Live data from Hacker News

Scientists can’t agree whether salt is killing us

washingtonpost.com

131–140 of 147 posts

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

#131

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…

Nutritionists will never find out that, because it's not their job. They simply recite memorized mantra.

However, some scientists have been creating a mathematical model that should be able to predict the best diet for a particular person, given that the microbes in said person's guts are analysed first.

You can read about it here: http://www.sciencealert.com/your-gut-bacteria-determines-whi...

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

#132

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 o…

Good luck finding anything high in fats and processed in a modern supermarket. If anything, everything is low fat nowadays. With added fructose of course.

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

#133
post #132

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…

Good luck finding anything high in fats and processed in a modern supermarket. If anything, everything is low fat nowadays. With added fructose of course.

> Good luck finding anything high in fats and processed in a modern supermarket.

Er, there's quite a lot of high fat, processed foods in modern supermarkets. Now, they don't put "high fat" on the label, because "high fat" isn't a selling point. but that doesn't change the fact that they are high in fat.

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

#134

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…

I'm waiting for the day that nutricionists find out that there are different kinds of people with different nutritional needs.

I wish more people were so wise.

I have a salt wasting condition. Lack of salt was very much killing me -- though the answer was not merely more salt, but better quality salt, a detail that routinely gets me the deer-in-the-headlights look from people who respond with "But isn't salt just salt??"

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

#135
post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This was actually tested in a study last year, which found that cheeseburgers are just as good for recovery as expensive sports drinks: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/04/0...

This bogus study keeps getting cited and misrepresented: > Gatorade, chewable energy cubes, organic peanut butter and power bars. All of those are junk food. Drinking a large bottle of Gatorade is exactly equivalent in sugar content to drinking a can of pop, energy and power bars are also basically crap and sugar with some "vitamins" or "soy protein" added. So yeah... this study found that eating one form of junk foo…

Wow, such thorough and newsworthy research: eleven males worked out twice for 90 minutes and ate two different types of crap. This is just another example of the sorry state of modern clickbait research.

This is peer-reviewed research that appeared in the International Journal of Sport Nutrition and Exercise Metabolism. Perhaps, as an esteemed expert in sport nutrition yourself, you could approach the journal and offer your services as a reviewer, given how strongly you feel about this.

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

#136
post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This bogus study keeps getting cited and misrepresented: > Gatorade, chewable energy cubes, organic peanut butter and power bars. All of those are junk food. Drinking a large bottle of Gatorade is exactly equivalent in sugar content to drinking a can of pop, energy and power bars are also basically crap and sugar with some "vitamins" or "soy protein" added. So yeah... this study found that eating one form of junk foo…

Wow, such thorough and newsworthy research: eleven males worked out twice for 90 minutes and ate two different types of crap. This is just another example of the sorry state of modern clickbait research. This is peer-reviewed research that appeared in the International Journal of Sport Nutrition and Exercise Metabolism. Perhaps, as an esteemed expert in sport nutrition yourself, you could approach the journal and off…

I linked to an hour long lecture from a domain expert who offers a thorough, evidence based critique of modern research practices in the health sciences. I hope you watch it, because it raises important problems in current research practices that many are not aware of (or not taking seriously enough).

Either way, I resent such an empty appeal to authority on your end. As intelligent, educated adults I'd like to think we're capable of arriving at our own conclusions. One can be critical of someone's methods without sharing their domain-specific expertise. Science is not meant to be an old boy's club, it's a communal activity; it belongs to everyone and it's up to everyone to scrutinize.

That's not how science works no matter who reviewed what. It doesn't matter if Francis Crick himself was brought back from the dead to review this paper: until this line of research is investigated further, experiments are reproduced, modified, and analyzed from every reasonable angle, the data is meaningless.

Perfect example, straight from the article:

> “We found that the published literature bears little imprint of an ongoing controversy, but rather contains two almost distinct and disparate lines of scholarship.”

> This finding arose from their review of ten "systematic reviews" of the evidence that have been conducted. In systematic reviews, scientists collect all of the primary research on a topic and, in effect, weight it on the whole. But there appears to have been widespread disagreement about what research papers ought to be included in a systematic review. If a research paper was selected for one systematic review, it was more than likely not selected for another, the researchers found.

Thd researchers choose a narrative and stick to it. i.e: Domain expertise is the problem. If it's not up to outsiders to point this out, then who?

The current trend of careerism and domain myopia, this pressure to churn out original research sausage factory style (again, presented in great detail in the talk I linked to) is not science, it's actively hurtful to science, and actively hurtful to people whose health, even lives, depends on this research.

I personally have gone through the medical system for reasons I won't go into, and have seen first hand the very real consequences of good and bad science, which is why I feel so passionate about these matters.

I also know a number of bright individuals who have left the world of academic research due to their disillusionment with the system. There is a very real brain drain going on, and God bless those who stick it out. But if more outsiders (and disgruntled insiders and ex-insiders) don't speak out more, people will continue to get hurt (many already have been -- it's not difficult to find articles and books on this subject). This isn't pure maths or theoretical physics, this is medicine; and we must hold it to the highest levels of scrutiny.

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

#137
post #124
post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rice is amino-deficient only for rats, it has all 8 essential for human amino-acids. But I should wrote "brown unpolished rice" as that contains much more minerals.

> Rice is a good source of protein and a staple food in many parts of the world, but it is not a complete protein: it does not contain all of the essential amino acids in sufficient amounts for good health, and should be combined with other sources of protein, such as nuts, seeds, beans, fish, or meat. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rice

I wrote that too quickly. Brown rice has sufficient variety of protein so a person can survive on diet of rice and juices for many months, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rice_diet

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

#138
post #90
post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

People in China on average have been eating eat more calories than in US yet stay definitely thinner.

I do see the connection between that and the ongoing discussion, but it's subtle and mostly caused by my careless use of terms. Let me fix it a little: the diet of our ancestors was mostly "slow" carbs and a modest amount of proteins, except if you have rich ancestors, that's it. Now there are cheap proteins and a lot of refined carbs that are the equivalent to a nuke for metabolism. So I should have said that heart diseases have raised while much has changed in diet but salt intake has probably decreased because of medical recomendations.

Better now? :)

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

#139
post #53
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.

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

The later seems tongue in cheek, isn't it? But the former is actually true. I guess cancer is now a bigger cause of mortality just because we live longer and so we have more time to get it, instead of dying earlier of another, now tractable, illness. I don't think raise in heart diseases can be explained just by that effect.

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

#140
post #81
post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yes, you will certainly be aware of what it takes to keep running at that rythm. But that's not neccesarilly what is healthy.

So you accept that regular exercise is useful for understanding the physiological implications of the diet, but you question whether regular exercise is healthy?
Post reply on HN