Apples, asthma, and fact puree.

May 29th, 2007

It’s hard to debunk news articles sometimes when they are such a blur of reason and conjecture that it’s no longer clear what the point of the story is. Here’s a classic example that caught my attention during my morning muesli.

Apple juice ‘may prevent asthma’ - BBC

Children who drink plenty of apple juice may be less likely to develop asthma symptoms, say scientists.
The National Heart and Lung Institute research, published in the European Respiratory Journal, is the latest study to link apples and lung health.

Sounds pretty good to me - apple juice is cheap, kids love it, and look at the first line of the article - “say scientists”! Scientists. They say it. It must be true. But then as we read through the article, this troubling fact crops up:

While no link was found between apple juice consumption and a reduced chance of an actual asthma diagnosis, the link between wheezing and drinking the juice was quite strong.

Wait, come again? No link… between apple juice consumption… and reduced chance of asthma. Hmm. That kind of contradicts the general tone of the article. No link, huh. Hmm. And then they start throwing in the curveballs:

A similar, but weaker, benefit was found for children eating bananas at least once a day compared with less than once a month.

Wait, bananas? I though this was about apples? Or more specifically, apple juice. Of course, apples and apple juice are just as good as eachother, right?

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

WTF?

[Dr Peter Burney] said it wasn’t clear why a link between eating apples themselves and reduced asthma symptoms - already spotted in other research in adults - did not appear among these children.

?!

Research from the university published last week suggested that women who ate plenty of apples during pregnancy were protecting their unborn children against asthma later on.

??!! Argh! This article is so damn confusing it makes my head hurt. So, in summation, we can could chose to say “Apple juice ‘may prevent asthma’”, as the BBC did. Or we could say: “Apple juice may reduce the wheezing associated with asthma, but it won’t actually reduce your chances of an asthma diagnosis. Eating apples won’t do, unless your mum eats them when you’re still a foetus, or maybe if you’re an adult, according to someone else. But between birth and puberty, juice is where it’s at. Eating bananas is also good. But we’re not sure why.”

It’s reasons like this that I rarely read the health pages, let alone try to sciencepunk them.

Entry Filed under: General

Permanent Link  |    |    |    |    |