NewScientist Opinion piece on salt.

Post #325,390 by Another Scott 4/29/10 7:03:57 AM Reply	NewScientist Opinion piece on salt. http://www.newscient...gers-of-salt.html SALT hidden in food kills millions of people worldwide. Reducing dietary salt is therefore important for public health; it is also one of the cheapest and easiest ways to save lives. So why are efforts to cut dietary salt being met with fierce resistance? First the facts. Decreasing salt intake substantially reduces blood pressure, thus lowering the risk of heart attacks and strokes. An analysis of all the available evidence, published in 2007, suggested that reducing salt intake around the world by 15 per cent could prevent almost 9 million deaths by 2015. That is on par with the public health benefits of reducing cholesterol and stopping smoking (The Lancet, vol 370, p 2044). Other analyses have concluded that cutting daily salt intake by 5 grams could reduce strokes by 23 per cent and cardiovascular disease by 14 per cent (BMJ, vol 339, p b4567; Journal of Human Hypertension, vol 23, p 363). [...] He's clearly talking about benefits to the population as a whole. I'm no expert, but have heard (as pointed out here and in the comments) that they cannot predict how an individual will be affected by changes in salt intake. The population benefits seem to be clear. However, his tone is often a little conspiratorial, too (but one would expect a billion dollar industry in the US to be interested in protecting its market). All-in-all, not as persuasive as it could be. FWIW. Some linkies here: http://en.wikipedia....lt#Health_effects Cheers, Scott.
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
Post #325,396 by boxley 4/29/10 8:17:22 AM Reply	salt intake vs food poisoning, interesting dilemma If we torture the data long enough, it will confess. (Ronald Coase, Nobel Prize for Economic Sciences, 1991)
Post #325,439 by static 4/29/10 10:32:34 PM Reply	There's a side issue. Which may be confusing the issue: iodine. Iodine deficiency had been treated very effectively by making table salt iodised. However, most commercial food processing does not, and the lowering of general salt intake in the western world had raised the levels of iodine deficiency. Wade. Q:Is it proper to eat cheeseburgers with your fingers? A:No, the fingers should be eaten separately.

Welcome to IWETHEY!