Here's the problem

Post #325,392 by drook 4/29/10 7:27:10 AM Reply	Here's the problem That is on par with the public health benefits of reducing cholesterol ... Oh, so there's no benefit? Yeah, see it turns out there's no benefit to reducing dietary cholesterol. None. Never was. That's been junk science for the better part of a century, with vegetable oil producers promoting it hard the whole time. Generations of doctors and researchers grew up with that assumption underlying everything they did. I've heard similar things about salt. It looks like the only populations with universally high salt intake are getting it from processed food. ie: The Western Diet. And it's pretty clear now (to people who don't have a vested interest in not seeing it) that it's the refined carbohydrates that are the major problem. There are no populations that cook from scratch and also have universally high salt intake. Does this mean salt is definitely off the hook? No, but the evidence against it isn't all that solid, IMO. -- Drew
Post #325,394 by Another Scott 4/29/10 7:50:21 AM Reply	Maybe. I get suspicious of categorical statements on either side. ;-) I think the counterpoint is Japan. A/the leading cause of death was hemorrhagic (or is it ischemic?) stroke. In the 1960s, IIRC, the diet supposedly had huge levels of salt (mostly from the sauces?). When a concerted effort was made to cut salt intake, the incidence of stroke dropped. A later study - http://stroke.ahajou...int/35/7/1543.pdf (6 page .pdf) There seems to be a relationship between salts and stroke, but it may not be due to a simple increase in blood pressure. E.g. a study of rats - http://stroke.ahajou...bstract/20/9/1212 Recent studies seem to indicate that there may be a genetic component to risk in humans as well. http://stroke.ahajou...bstract/39/8/2211 I dunno. The chemistry of a single person is complex. The chemistry of a huge population even more so. It makes sense to me, even if just from arguments from evolutionary grounds, that sodium levels should be reduced substantially. I wouldn't be at all surprised if the press reports and policy-maker comments on these health studies glosses over the nuances (as they do on almost everything else). FWIW. :-) Cheers, Scott.
Post #325,399 by drook 4/29/10 8:48:56 AM Reply	As long as we don't do a Pascal's Wager on salt I've seen articles that cite the Japanese stroke statistics and conclude that even though we haven't identified causality, and neither the circumstances nor result have been replicated anywhere else, that we should act as though salt is uniformly dangerous for everyone. We've spent decades demonizing saturated fat, and it turns out the human body needs some in the diet to work properly. We need salt, too, and the most compelling argument (IMO) against the amount of salt we use is the historical: We didn't evolve eating this much salt. But are we sure of that? Salt is pretty durable, and light. We've found evidence that people were harvesting salt thousands of years ago from various sources. Maybe early humans would collect salt when they found it and carry it with them. What evidence would be left behind? Not much. I'm definitely not saying there's no possible risk to eating too much salt. I just don't think there's really strong science saying how much we "should" be eating. Like with every other recommendation based on nutritionism, simply avoiding processed foods seems to make the whole issue moot. -- Drew

Welcome to IWETHEY!