Dear Doctor: Our mom, who's running for president of the food police, just heard about a study that says any amount of fried food is basically death on a fork. Now my brothers and I are afraid we'll never see another french fry. Please. She's fallen for a conspiracy theory, right?

Dear Reader: You may be too young to know this, but the debate about fried foods has been raging for decades. For many of us, that means fried chicken and fish, fried seafood, potato or corn chips, doughnuts and french fries, to name just a few. Frying makes food deliciously rich and crispy, and each culture throughout the world has its own specialties that rely on the technique. And as anyone who has walked the midway of a state or county fair knows, pretty much anything (fried Oreos, fried ice cream, fried butter) is fair game for the fryer.

Unfortunately, although we humans love fried foods, they don't return the favor. Depending on the specific study, fried foods have been linked to cardiovascular disease, elevated blood pressure, obesity, Type 2 diabetes and certain cancers.

Now the results of research published in January in the British Medical Journal have linked the consumption of fried foods to overall mortality, which means death from any cause. Researchers used 20 years of health data from about 106,000 women who were taking part in the Women's Health Initiative, a long-term national health study.

For this particular research, done at the University of Iowa's College of Public Health, scientists drew from dietary questionnaires filled out by women aged between 50 and 79. The upshot was that those who ate a single serving of fried food per day had an 8 percent higher chance of dying early as compared to those who reported that they ate no fried food. Interestingly, while the study found a correlation between fried food consumption and heart disease, it didn't find a connection to cancer.

That said, the study has limitations. The dietary information was self-reported. So were details about smoking status, exercise habits, alcohol and drug use, and diagnoses of cardiovascular disease, cancer or diabetes, each of which can have a bearing on outcomes.

Whether the fried foods were home-cooked or commercially prepared also wasn't known. That's important because, unlike steaming, boiling, baking or broiling, frying is a complex cooking process. Not only does it change the food, the high heat that frying requires also alters the cooking medium itself. Commercial establishments often use oils that are high in omega-6 fats and saturated fats, none of which are part of a healthful diet. They also reuse their cooking oil, which breaks down in high heat to form unhealthful oxidation products that wind up in the food.

A similar study done in Spain, where frying took place with mainly olive or sunflower oil, did not find the same correlation between fried foods and coronary heart disease and death.

Still, there's no getting around that fact that fried foods are significantly higher in fat, calories and often salt than foods cooked by other methods. Because fried foods are so crunchy and tasty, it's easy to overeat. Our feeling is that rather than a regular dietary staple, fried foods should be an occasional treat.

(Send your questions to askthedoctors@mednet.ucla.edu, or write: Ask the Doctors, c/o UCLA Health Sciences Media Relations, 10880 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1450, Los Angeles, CA, 90024. Owing to the volume of mail, personal replies cannot be provided.)

Dear Doctor: We heard there's a new study that says cannabis changes a teenager's brain. My wife and I suspect that at least one of our 16-year-old son's friends is getting high, and we worry about our son as well. Why isn't there more research about the health effects of cannabis?

Dear Reader: Although a growing number of states are easing restrictions on cannabis, at this time it remains illegal under federal law. According to the Controlled Substances Act, cannabis is a Schedule l drug, along with heroin, LSD, methaqualone (Qualuude) and others. Drugs in this category are considered to have no accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse. As a result of its Schedule l status, studies about cannabis require a special license, which makes scientific research quite challenging.

A couple of years ago, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine published an analysis of cannabis studies completed over the last 20 years. The committee found evidence to support the use of cannabis to treat chronic pain and muscle spasms in people with multiple sclerosis, and to ease nausea and vomiting due to illness or chemotherapy. Among the risks of cannabis was an increase in traffic accidents when driving while high and a spike in accidental ingestion by young children in states where cannabis is legal.

The committee said it found evidence that cannabis use does not give rise to the same cancers that tobacco products do, but that respiratory function can suffer among cannabis smokers. Learning, memory and attention were found to be impaired after immediate cannabis use. Among the body's conclusions was a pressing need for regulatory changes to remove the numerous barriers to rigorous cannabis research.

