Apple a Day -- new research

Options
2»

Replies

  • Charlottesometimes23
    Charlottesometimes23 Posts: 687 Member
    Options
    WalkingAlong wrote: »
    One of the articles I read said the USDA funded it. I think apples are grown in the Pacific Northwest, and oranges in Florida! ;)

    A year long study would involve self-reported intake, so (to me) basically anywhere from a rough estimate to total fiction. :p

    Even short studies often involve self reported intake, food diaries or food frequency questionnaires. They're not particularly reliable, but neither are food recalls with trained interviewers. People tend to underreport. Hopefully the variation within each individual's diary is not too large.

  • Charlottesometimes23
    Charlottesometimes23 Posts: 687 Member
    Options
    _SKIM_ wrote: »
    sodakat wrote: »
    I wish we knew why they chose dried apples (I know I keep saying that). Could it be because it took 240 grams of dried apples to achieve the amount of fiber the researchers wanted the control group to consume... or maybe some nutrient apples contain?

    The most obvious difference I can find is fiber, but its not like the 10g of fiber in the dried apples is a huge amount, IMO. Here's a link to nutrition difference between 100g of fresh and 100g dried.

    apples-dried-sulfured-uncooked

    55835802.png

    Dehydrate? No water, easier to measure the left over. I suppose no two apples of the same weight have the same water content.

    I was thinking that too. It would be easier to measure and monitor.

  • WalkingAlong
    WalkingAlong Posts: 4,926 Member
    Options
    I think it's just easier to administer with dried apples. I know I'd be more likely to eat 75g of dried apple a day than to eat 2.5 whole apples each day for a year! And the study designers could send each person home with 6-12 months of dried apples at the start vs. maybe 3 weeks of fresh.
  • Charlottesometimes23
    Charlottesometimes23 Posts: 687 Member
    Options
    I got hold of the full text today. For anyone interested, here's some more info.

    Re the dried apples: There was no explanation of why dried vs fresh, but the authors stated "The rationale for choosing the dose of dried apple was based on our earlier short-term clinical trial (B. H. Arjmandi, PhD, RD, and D. A. Khalil, PhD, unpublished data, May 2002). In that study, dried apple was well tolerated by postmenopausal women and positively influenced lipid profiles."

    Re blinding: "Participants were not blinded to intervention."

    Re Diet Collection: "A 7-day dietary recall was collected from all participants by a registered dietitian at baseline, 3, 6, and 12 months. Collected dietary recalls were analyzed using Food Processor SQL Nutrition and Fitness Program (ESHA Research). With the exception of height measured at baseline, body weights were repeatedly measured at baseline, 3, 6, and 12 months."

    Re Diet Analysis "Baseline characteristics of participants including age, time since menopause, and body mass index (Table 2) did not significantly differ between the two groups. The mean body weights of the participants in both groups were not significantly different at baseline, 3, 6, and 12 months. However, 12 months of apple consumption resulted in 1.5 kg weight loss compared with baseline. Analysis of the 7-day dietary recall and physical activity recall reported that the participant's food intakes (Table 3) and physical activity levels (Table 2) were not significantly different between baseline values of the two intervention groups and between any time points throughout the study."

    Looking at table 3, comparing the 2 groups, it showed that women in the plum group consumed about 120 cals extra per day at 6 months and about 42 cals extra at 12 months compared to the apple group. The standard deviations were around 80 cals so it was not statistically significant.

    Comparing calorie intake to baseline in the 2 groups, the apple group consumed 120 more cals per day at 12 months compared to baseline while the plum group consumed 200 more cals per day compared to baseline. Yet, the apple group lost weight...hmmmm...sounds dodgy...

    Funding: FUNDING/SUPPORT This study was partly supported by the National Research Initiative of the US Department of Agriculture Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service (grant no. 2005-35200-17053). Yarwell pretty much picked it.



  • sexymonicat
    sexymonicat Posts: 111
    Options
    I always take gala apples to the gym with me . Today I decided to eat one in the sauna. They are loud lol
  • Qskim
    Qskim Posts: 1,145 Member
    edited January 2015
    Options
    So what do I do with this bag of apples? :#

    Thanks Charlotte.
  • Charlottesometimes23
    Charlottesometimes23 Posts: 687 Member
    Options
    _SKIM_ wrote: »
    So what do I do with this bag of apples? :#

    Thanks Charlotte.

    MMM...apple pie.... :p

  • Kalikel
    Kalikel Posts: 9,626 Member
    edited January 2015
    Options
    yarwell wrote: »
    "The Florida State University" - let me guess, study funded by a fruit grower's association ?

    Florida is not well known for its apples.

    Oranges, lemons, conch, beaches, cruising, theme parks, old people and crazy people - yes. Apples, not so much.
  • atibrat
    atibrat Posts: 70 Member
    Options
    An apple a day is probably healthier than many other things average people eat everyday. I would not be surprised if you add one healthy fruit a day that you could lose 3.3 pounds in a year. I am sure most women replaced something else to fit in the dried apples and 3.3 pounds a year is not a huge loss.
  • sodakat
    sodakat Posts: 1,126 Member
    Options
    Thanks Charlotte. I wasn't as interested in the minimal weight loss described as the LDL cholesterol changes. Does seem odd they lost weight with an overall calorie increase however, even a net of 80 a day.
  • WalkingAlong
    WalkingAlong Posts: 4,926 Member
    Options
    Charlottesometimes23 wrote: »
    Re Diet Collection: "A 7-day dietary recall was collected from all participants by a registered dietitian at baseline, 3, 6, and 12 months. ...
    ...
    the apple group consumed 120 more cals per day at 12 months compared to baseline while the plum group consumed 200 more cals per day compared to baseline. Yet, the apple group lost weight...hmmmm...sounds dodgy...
    It sounds like the dieters didn't log their actual intake but instead an RD analyzed a sample week at 4 time points. I don't think that is going to be much use, not with a 120 calorie variance, anyway. And I wonder if "recall" means they went from memory for the prior week? That would be even worse.
  • Qskim
    Qskim Posts: 1,145 Member
    Options
    WalkingAlong wrote: »
    Charlottesometimes23 wrote: »
    Re Diet Collection: "A 7-day dietary recall was collected from all participants by a registered dietitian at baseline, 3, 6, and 12 months. ...
    ...
    the apple group consumed 120 more cals per day at 12 months compared to baseline while the plum group consumed 200 more cals per day compared to baseline. Yet, the apple group lost weight...hmmmm...sounds dodgy...
    It sounds like the dieters didn't log their actual intake but instead an RD analyzed a sample week at 4 time points. I don't think that is going to be much use, not with a 120 calorie variance, anyway. And I wonder if "recall" means they went from memory for the prior week? That would be even worse.

    I was thinking that too. Even if they did a log week to week it's well known isn't it that intake can be under reported or the opposite too I'm assuming.

Categories