Salt, We Misjudged You!

We've been advised for quite some some time now to eat less salt. Not because of science, explains Gary Tuabes in his article published in the NY Times Saturday, but because of "Biological Plausability."

Salt, we misjudged you

WHY have we been told that salt is so deadly? Well, the advice has always sounded reasonable. It has what nutritionists like to call “biological plausibility.” Eat more salt and your body retains water to maintain a stable concentration of sodium in your blood. This is why eating salty food tends to make us thirsty: we drink more; we retain water. The result can be a temporary increase in blood pressure, which will persist until our kidneys eliminate both salt and water.

Health authorities would have you believe that this leads to a chronic condition, called Hypertension, which leads to cardiovascular disease. Before any large, significant studies had been conducted, this hypothesis became scientific fact.

Although researchers quietly acknowledged that the data were “inconclusive and contradictory” or “inconsistent and contradictory” — two quotes from the cardiologist Jeremiah Stamler, a leading proponent of the eat-less-salt campaign, in 1967 and 1981 — publicly, the link between salt and blood pressure was upgraded from hypothesis to fact.

Although most major studies since have yielded disappointing results and ambiguous, inconclusive data, the USDA and other health authorities recommend lowering salt consumption. Their evidence for such recommendations hinge on the results of one little study: the DASH-Sodium study

Effects on Blood Pressure of Reduced Dietary Sodium and the Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension (DASH) Diet

Methods
A total of 412 participants were randomly assigned to eat either a control diet typical of intake in the United States or the DASH diet. Within the assigned diet, participants ate foods with high, intermediate, and low levels of sodium for 30 consecutive days each, in random order.

Conlusions
The reduction of sodium intake to levels below the current recommendation of 100 mmol per day and the DASH diet both lower blood pressure substantially, with greater effects in combination than singly. Long-term health benefits will depend on the ability of people to make long-lasting dietary changes and the increased availability of lower-sodium foods.

That's right. Researchers and health authorities are basing their recommendations of salt restriction on one 30-day study while every other large study available screams ambiguity. It's not to say that the DASH study was insignificant more than it is simply one study out of a vast body of research.

When researchers at the Cochrane Collaboration decided to conduct not one, but two meta-analyses on the body of sodium/hypertension research, they concluded:

The first of the two reviews concluded that cutting back “the amount of salt eaten reduces blood pressure, but there is insufficient evidence to confirm the predicted reductions in people dying prematurely or suffering cardiovascular disease.” The second concluded that “we do not know if low salt diets improve or worsen health outcomes.”

Abstracts can be found here: www.nature.com... and here:summaries.cochrane.org... -people-with-elevated-blood-pressure

With nearly everyone focused on the supposed benefits of salt restriction, little research was done to look at the potential dangers. But four years ago, Italian researchers began publishing the results from a series of clinical trials, all of which reported that, among patients with heart failure, reducing salt consumption increased the risk of death.

Those trials have been followed by a slew of studies suggesting that reducing sodium to anything like what government policy refers to as a “safe upper limit” is likely to do more harm than good. These covered some 100,000 people in more than 30 countries and showed that salt consumption is remarkably stable among populations over time. In the United States, for instance, it has remained constant for the last 50 years, despite 40 years of the eat-less-salt message. The average salt intake in these populations — what could be called the normal salt intake — was one and a half teaspoons a day, almost 50 percent above what federal agencies consider a safe upper limit for healthy Americans under 50, and more than double what the policy advises for those who aren’t so young or healthy. This consistency, between populations and over time, suggests that how much salt we eat is determined by physiological demands, not diet choices.

Another recent study found similar results:

Fatal and Nonfatal Outcomes, Incidence of Hypertension, and Blood Pressure Changes in Relation to Urinary Sodium Excretion

Conclusions In this population-based cohort, systolic blood pressure, but not diastolic pressure, changes over time aligned with change in sodium excretion, but this association did not translate into a higher risk of hypertension or CVD complications. Lower sodium excretion was associated with higher CVD mortality

The problem isn't that we're dealing with ambiguous data. Most of the science is pretty clear: Salt intake restrictions are not working. They never did. And recommendations have been coming from Health Authorities without merit. It's now gotten to a point where these organizations are ignoring the science and adhering to the policy that doesn't work.

When several agencies, including the Department of Agriculture and the Food and Drug Administration, held a hearing last November to discuss how to go about getting Americans to eat less salt (as opposed to whether or not we should eat less salt), these proponents argued that the latest reports suggesting damage from lower-salt diets should simply be ignored. Lawrence Appel, an epidemiologist and a co-author of the DASH-Sodium trial, said “there is nothing really new.” According to the cardiologist Graham MacGregor, who has been promoting low-salt diets since the 1980s, the studies were no more than “a minor irritation that causes us a bit of aggravation.”