When it comes to the study you're asking about, which was published in January in the Journal of Neuroscience, scientists at the University of Vermont reported that cannabis use affects the structure of the teenage brain. This held true even in teens who had used only small amounts of the drug a few times.

Specifically, researchers saw an increase in gray matter volume in the amygdala when compared to scans of brains of teens who had never used cannabis. The amygdala is the part of the brain involved in fear and other emotions. Changes to brain structure among the cannabis users were also noticed in the hippocampus, the part of the brain that plays a major role in learning and memory.

What these brain changes actually mean to the future development of the teens is not yet known. However, according to the analysis we discussed earlier, experimentation with substances of abuse, including cannabis, most often begins in adolescence and young adulthood. The committee also found evidence that starting to use cannabis at a younger age is linked to ongoing use that may become problematic.

A survey completed in 2017 found that 15 percent of kids between the ages of 12 and 17 are using cannabis. If you're worried that your son is among them, we think the best thing you can do is talk with him. Share the research, explain your concerns, and let your son know you want this to be the start of an ongoing dialogue.

(Send your questions to askthedoctors@mednet.ucla.edu, or write: Ask the Doctors, c/o UCLA Health Sciences Media Relations, 10880 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1450, Los Angeles, CA, 90024. Owing to the volume of mail, personal replies cannot be provided.)

Dear Doctor: After the new year, I started making some serious lifestyle changes, including losing weight and quitting smoking. It's not my first time around, so I hope you have advice to stay motivated. I really don't want to be making these same resolutions next year.

Dear Reader: As we've all learned by now, there's a world of difference between knowing what's best for us and actually doing it in real life. One of the reasons making changes can be so challenging is that even a seemingly simple goal involves altering our behavior -- and our thinking -- on multiple fronts.

Before you begin, we think it's important to fully understand your goals. Let's begin with your resolution to quit smoking. Start with understanding why you're going to make this change. If the answer is for better health, go a bit deeper and make a list of all the ways that smoking makes you feel bad. Are you short of breath? Is it hard to run (or even quickly walk) a short distance? Do you get winded going up a flight of stairs? Maybe you start the day coughing? On the social side of things, perhaps you're sensitive to how your clothes or hair or car smell, how your family and friends respond to your being a smoker, or to the financial cost of your habit.

Once you've written your list -- and we urge you to be as complete, detailed and honest as possible -- you've taken a significant step toward understanding what's at stake as you go about making this change. Where before all you had was the command "quit smoking," you now have a multifaceted understanding of the different ways this habit affects your life. You have imbued your goal to quit with depth and personal meaning. That's important because when you're struggling through the inevitable rough patches that we all go through when making a lifestyle change, you now have multiple toeholds to help stop the fall.

Another element of successful change is setting reasonable interim goals. Sure, the endpoint is zero cigarettes. But two or three fewer cigarettes per day or week, depending on your habit, is definitely a success. The same goes for weight loss. Lose just 5 ounces per week and by the time the next New Year's Eve rolls around, you're down 16-plus pounds. Taking the long view in reaching your goals will make it easier (and far less painful) to integrate ongoing changes into your daily life.

A final note: In your letter you refer to "some" serious lifestyle changes, indicating you've set more than just the goals of quitting smoking and weight loss. If so, you've added a significant level of difficulty. We think it would be wise to prioritize those changes and work toward them sequentially rather than all at once. Pick the goal that's most important. When you feel solidly on the road to success with it, then tackle the next one. That way you've got a better chance of crossing at least one or two of the goals off your list of resolutions, rather than feeling overwhelmed and giving up on all of them.

(Send your questions to askthedoctors@mednet.ucla.edu, or write: Ask the Doctors, c/o UCLA Health Sciences Media Relations, 10880 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1450, Los Angeles, CA, 90024. Owing to the volume of mail, personal replies cannot be provided.)