Scientists can’t agree whether salt is killing us

Post by liveoneggs » Thu, Feb 18, 2016, 6:07 PM UTC

tetraodonpuffer wrote: post #55

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…

Post by nommm-nommm » Thu, Feb 18, 2016, 6:17 PM UTC

rsync wrote: post #91

e40 wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

incorporating both long duration aerobic/cardio and relatively intense resistance training And there are studies that show walking is just as good, and it certainly wears down the body less than your alternative.

"And there are studies that show walking is just as good, and it certainly wears down the body less than your alternative." I have seen those studies and I tend to agree with them. My own personal experience supports the notion that walking is extremely healthful and provides almost all of the benefits you have in mind. That is, if you're using measures like "do I feel good" "do I look good" "have I kept off those 20…

Post by makmanalp » Thu, Feb 18, 2016, 6:24 PM UTC

rsync wrote: post #69

stdbrouw wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You do realize that what you're proposing is in no way supported by science but is merely your personal theory based on an analogy, right?

A system running at its limits is more sensitive to fluctuations in inputs. That's as true for your body as it is for a nuclear reactor.

Post by undersuit » Thu, Feb 18, 2016, 6:33 PM UTC

blacksmith_tb wrote: post #100

brianwawok wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Freezing is a form of processing, but it is a very light processing. Take some Oats off the ground. Cool unprocessed. Mill it a tiny bit to help it cook more easily into steel cut oats. Minimally processed. Grind it down into instant oatmeal - Heavily processes. Add some chemicals and put in a test tube to turn into some weird kind of artificial sweetener? Highly processed. I try to go as low on the chain as possible…

This seems like a fairly extreme interpretation of 'processing' - I haven't seen anything that suggests there's a nutritional difference between steel cut, rolled, or quick oats. Human beings have 'processed' their foods along these lines for more than 10,000 years, as opposed to say, making Twinkies.

Post by readams » Thu, Feb 18, 2016, 6:47 PM UTC

brianwawok wrote: post #62

noxToken wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 o…

Freezing is a form of processing, but it is a very light processing. Take some Oats off the ground. Cool unprocessed. Mill it a tiny bit to help it cook more easily into steel cut oats. Minimally processed. Grind it down into instant oatmeal - Heavily processes. Add some chemicals and put in a test tube to turn into some weird kind of artificial sweetener? Highly processed. I try to go as low on the chain as possible…