This attitude that studies that go against prevailing beliefs should be ignored on the basis that, well, they go against prevailing beliefs, has been the norm for the anti-salt campaign for decades. Maybe now the prevailing beliefs should be changed. The British scientist and educator Thomas Huxley, known as Darwin’s bulldog for his advocacy of evolution, may have put it best back in 1860. “My business,” he wrote, “is to teach my aspirations to conform themselves to fact, not to try and make facts harmonize with my aspirations.”

When politics get involved with science, we're not often told the truth...

funny
back in the day the romans held salt in such high regard they paid people with it
when I was canoe tripping in the hot sun we took salt tabs because if you didn't you could get sick

people are salty
modern dedicine giveth me the creeps
it only makes wallets healthy
and even then only certain ones
who DON"T take the same koolaid they prescribe.


did i forget to mention the IODINE in salt....
woouldn't want any of that to get between you and chemoshema

Yeah...salt was held with high value throughout most of our history.

I know quite a bit about salt, been studying it for many years and it's effect on our body. The big problem with salt is when it's eaten with fluoride.....Boosts stomach acid and metabolism but hydrofluoric acid eats the esophogus and valve out. Instead of canceling their fluoride in water they attacked salt use. Just another scam.

Most people who have heart attacks or congestive heart failure have low sodium levels at the cellular level. Chloride is used for HCL in the stomach and Sodium is used to neutralize the acid in the intestines and in the saliva in our mouth. The kidneys are triggered by fluoride to make us pea but chloride can do the trick also. We get chlorine in drinking water and people with soft water have salty water. We have hard well water, full of calcium but no salt here in the UP.

I could go on for an hour, many people are deficient at the cellular level on salt. The symptoms of too much salt are almost the same as the symptoms of not enough salt. Blame the true problem, the additives we add to food, and not the salt.

reply to post by DevolutionEvolvd


So which conspiracy is true:

a. The original one where Salt is bad?
b. The updated one Salt is know good for you?

So who profited from
a. Salt is bad: What or which industry benefited from restricting the sale of salt by claiming to much is bad. Of course there is always the crazy notion that back then maybe the gov't was trying to do something good for society?

b. Salt is good for you: Obviously the Salt industry will likely get a large boost on the extra consumption of salt.

So is salt really good for you or bad?

reply to post by interupt42


That question isn't whether salt is good or bad for you. It's whether we should limit our salt intake. And the answer is no.

talk about talking out of ones back side. The reason for saying reduce salt intake is because nearly everything you eat has added salt. The culmination af the added salt lies the health risk. the recommended intake is 3750–5750 mg of salt depending on age. With all the added salt added to our foods there is a risk of people exceeding the recommended intake.

Originally posted by DevolutionEvolvd
reply to post by interupt42

 

That question isn't whether salt is good or bad for you. It's whether we should limit our salt intake. And the answer is no.

That might be your question and answer, but IMO I follow the money and who and why was the study done as well as the scientific study? Unfortunately, money even trumps science in the world we live today.
I find it a little suspicious of the change of heart where a large lobbying industry it standing to benefit.

Like I said I would like to know who benefited by the original finding and if the salt industry had anything to do with the new study? I like to see all sides and see what makes sense and if there are any external influences that could have impacted the study.

www.infobarrel.com...

The pro-salt lobby, of course, has good reason to doubt the salt-reduction advice given by numerous other studies. According to the book Food Politics: How the Food Industry Influences Nutrition and Health by Marion Nestle, the “Salt Institute is particularly adept at fostering doubt that salt has anything to do with high blood pressure.” Nestle goes on to say that the institute “invariably publicizes studies that seem to show no adverse effects [of sodium] but minimize research that might contradict that agenda.”

Read more: www.infobarrel.com...

IMO I would increase my intake only if I would get regular checkups where I can monitor the impact instead of just going by some study.

As always with the body, those who "research" figure there are no other factors then the few basic ones they can single out. Salt is just another example, it is also a good example of the herd mentality and how easily it is created and the zealots that are born from it.

Salt is so important, but in the right balance. Tons of salt laden factory produced food like product is a MAJOR problem when not enough water is consumed.

Too much salt not enough water = bad. Too much water not enough salt = bad.

Moderation and balance between the two is right. But when one tosses in soda and the rest of liquid chemical concoctions as a substitute for water all bets are off on anything. Here is where science fails every time as it is simply impossible to get a person to start from a ideal baseline and test from there. Most doctors actually think irregular bowl movements is "normal!" Most don't even scoff at a once a weeker! It isn't normal, its average, and very, very wrong. Bringing us back to salt - backed up sluggish colon and too much salt, not enough salt is self torture.

