Apples - 1 comment

What strikes me so often about BBC "health" articles is that they're generally so confused and illogical as to be incomprehensible. On that basis the sane strategy has to be to ignore them completely, and to take your news on developments in nutrition from authoritative sources.

Take Apple juice 'may prevent asthma':

Children who drink plenty of apple juice may be less likely to develop asthma symptoms, say scientists.

Actually, that's "might", but let's proceed gingerly.

Children who drank apple juice at least once a day were half as likely to suffer from wheezing as those drinking it less than once a month, it found.

Eating fresh apples themselves gave no apparent benefits, the study concluded.

And yet, fast-forwarding to the end...

Dr Mike Thomas, an Asthma UK researcher at the University of Aberdeen, said that the study was further evidence of the protective effect of apples.

Continuing...

He said: "There is some evidence that a healthy diet rich in anti-oxidants and vitamins is good for asthma.

Was it these that were being tested? Surely a logical leap.

It is yet another reason why we should be encouraging a healthy diet."

And another. If apples play, as I'm sure they do, a tiny positive role as a contributor to (though also a consequence of) a healthy diet, why the need to defend them on the basis of incredible asthma-related benefits? Moreover, if the benefits of apple-products are primarily asthma-related, why muddy the waters by talking about what foods are good for general health? And since when has concentrated apple juice (rather than the fruits themselves) been identified a mainstay of a healthy diet?

No doubt there are scientists who can answer these questions, but reading these silly articles will get you no closer to hearing what they have to say.