Fruit focus

Posted by Andrew Wadge on February 5th 2008 in General interest

As regular readers will know, I’ve previously blogged on the view that nutrition advice is always changing.  So here’s another example which doesn’t quite deliver what it says on the label.  An article in a recent Guardian, g2, asks if fruit really is good for us. Aida Edemariam investigated whether the rise in availability of pre-prepared fruit a good thing.  The article raised several points covering sustainability, health claims and food safety, but one aspect that particularly caught my eye was that fruit is not particularly nutritious.  It is true to say that most fruit, and indeed vegetables, mainly contain water.  But they also contain fibre and vitamins and minerals that help keep the body healthy.

There is mounting evidence that people who eat lots of fruit and veg are less likely to develop chronic diseases such as coronary heart disease and some cancers.  Several reasons are cited for this possibility:

•  they’re a good source of dietary fibre
•  they’re very low in energy, and bulking out the diet in this way may help you control your weight
•  they can help increase the proportion of dietary energy that comes from carbohydrate and so reduce the amount that’s coming from fat.
•  they’re good sources of many vitamins and minerals, especially vitamin C, potassium and non-nutrient antioxidants such as flavanoids. But while there is some evidence to suggest that flavanoids may be protective against chronic diseases, such as heart disease, overall the evidence is inconclusive.

Government advice to increase fruit and vegetable consumption is based on a range of evidence that high consumption can protect against a range of chronic diseases.  In 2003, the World Health Organization concluded that fruit and vegetables probably protect against cancer. There is evidence that a higher intake of fruit and vegetable decreased the risk of cancers of the oral cavity, pharynx and oesophagus, stomach cancer and colorectal cancer. Last year the World Cancer Research fund released a report with recommendations to help reduce risks of cancer, which included eating at least five portions of a variety of fruit and vegetables every day. 

It’s important to remember that fruits and vegetables are seen not only as being directly protective themselves, but also as a replacement for other less healthy foods, such as those that are more energy dense and/or high in saturated fat. 

Existing studies show that fruit and veg tend to contain a wide range of nutrients.  A range of factors can affect nutrient content, including the variety or type of food, the soil in different growing areas, and how it is harvested, transported, stored or cooked. So, for example, vitamin C is readily lost from fruit during storage, preparation and where appropriate, cooking.  Given these variables, we have no reason to believe there are any specific problems with the nutrient content of shop-bought pre-packaged and prepared fruit.

Availability of a wide range of prepared fruit adds choice and convenience for people who may not otherwise eat fruit – it can also help us to eat a variety.  As it is, many of us don't eat enough fruit and veg. In fact, average consumption in the UK is currently less than three portions a day, which is two short of the recommended figure of (at least) five a day.

The key point is that it’s the overall balance of the diet which is more important than the nutrient content of individual foods.  A varied diet, which includes plenty of fruit and vegetables and starchy foods, should provide all the nutrients that a healthy individual requires.

Science suffers with simple messages

Posted by Myth buster (not verified) on 23/04/2008 - 10:32

Whether it is fruit and vegetables are healthy or salt, sugar and saturates are unhealthy these simple messages conflict with scientific reality. A diet made up purely of fruits and vegetables is not healthy, they are merely providers of some key components of a healthy diet largely fibre, water soluble vitamins and some minerals. The body needs salt and sugar to survive, indeed in the critically ill these are the first nutrients we pump into the blood supply. Outside of dental health simple sugars have no inherently negative properties,they are merely energy providers, likewise in individuals with properly functioning kidneys and an adequate potassium intake do not get high blood pressure. Finally saturates, identified as the big villan of increasing cholesterol and heart disease in the early mid-80s has had its status modified somewhat as it has been shown that all saturates are not equal and some are actually neutral in this regard. Where does this leave the validity of the simple health message ? Scientifically redundant?

eatwell

Posted by Andrew Wadge on 17/04/2008 - 09:01

Dear Vince and Peter, Thanks for your thoughts - I suggest you take a look at our eatwell website, which has lots of nutrition advice and information. For specific nutrition questions you might try my colleague's 'Ask Sam' section', where you can email questions directly.

curiosity

Posted by vince (not verified) on 17/03/2008 - 20:48

Hello mr. Wadge. Fruit is good, agreed, but often when I eat some fruits, like oranges or melons at dinner, I find it more difficult to digest than when eaten at lunch time. My curiosity is this: is it true that some foods like peppers as well, are better not to be eaten in the evening because they are "heavy" to digest?
many thanks

Myths in science

Posted by Peter A (not verified) on 10/03/2008 - 17:38

Is saturated fat really bad for you?

It is widely believed that it is but does the science support this belief?

Latest studies seen to show people on high fat diets eat rather less food than people on low fat diets. So it may well work in the same way as protien and be an appertite supressor?