notion that donors of sperm and eggs have some responsibility to make sure they aren’t helping to create chaos and suffering?  Must asexual reproduction be, by its very nature, amoral reproduction?

I say no.  I hold the sperm donor in the Suleman case just as responsible as she is for the tears to be shed by her children. He had to participate as an actor in this strange drama for it to go so horribly awry.  It was his sperm.  His.  Part of him.  If that means nothing to us as a culture anymore, then we may indeed be losing ourselves in our science.

Discuss this case on Dr. Manny’s Facebook wall.

Dr. Keith Ablow is a psychiatry correspondent for FOX News Channel and a New York Times bestselling author. His newest book, “Living the Truth: Transform Your Life through the Power of Insight and Honesty” has launched a new self-help movement. Check out Dr. Ablow’s website at livingthetruth.com or e-mail him at info@keithablow.com.

It’s a good thing I never became a judge, because if I had, Stewart Parnell, president of Peanut Corp. of America would have been in jail by now.

The public evidence is overwhelming: He showed blatant disregard for the safety of millions of Americans, including children. He allowed contaminated peanut products to end up in our food supply.

People have died here! Where is the outrage??!! Stop the hearings, and send this guy and people like him to jail! Just this afternoon, medical examiners confirmed another salmonella-related death in Ohio, which brings the death toll up to nine people that have fallen victim to this profit-mongering filth.

Earlier today, e-mails were released as evidence where Parnell was quoted as saying he wanted to “turn the raw peanuts on our floor into money.” And this man had the audacity to respectfully decline to answer questions at his hearing on the advice of his counsel.

I believe in due process, but I also believe that there are certain circumstances that call for more immediate action.

I have three beautiful children, all school-aged, and one of them had to come home from school today because he was nauseous. Yes, this is probably your run-of-the-mill flu virus, but for a fleeting moment, I actually thought to myself, “I hope he didn’t contract salmonella.”

When anyone or anything threatens the welfare of our children, due process must change and you should be guilty until proven innocent.

CLICK HERE FOR THE LIST OF RECALLED PEANUT PRODUCTS. (You can also find the list on our Health home page next to the most up-to-date salmonella story in headlines)

Health Officials Report Salmonella-Linked Death | RECALL

Today I read a story about a woman at the center of a controversial legal battle in Italy.

Eluana Englaro had been in a vegetative state since she was in a car accident 17 years ago. The media was calling Englaro “the Terri Schiavo of Italy,” because her case was similar to woman here in the United States. (Schiavo’s husband as legal guardian, wanted his wife’s feeding tube removed, but Schiavo’s parents fought their son-in-law for years to keep the tube in place).

Englaro’s father fought the Italian courts to remove his daughter’s feeding tube, which kept his daughter alive, saying it was not his daughter’s wish to be kept alive “artificially.”

This case sparked heated debate between parts of the Italian government and the Catholic Church, who likened the removal of the feeding tube to euthanasia, which is illegal in Italy. And the legal battle that ensued brought to light the ethical issues surrounding euthanasia and the right-to-die, as well as the legality of living wills.

This case sparked heated debate between parts of the Italian government and the Catholic Church who likened the removal of the feeding tube to euthanasia, which is illegal in Italy. And the legal battle that ensued brought to light the ethical issues surrounding euthanasia and the right-to-die, as well as the legality of living wills.

Unfortunately, the woman died before any of these legal issues were resolved, and I’m sure this is a controversial debate that will rage on among contending parties for years to come.

But one of the most interesting aspects of this story has nothing to do with lawmakers and government officials at the center of the debate. Rather, it’s the way the people in the region have taken matters into their own hands, and the ever-expanding role technology is beginning to play in the public’s interpretation of the law.

Over the weekend, some Italian citizens began creating living wills on YouTube, documenting their personal wishes with regard to “do not resuscitate” (DNR) orders, designation of health care proxies and any other modifications they feel are important, in the event they are rendered incapacitated. But the irony lies in the fact that in Italy, there is no legislation on end-of-life issues and no recognition of living wills as legal documentation of a person’s wishes.

Here in the U.S., it’s quite the opposite. As physicians, a standard question that we must ask all patients upon admission to the hospital is whether or not they have a living will. If they do, we request to see a copy of it so that it can described in detail in the patient’s chart.

But I have to tell you, in the last few years since this law was mandated, I can literally count on one hand, the number of patients that have answered yes to that question. For many of us, it’s human nature to try not to think about what could go wrong, so we often don’t take the time to plan for it.

So when I look at these people taking matters into their own hands, making a short video clip detailing what they would want done in a worst-case scenario, I’m curious about how these videos will be interpreted by the law in future ethical debates, and at the end of the day, if their wishes will be honored.

Join the discussion on my Facebook page.