

Granny Smith apples promote growth of friendly bacteria in the colon - clumsysmurf
https://news.wsu.edu/2014/09/29/an-apple-a-day-could-keep-obesity-away/#.VCqA_GeSz94

======
tokenadult
What a surprise. A state university in a state in which apple-growing is a
huge part of the state economy (Washington state in the United States) issues
a press release saying that eating apples is good for you, according to an
_in-vitro_ (test tube, not living subject) study funded by a grant from the
university and published in an obscure journal about food chemistry but not
directly about human health.

Many, many submissions to HN are based at bottom on press releases, and press
releases are well known for spinning preliminary research findings beyond all
recognition. This has been commented on in the PhD comic "The Science News
Cycle,"[1] which only exaggerates the process a very little. More serious
commentary in the edited group blog post "Related by coincidence only?
University and medical journal press releases versus journal articles"[2]
points to the same danger of taking press releases (and news aggregator
website articles based solely on press releases) too seriously. Press releases
are usually misleading.

The most sure and certain finding of any preliminary study will be that more
research is needed. For the press release kindly submitted today, the _in
vitro_ (test tube) finding has to be replicated in living human beings before
it means much at all. Moreover, we would still have to check whether all the
other effects of eating more apples, on balance, do more than contribute to
having more intestinal gas. All too often, preliminary findings don't lead to
further useful discoveries in science, because the preliminary findings are
flawed. The obligatory link for any discussion of a report on a research
result like the one kindly submitted here is the article "Warning Signs in
Experimental Design and Interpretation"[3] by Peter Norvig, director of
research at Google, on how to interpret scientific research. Check each news
story you read for how many of the important issues in interpreting research
are NOT discussed in the story.

[1]
[http://www.phdcomics.com/comics.php?f=1174](http://www.phdcomics.com/comics.php?f=1174)

[2] [http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/related-by-
coi...](http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/related-by-coincidence-
only-journal-press-releases-versus-journal-articles/)

[3] [http://norvig.com/experiment-design.html](http://norvig.com/experiment-
design.html)

------
SoftwareMaven
There are two kinds of studies I hate in the world of nutrition; this is one
of them. This is the glorified ad study, where we look at a specific food item
and a specific "good" trait and line them up. Once aligned, we let the
marketers go to town because this food magically "solves" the problem (but we
will still qualify with language like "may help" to prevent law suits).

Add an apple to your current obesigenic diet and you will still have an
obesigenic diet. Replace some corn chips, bread or cake in your obesigenic
diet with an apple, and you are a step closer to it not being obesigenic (but
the same applies to kale, steak, and strawberries). Include apples as part of
your whole foods, higher fat, lower sugar diet (aka healthy), and you will
still have a whole foods, higher fat, lower sugar diet.

Nothing in the diet exists in isolation. You _have_ to consider the whole
diet.

~~~
cromulent
Not disagreeing with you, but you have to consider the whole diet _plus_ the
gut microbiome. There's been a lot of focus on what we put into our bodies, we
also need some focus on the organ that we weren't born with.

~~~
SoftwareMaven
If I came off sounding like I don't appreciate the profound influence of our
gut biota, I apologize. Gut science is a fascinating new field, and the only
thing we really know is we really don't know much. :) So I totally agree with
you; in fact, I'd say, when contemplating whole diet, you need to give as much
consideration to your gut as you do yourself.

------
sudowhodoido
Well the mature Granny Smith tree in my garden has nearly given me diabetes
from the amount of crumble and pie that it has blessed us with and ruined the
liver of many thanks to the reliable yearly cider production (affectionately
known as _" badger's arse"_ in the household). But at least my colon has
friendly bacteria...

Nutrition: YMMV.

~~~
nazgulnarsil
yeah and the pound of sugar in each pie isn't to blame.

~~~
sudowhodoido
Yes precisely. I was hoping someone would reply with that.

The Granny Smith starts of as an acidic yellow ball of death, progresses
through a window of being edible over the space of 2 days and then instantly
turns into a rotten fermenting mushball suitable for cider only.

To get the things, you have to pick them early and check every day and add
sugar to whatever you're cooking or they're inedible.

For reference, if you buy a Granny Smith in the shop and it's an eating apple,
it's probably a hybrid and not a Granny Smith.

------
gnoway
[http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308814614...](http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308814614005251)

------
indieclean
The "relevant" xkcd: [http://xkcd.com/882/](http://xkcd.com/882/)

------
Mz
I'm a big fan of Granny Smith apples and I ate them fairly often for a time as
part of my efforts to get myself healthier. I think one of the problems with a
study of this sort is that it measures but one dimension of what they do, and
I think poorly at that. It measures one trait (amount of non-digestible
material) they have and it's link to one outcome (fecal bacteria).

I think there is a lot more to it than that and I think they were beneficial
to me because they have a complex set of traits that helped make them ideally
suited to a kind of niche need. I am glad to see this, but it's just too one
dimensional to draw much conclusion from.

