Scientists can’t agree whether salt is killing us • Hacker News Board

Re: Scientists can’t agree whether salt is killing us

#31

Post by jerf » Thu, Feb 18, 2016, 1:51 PM UTC

Mikeb85 wrote: post #24

The problem is that salt (and other minerals) is required to live. But we eat too much of everything (including salt). It's not the salt that's killing us, it's the shitty diet, too-large portions, and lack of exercise. If we ate reasonable portions of well-prepared meals the salt wouldn't be a big deal. But no, instead we eat extra large portions of everything, way too much meat, starch, fat and salt, so all these f…

Why do you think you know that?

Since the answer is basically either A: "no good reason" or B: "I believe I have science on my side", this really isn't a good response to an article about how controversial the science is. Which science do you think you have? Why is it better than the other half of the science?

This is a generic reply to everybody jumping up to explain what the truth really is.

Re: Scientists can’t agree whether salt is killing us

#32

Post by cimbal » Thu, Feb 18, 2016, 1:57 PM UTC

static_noise wrote: post #17

I'm waiting for the day that nutricionists find out that there are different kinds of people with different nutritional needs. Imposing rules on the population on a weak scientific basis harms the people, science and the government in the process. Currently the best way to consume food is to avoid addictive and highly processed food products and then trust your gut with the rest. Eat what you like and avoid what caus…

Well said. The size relations of inner organs for example vary betweeen people as far as i know. That is a big hint, althought it's not a proof in itself.

I want to add to that the nutritional needs within each person vary drastically during different times of year (or times of stress, even down to times of day). Athletes know this, for example, it is common to exhibit significant drops in performance during a year of training (recurring every year).

Now combine these simple observations with the way nutritional studies are done and you know why it looks as if we have no clue.

Re: Scientists can’t agree whether salt is killing us

#33

Post by anotheryou » Thu, Feb 18, 2016, 1:58 PM UTC

static_noise wrote: post #17

I'm waiting for the day that nutricionists find out that there are different kinds of people with different nutritional needs. Imposing rules on the population on a weak scientific basis harms the people, science and the government in the process. Currently the best way to consume food is to avoid addictive and highly processed food products and then trust your gut with the rest. Eat what you like and avoid what caus…

wait no longer :) https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/11/151119143445.h...

Re: Scientists can’t agree whether salt is killing us

#34

Post by vixen99 » Thu, Feb 18, 2016, 2:01 PM UTC

Mikeb85 wrote: post #24

The problem is that salt (and other minerals) is required to live. But we eat too much of everything (including salt). It's not the salt that's killing us, it's the shitty diet, too-large portions, and lack of exercise. If we ate reasonable portions of well-prepared meals the salt wouldn't be a big deal. But no, instead we eat extra large portions of everything, way too much meat, starch, fat and salt, so all these f…

All likely true but that's not what this is about. I think it is a concern that in many issues of public interest, some scientists are much too ready to adopt strongly polarized views and thereby operate with an aggressive agenda which precludes a cool appraisal of data which fails to reinforce their 'party line'.

Re: Scientists can’t agree whether salt is killing us

#35

Post by cimbal » Thu, Feb 18, 2016, 2:05 PM UTC

anotheryou wrote: post #33

static_noise wrote: post #17

I'm waiting for the day that nutricionists find out that there are different kinds of people with different nutritional needs. Imposing rules on the population on a weak scientific basis harms the people, science and the government in the process. Currently the best way to consume food is to avoid addictive and highly processed food products and then trust your gut with the rest. Eat what you like and avoid what caus…

wait no longer :) https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/11/151119143445.h...

I would have never thought when reading about this over ten years ago [1], that the striking argument hasn't had bigger effects on the way these topics are discussed. And i'm sure the basics have been known for ages.

One more thing: it's also true for many types of medicine.

[1] http://www.amazon.com/Nutrition-Solution-Guide-Your-Metaboli... don't have that book handy so i can find the original source

Re: Scientists can’t agree whether salt is killing us

#36

Post by darkerside » Thu, Feb 18, 2016, 2:08 PM UTC

In the image showing how polarized research has become, does the yellow or green category include "Inconclusive citing supportive and/or contradictory"? I would suspect as much, otherwise the image ends up being quite misleading, but I didn't see any confirmation in the article.

Re: Scientists can’t agree whether salt is killing us

#37

Post by Mikeb85 » Thu, Feb 18, 2016, 2:11 PM UTC

vixen99 wrote: post #34

Mikeb85 wrote: post #24

The problem is that salt (and other minerals) is required to live. But we eat too much of everything (including salt). It's not the salt that's killing us, it's the shitty diet, too-large portions, and lack of exercise. If we ate reasonable portions of well-prepared meals the salt wouldn't be a big deal. But no, instead we eat extra large portions of everything, way too much meat, starch, fat and salt, so all these f…

All likely true but that's not what this is about. I think it is a concern that in many issues of public interest, some scientists are much too ready to adopt strongly polarized views and thereby operate with an aggressive agenda which precludes a cool appraisal of data which fails to reinforce their 'party line'.

