I think this speaks more about a broken research system than it does about the challenges in determining how bad excess salt is on our health.
Scientists can’t agree whether salt is killing us
41–50 of 147 posts
Re: Scientists can’t agree whether salt is killing us
#42The 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…
Salt is a problem for people with hypertension or related blood pressure conditions. And there's a strong correlation between cutting down salt and reducing your BP in those cases. Especially since it's safer than just increasing some BP medication doses.
Also, your exercise and diet suggestions effectively reduce salt in your body. Less food, less salt. More exercise and more water means salt gets removed from your body faster.
I'm not trying to say salt is universally bad, but I'm pretty sure no one should literally swallow spoonfuls of the stuff either.
Re: Scientists can’t agree whether salt is killing us
#43Why does a respectable news outlet/paper like the Washington Post lower itself to clickbait titles.. I don't get it.
Because clickbait leads to higher click through rate and view and thus income. The consumer decides, simple as.
Re: Scientists can’t agree whether salt is killing us
#44The 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.
To be honest, the article doesn't have much to say anyway. It's about how each paper cites other like-minded papers, so each side basically turns into a Reddit circle-jerk, and no one appears to be doing any real science.
And of course, as I posted in my other response, it's far easier to prove a hypothesis than to disprove one, especially if your test subjects are humans that likely aren't going to put up with your shit for more than a few days anyway.
Test A - feed subjects a salt-heavy diet for a few days. Observe that they're still alive. Salt is good.
Test B - feed subjects a salt-poor diet for a few days. Observe that they're still alive. Salt is bad.
Observation A - observe that healthy subjects eat a lot of salt. Salt is good.
Observation B - observe that unhealthy subjects eat a lot of salt. Salt is bad.
And so on...
Re: Scientists can’t agree whether salt is killing us
#45Earlier quoted context omitted.
I tried to inform myself about nutrition but at this point I have still no idea what is best. Right now I'm following your advice, avoid highly processed food and otherwise listen to my body.
Same here. I recently cut sugar and bread products and I experienced random dizziness. I was eating plenty of fruit and I was eating natural sugars. I decided to experiment one day; had 4 donuts, bread and butter, and my body felt better. Now the plan is to avoid processed, avoid preservatives, and move towards more natural and organic. I went to the doctor and they said don't wait more than 3-4 hours between meals.
My wife and I have this very problem. Prior to my diabetes assessment, things like NoodleTown and pasta places would fill her right up. Me? I'd be gnawing my hand off if I went there, because I'd be hungrier 20 mins later than had I not gone there at all.
But now with diagnosed T2 diabetes, that makes sense. I process carbs very badly, and spirals into a "process carbs into fat quickly, and get hungrier, all the while jack blood sugar". Of course, high fat and high protein diet has went very well for me. I'm not hungry like I used to be, I've lost 40 lbs since the start, and I just feel better.
Re: Scientists can’t agree whether salt is killing us
#46Earlier quoted context omitted.
I tried to inform myself about nutrition but at this point I have still no idea what is best. Right now I'm following your advice, avoid highly processed food and otherwise listen to my body.
Same here. I recently cut sugar and bread products and I experienced random dizziness. I was eating plenty of fruit and I was eating natural sugars. I decided to experiment one day; had 4 donuts, bread and butter, and my body felt better. Now the plan is to avoid processed, avoid preservatives, and move towards more natural and organic. I went to the doctor and they said don't wait more than 3-4 hours between meals.
> I went to the doctor and they said don't wait more than 3-4 hours between meals.
This is utterly crazy. If you couldn't go more than 3-4 hours between meals without experiencing dizziness, something about your diet was seriously wrong.
If you felt better after experimentally eating something different, then eating that was almost certainly healthier. Yes, even if it was donuts. Don't let cultural beliefs about food override your direct observations!
Re: Scientists can’t agree whether salt is killing us
#47Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
"Would "people ate less and suffered less heart diseases time ago?" qualify as C?"
No; that would fall under "no good reason". Are you sure people "ate less"? Given that we (think we) know that people of the past were also more active (although history is definitely on your side for that one), and how much more active people need to eat to sustain their activity, I would be completely unsurprised to learn that people in the past consumed more calories than the average American. You'd need to do quite a bit of science to nail this down.
Unless, of course, you've seen the relevant science, in which case it falls under B.
It's hard to escape from needing to have done science to really know what the problem is, and it's also hard to escape from the fact that all the science is really a great deal less clear than we've been led to believe by our government and public health organizations. It's clear we have problems; it's way less clear what the cause truly is. It also is reasonable to observe that you can "eat better" with less processed food, etc., and exercise is reasonably well established as helping, but why, exactly? We may speak in English of that as being one or two changes, but it's not; it's hundreds, thousands, perhaps even more changes, all at once. Which of them are relevant, and exactly how? Those questions are much less well answered. It also doesn't necessarily matter to you personally in the end. But it does mean that confident declarations about what is "really" the cause are poorly supported right now on all fronts.
I've been looking at this for many years too, and just about the only conclusions I've come to are A: less processed does seem better B: exercise does seem to be important but it's surprising how much debate about which types of exercise are good for what is still happening, again, despite what we've been led to believe and C: the consensus I was taught growing up in the 1980s is dead wrong in almost (but not quite) every detail, but that doesn't mean I know what is right.
There are still entire massive dimensions poorly explored by science; for instance, go look up the science on "intermittent fasting". One of the first things you ram into is that while there have been several studies on it, they all use the exact same schedule, which happens to be fairly unrealistic. No exploration of the space as a whole, just this one point, sampled over and over again. Does the schedule of your food intake matter? What's the best one? Science very nearly just shrugs at this question. Who knows what else we're missing?
Re: Scientists can’t agree whether salt is killing us
#48The 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…
On cannot eat too much starch. Try to eat only potatoes or rice prepared without any oil/butter for couple of weeks with perhaps few vegetables or fruits in addition with any amount of salt or herbs for taste. You learn that it is impossible to overeat as normal appetite controlling signals kicks in and limit the consumed amount. One does not gain weight on such diet and likely even loose some.
Similarly with sugar. Try to drink plain water with sugar (not tee/coffee or anything else that bring own taste). It is just impossible to drink too much of it. In fact for many people such plain water with sugar is a useful trick to limit appetite and loose weight.
So it is not the amount of what is eaten but rather something in food or food composition that makes people overweight.
As regarding exercising consider that doing high-intensity strength training for 15 minutes once per week is often enough to get into shape. So again, it is not the amount but rather the details of the exercise that are important.
Re: Scientists can’t agree whether salt is killing us
#49Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
> that has been used for centuries.
You mean millenia. There's evidence of people harvesting salt dating back as far as archaeology takes us. Salt mines dating over 8000 years ago. Ancient observers writing about the salt trade 2500 years ago. And so on.
Re: Scientists can’t agree whether salt is killing us
#50The 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…
On cannot eat too much starch. Try to eat only potatoes or rice prepared without any oil/butter for couple of weeks with perhaps few vegetables or fruits in addition with any amount of salt or herbs for taste. You learn that it is impossible to overeat as normal appetite controlling signals kicks in and limit the consumed amount. One does not gain weight on such diet and likely even loose some. Similarly with sugar.…
> So it is not the amount of what is eaten but rather something in food or food composition that makes people overweight.
> As regarding exercising consider that doing high-intensity strength training for 15 minutes once per week is often enough to get into shape. So again, it is not the amount but rather the details of the exercise that are important.
You make some wild claims here. Do you have anything to back that up, or are you just hypothesizing?