Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Scientists can’t agree whether salt is killing us

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 147 posts

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

#51

Post by narag »

jerf wrote: post #47
narag wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Unless, of course, you've seen the relevant science, in which case it falls under B.

My point was that, even if not exactly science, basic facts are known. Yes, I'm sure people ate less in the past. I've seen the numbers and, to a certain extent, I've seen people changing their habits in my lifetime.

This is like a tide, while many studies are focusing in a few waves. That's what my point anyway.

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

#52

Post by rsync »

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…

"Currently the best way to consume food is to avoid addictive and highly processed food products and then trust your gut with the rest."

Allow me to suggest a further path forward that is superior to "trusting your gut":

Establish a regular, very high output exercise regime - incorporating both long duration aerobic/cardio and relatively intense resistance training.

Under such a regimen, you will notice what food does to you because you're pushing your physical state out to the edges. You will need to eat densely nutritious food and you will notice when you don't. It's quite striking.

An analogy: nobody notices a bad tank of gas, or slightly wrong octane in their toyota minivan. You do notice a bad tank of gas, or slightly wrong octane in a race car.

Become a racecar and you won't need to guess about food anymore.

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

#53

Post by tgb »

narag wrote: post #40
jerf wrote: post #31

Earlier 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.

Surely the easy way to have less heart disease is to have more other disease. Or to not diagnose heart disease at all.

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

#54

Post by ocean3 »

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…

"Use salt to taste, most likely it won't kill you" - but salt has been used for centuries right. Has there been a change? As an Indian not adding salt is unthinkable.

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

#55

Post by tetraodonpuffer »

Ensorceled wrote: post #12

I think a huge problem, is that some of the guidelines are insanely low and difficult to hit without serious diet modifications. A couple of years ago, I tried to stick to the Canadian RDA for salt and found it near impossible even on a whole food diet. If you engage in strenuous exercise or in manual labour, they are dangerously low. A couple of recent studies are pointing to this problem with the Health Canada Guid…

Honestly given that due to health reasons I have to stick to ~500mg of sodium a day, and have been for years with no adverse effects, I don't consider the 1,500mg Canadian guidelines that low. I do find it funny though that, for example, the Canadian guidelines are 1,500mg while the Italian ones are at 2,400 (and if you look at packaged foods sometimes the percentages seem to be based on 4,000mg)

The only way for me to do it is to be completely whole foods (the only "packaged" food I eat is canned crushed tomatoes, and only a very specific brand with absolutely no sodium added). It is obviously annoying not to be able to eat bread anymore, or to eat out, or to be able to do air travel without starving (unfortunately airlines nowadays seem to not serve full fruit meals, so I have to make do with just the little square box of salad and the one of fruit, which on an 8 hour flight is not fun) but what can you do.

This said having to severely limit your sodium makes you realize just how much of our industry relationships seem to be predicated on eating out, from interviews, to work get togethers and so on, this makes me think that likely any future job I will have will have to be fully remote because flying somewhere for an all day interview would be quite difficult to figure out food-wise.

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

#56

Post by itchyouch »

cimbal wrote: post #32
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 o…

I've observed that a lot of diets tend to have similar effects on the populations that adopt them. People speak about feeling better on Paleo. Body builders/lifters optimize macronutrient intakes for muscle gain with similar results. There's also wide consensus on how certain micronutrient deficiencies cause certain conditions. e.g. Vitamin C deficiency leads to Scurvy. Vitamin A deficiency leads to night-time blindness, etc.

I would hypothesize that most arguments about nutrition revolve around observational discrepancies between the micro & macro levels. At the micro (individual) perspective, it feels like everyone has custom nutritional needs (which in a sense, they do), but when looking at larger trends, generally, consistent patterns emerge.

One of salient points that are made about nutrition by Dr. Terry Wahls is that it is fundamentally chemistry. If an individual hits some type of limiting reagent, the body will adapt in the absence of it until it can not and certain ailments occur.

The problem with a lot of nutritional studies is similar to the problems in a company faces. There is some type of prescription to adhere to at the micro-level without taking into context the larger picture. CxO's, if you get at least 5000IUs of DevOps per day, you'll get better performance! Consuming 100mg of Agile development makes you more agile! 1 gram of purpose/mission-driven team-building per week helps with the bad customer service ailment. While there may some truth to those statements, they are also absurd without properly being incorporated into a larger context.

Anyway, one of the interesting tidbits I read was the recommendation to increase salt & potassium intake when adopting a ketogenic (high-fat) diet, to prevent/alleviate headaches & fatigue during the ketosis transitional period. One can see that the advice is probably rooted in some chemistry.

Nutritional studies would probably have much better results if the populations could be subjected to a strict meal plan to control for other factors.

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

#57

Post by noxToken »

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…

> Currently the best way to consume food is to avoid addictive and highly processed food products

I assume by highly processed, you mean foods altered in such that they are now high in fats, salt, sugars or some combination thereof. I ask, because the term processed gets thrown around (in my experience) for highly preserved foods like canned meat to flash frozen frozen vegetables in the freezer aisle.

The former is obviously worse for you. Taking in high amounts of sugars, bad fats, and possibly salt is detrimental. However, referring to green beans that were grown, picked, flash frozen and delivered as a processed food is somewhat misleading. Flash freezing is altering the food from its natural state. Thus, a frozen vegetable is technically a processed food. The connotative definition, however, implies that more than freezing has happened.

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

#58

Post by JoeAltmaier »

Ensorceled wrote: post #12

I think a huge problem, is that some of the guidelines are insanely low and difficult to hit without serious diet modifications. A couple of years ago, I tried to stick to the Canadian RDA for salt and found it near impossible even on a whole food diet. If you engage in strenuous exercise or in manual labour, they are dangerously low. A couple of recent studies are pointing to this problem with the Health Canada Guid…

I guess I'm the general population. I eat my daily salt on each French fry at lunch. I like them salted so they turn white! Vegetables are edible, if salted enough. And buttered. Or oiled I guess.

And I am fine. No health issues to speak of. Of course I exercise as well - I ride 20 miles at a time all summer. It's the whole picture that matters I think. Picking out 'salt' and trying to make a rule for everyone is hopeless.

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

#59

Post by itchyouch »

Shivetya wrote: post #19

Being an avid cook I have a hard time with believing that salt is the evil some claim it is. It has always been with us, it is in so many recipes and many don't work without it. It is the basis for brine solutions which produce make even some of the worst cuts of meat palatable and take good pieces and makes them better. I am more of the idea that the sedentary lifestyle of many and lack of water as the go to drink f…

One thing to consider is pre-made processed food has tons of sodium in them to bring out taste due to the absorption of salt.

When I cook for myself, I use a fraction of the salt that a pre-made equivalent normally ships with.

I recall reading a blurb about how when processed foods don't do well in taste-testing research panels, they are instructed to dump in the sodium, with the result of positive results to follow up panels.

Post reply on HN