So science is biased? Of course it is, any observer who pays attention for more than a few years knows it is.

When you're looking for a specific phenomenon, you're more likely to find supporting evidence. For example, if my hypothesis is that a crow can use a television remote, I'm going to stick a crow in a room with a television remote, and the crow will likely mash enough buttons that I can convince you it's true. And then of course there's statistics, and the famous saying which goes with it.

Maybe the real problem is that humans are biased, we're not really looking for the truth, we're looking for confirmation of beliefs we develop for whatever reason.

We've always been far better at beating the natural world into submission than observing it anyway...

Re: Scientists can’t agree whether salt is killing us

#38

Post by shiftoutbox » Thu, Feb 18, 2016, 2:12 PM UTC

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #13

shiftoutbox wrote: post #7

The fact that you can eat a lot of salt, with out instant harm , always makes people think twice on reports like this . Same is true with sugar reports and fat as well . So what is this a vegan conspiracy to make us all go veg ! Unlikely , but consumers should Recognize that consumption not in moderation will lead to unwelcomed results . Try This rule as an example , many people like olive oil , many people say eatin…

> consumption not in moderation will lead to unwelcomed results The whole point of these studies is to define the line between "too much", "in moderation", and "not enough". Saying "everything in moderation" is the equivalent of answering "when should I start worrying about my radiation dose" with "when it's too much". Technically correct, practically useless.

So say the question is alcohol consumption. Science knows the ld50 for alcohol . Science could say 1 drink a week is too much for you . However much of that logic deals with the "average man" not "you" . Your level of moderation could be calculated by direct observation of you, but I doubt anyone would stand for that sort of nonsense in today's science . So how much salt , sugar , or fat is to much ? It depends on many factors , much like how much alcohol you can consume before you "feel intoxicated" . There is a legal standard, in many countries,for how much alcohol you can have in your system before you are a burden on the state . Ie are you so dunk you will crash your car and cause harm to your self and to others or property... Back to my point you may not fit the legal parameters for being "too drunk to drive" because you can drink 10 beers before "you" feel drunk or the inverse one beer and you need a nap . Again this is based on averages as well as a social standard of acceptability on what we as a community governing the law feels is acceptable . So how does this relate to salt,fat, or sugar . It's quite simple it's too much salt in your diet does not make you potential harm your self or others in the short term like alcohol would . The same could be said about sugar , and fat . To be honest I should say something like I eat 2 lbs of sugar coated bacon each day with a fifth of bourbon and I am well over 85 . But in any case you will vote be down either way .

Re: Scientists can’t agree whether salt is killing us

#39

Post by darkerside » Thu, Feb 18, 2016, 2:13 PM UTC

jerf wrote: post #31

Mikeb85 wrote: post #24

The problem is that salt (and other minerals) is required to live. But we eat too much of everything (including salt). It's not the salt that's killing us, it's the shitty diet, too-large portions, and lack of exercise. If we ate reasonable portions of well-prepared meals the salt wouldn't be a big deal. But no, instead we eat extra large portions of everything, way too much meat, starch, fat and salt, so all these f…

Why do you think you know that? Since the answer is basically either A: "no good reason" or B: "I believe I have science on my side", this really isn't a good response to an article about how controversial the science is. Which science do you think you have? Why is it better than the other half of the science? This is a generic reply to everybody jumping up to explain what the truth really is.

I agree that it's not a response that is constructive to the science at hand, but it's a fine response for an individual. Unless you want to obsess over having the perfect diet, you can have a diet that is 80% healthy with 20% of the focus if you just diversify your diet across many different sources. The only thing we really know about scientific knowledge is that it will continue to evolve.

Re: Scientists can’t agree whether salt is killing us

#40

Post by narag » Thu, Feb 18, 2016, 2:17 PM UTC

jerf wrote: post #31

Mikeb85 wrote: post #24

The problem is that salt (and other minerals) is required to live. But we eat too much of everything (including salt). It's not the salt that's killing us, it's the shitty diet, too-large portions, and lack of exercise. If we ate reasonable portions of well-prepared meals the salt wouldn't be a big deal. But no, instead we eat extra large portions of everything, way too much meat, starch, fat and salt, so all these f…

Why do you think you know that? Since the answer is basically either A: "no good reason" or B: "I believe I have science on my side", this really isn't a good response to an article about how controversial the science is. Which science do you think you have? Why is it better than the other half of the science? This is a generic reply to everybody jumping up to explain what the truth really is.

Would "people ate less and suffered less heart diseases time ago?" qualify as C?

Of course this point has the same problem of lacking details. But recognizing "modern food" as a culprit is actually less overeaching than putting the blame on a single substance that has been used for centuries.