Originally posted by Danbones
funny
back in the day the romans held salt in such high regard they paid people with it
when I was canoe tripping in the hot sun we took salt tabs because if you didn't you could get sick

people are salty
modern dedicine giveth me the creeps
it only makes wallets healthy
and even then only certain ones
who DON"T take the same koolaid they prescribe.

did i forget to mention the IODINE in salt....
woouldn't want any of that to get between you and chemoshema

edit on 4-6-2012 by Danbones because: (no reason given)

Yes, the Iodine in salt is utilized by the thyroid gland. It produces thyroid hormones which are made by Iodine and tyrosine.

Originally posted by crankyoldman

Salt is so important, but in the right balance. Tons of salt laden factory produced food like product is a MAJOR problem when not enough water is consumed.

Too much salt not enough water = bad. Too much water not enough salt = bad.

in hot weather salt helps you retain water and not get dehydrated as fast.
its the chloride not the sodium.
potassium chloride works just as good in helping your body retain water and your body needs the potassium for the heart.

There is a reason for the saying that someone is "worth his salt". The ancient Roman army soldiers were PAID in salt, that's how important it is. You will DIE without it.

All animals need it. Salt licks are an easy way to lure deer and all other animals into firing range. They will find it from miles away, and they crave it because they NEED it. So do you.

Overdosing on anything is not good. All this prepackaged garbage called food is LOADED with salt, or salt-like substances. The reason salt tastes so good is that your body craves it. I never eat any premade garbage, I make all my own food from scratch. When I used to run a rescue boat, blazing in the hot Florida sun all day, and drinking two gallons of water in a day without peeing once, I would CRAVE salt when I got home. A nice steak and fries with loads of salt would taste so good, because I had sweated out so much salt all day.

Here in Mexico, it's even hotter, and even though I'm not roasting in the sun all day on a boat, I still need a good amount of salt, because I am even sweating right now, at night, as I lay on the couch with a fan blowing right on me. So salt still tastes really good.

Combining it with flouride, as noted above, is really bad. The freaky thing is, here in Mexico, nobody drinks the water. So, strangely enough, they don't put flouride in the water. THEY PUT IT IN THE SALT. I have to search to find organic sea salt, it's the only kind without flouride in it. All normal salt in the store here is yodada y flourorada. Never even a mention of it being good for your teeth. Ain't that kinda strange?

some really good salt of the earth postage on this thread

glad to have read you(ze)

reply to post by interupt42


This isnt about one new study. Salt has never been the problem. And the vast majority of studies support this. Salt was implicated based on a hypothesis that was never tested. When it was finally tested, the results were overwhelmingly against the hypothesis. But the recommendations prevailed.

reply to post by DevolutionEvolvd


Lots of myths are being debunked. Similarly there was an article about water intake - originally the belief was 'if you're thirsty, you're already dehydrated' but new research states that you only need water when you're thirsty. If you crave salt, you probably need it. I don't know about anyone else, but typically i'll get cravings for a variety of food groups and my diet is pretty well-balanced. I don't crave primarily for junk food.

I read in a couple places that we are moving from carbon based to crystalline based, salt is chrystaline. Also from acidic to alkaline. Salt now being good for us makes scence. Fresh water is running low but we have ample salt/sea water. If it turns out its safe to drink filtered sea water, wow. Talk about abundance.

In Great Britain every town that has a name finishing in 'wich' as in Northwich, Middlewich, Nantwich, etc are all towns that had salt mines.

The Roman armies used to collect the salt to take to their garrison towns. Using salt to preserve the food for its armies is one of the strategies that made the Romans such a formidable force as it allowed them to travel and conquer areas far away.

There was no better food preservative and is probably why even today a lot of food for the shelf still has a high degree of salt in it.

Well, there are many types of salt as well. Most of the "table salt" crap that is sold, is not "salt". It is sodium chloride. For real "healthy" salt, get sea salt. It has all of the minerals of the sea, and, after all, we are from the sea, we are made of the sea. So, it would stand to reason, that we are taking the wrong salt.

With my diet, I try to go with what my body craves (except sugars; use raw honey instead). This seems to keep me mostly healthy, that and not having a car, having to walk everywhere also keeps me healthier then the next human.

Please note that sea salt does not contain iodide, a *necessary nutrient*. Can some one tell me why "iodide" is a "necessary nutrient", and if it is, how can I add it to sea salt.

*ETA: never mind, thyroid hormone production stuff.

Okay, so, where did we get our Iodine/iodide intake before the advent of "table salt"?

If the question is "should we limit our intake of salt" I say yes only if your body has a hard time getting rid of it. Our bodies are dumping salt all the time, in every secretion: sweat, saliva, urine, excrement, tears, mucus...etc, so it seems like we are very well equipped to deal with eating a lot of salt.

Doesn't a high salt diet lead to renal failure?

Good info though.