Salt not as damaging to health as previously thought, says study • Hacker News Board

Re: Salt not as damaging to health as previously thought, says study

#91

Post by killjoywashere » Mon, Aug 13, 2018, 12:03 AM UTC

paavoova wrote: post #40

killjoywashere wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Salt increases intravascular osmolarity, which increases water retention to correct the osmolarity. This is freshman inorganic chemistry. There's plenty of biomedical science behind renal pathophysiology and the link between salt and blood pressure is as close to an if-then statement as there is in medicine. We use all sorts of drugs and methods to play with this central mechanism and can observe the effects in real…

Doesn't potassium work similarly then?

Of course, but potassium is mainly intracellular (a much larger fraction of the body's water) so it would be quite difficult to cause the same problems. Hyperkalemia definitely has its own problems though.

Re: Salt not as damaging to health as previously thought, says study

#92

Post by Xcelerate » Mon, Aug 13, 2018, 12:05 AM UTC

clumsysmurf wrote: post #16

And to play devil's advocate, the opposite findings from just this June https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/06/180622012101.h...

Coming from a hard science background, I just ignore nutrition studies altogether nowadays. The reproducibility seems even worse than psychology research. This isn't a knock on the researchers themselves — these are hard subjects to make definitive conclusions in — but we do need to at least be able to accurately quantify the uncertainty on the results. It's not acceptable to have so many studies contradicting each other, particularly when the general public is making lifestyle decisions on the basis of the nutrition findings.

Re: Salt not as damaging to health as previously thought, says study

#93

Post by scottLobster » Mon, Aug 13, 2018, 12:06 AM UTC

nicoburns wrote: post #68

macspoofing wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nutrition Science is a huge mess even though it is a core part of human health. As in, it is a total disaster. Here's something depressing to think about: if the Keto people are correct, mainstream nutrition science was a key contributor to American obesity crisis and resulted in countless premature deaths and major suffering over the last few decades. Anyway, recently I wanted to look into whether or not eggs are go…

> mainstream nutrition science was a key contributor to American obesity crisis This seems unlikely given that mainstream nutrition science is the same in most of the western world, but the obesity levels are far more severe in the US. From what I hear from friends who have travelled to the US (from the UK), standard portion sizes can be over twice as over on your side of the pond. And it can be very difficult to tra…

I think the issue stems from a holdover great depression mentality. Growing up I was taught to "clean my plate" and disciplined when I failed to do so, as wasting even a small amount of food was apparently some sort of cardinal sin despite my family being quite well off. I was also taught that eating large portions was a sign of health, an "active metabolism" (whatever the hell that is). Whenever I said I was done people would ask me if I was sure and offer me more.

I was educated enough to figure things out in adulthood, but you raise a poorly educated populace on that mentality while making the least healthy food cheap and delicious, and shocker we have an obesity epidemic. :P

Re: Salt not as damaging to health as previously thought, says study

#94

Post by bodas » Mon, Aug 13, 2018, 12:06 AM UTC

cies wrote: post #65

barking wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

WFPB, whole food plant based diet. No meat, no fish, no dairy. You can eat fruit but you can't juice it. Seems a bit of a misery diet to me.

Juicing, cooking, tofu making is minimally pocessed and generally accepted in WFPB circles. I't the point where you refine something (oil from seeds, sugar from beets) where it is against the protocol. > Seems a bit of a misery diet to me. I was not trying to make you happy. I stated it has a lot of science on it's side. There are some great cooking resources on how to make it taste/look/whatever great. Wanna know mo…

Surely milk is good for you, whereas American-style cheese is perhaps better avoided. It seems somewhat misguided to knock out whole food groups like that.

Re: Salt not as damaging to health as previously thought, says study

#95

Post by goldenkey » Mon, Aug 13, 2018, 12:11 AM UTC

NoPicklez wrote: post #75

JeanMarcS wrote: post #31

During the heat wave in France this summer, messages to old persons were to drink regularly (which sometimes they forget) So a quarter of medical consultations related to elders and heat was for a lack of salt [0]. From Google translate it’s call hyponatremia. So as stated in other comments, moderation, may be, lack, bad idea. I’m actually in Ireland. They seem to have taken the salt part very seriously, as everythin…

After doing endurance exercise 80km+ bike rides each weekend, sodium and other forms of electrolytes are incredibly important. Without them I lose fluids and I get crazy leg cramps. The issue is that salt tastes good, so people load it on their food to the point where it is unhealthy. It's the same with sugar, there is a huge industry bashing sugar at the moment, but sugar is essential for the human body. They are ba…

Salt really only tastes good when you need salt. It's satiation depends on the body's current levels/needs.

Re: Salt not as damaging to health as previously thought, says study

#96

Post by goldenkey » Mon, Aug 13, 2018, 12:14 AM UTC

nonbel wrote: post #83

NoPicklez wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

After doing endurance exercise 80km+ bike rides each weekend, sodium and other forms of electrolytes are incredibly important. Without them I lose fluids and I get crazy leg cramps. The issue is that salt tastes good, so people load it on their food to the point where it is unhealthy. It's the same with sugar, there is a huge industry bashing sugar at the moment, but sugar is essential for the human body. They are ba…

>"sugar is essential for the human body" Sugar is not essential to the diet, the body can make it from fat and protein. Ie, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gluconeogenesis However, afaik, you cannot live without fat or protein in your diet. >"Try exercising without a healthy blood sugar level due to lack of complex sugars." You assume "healthy blood sugar level" must be related to "amount of sugar in diet". Not true, y…

Consuming only fats and proteins stresses the body quite heavily. Carbs are the easiest calorie source to digest, there is almost no digestion required.

Plus one can overload their body's compensatory mechanisms for acid base balance, due to the acidic ketones produced by gluconeogenesis.

Its a terrible idea to do no carbs long term.

Re: Salt not as damaging to health as previously thought, says study

#97

Post by bodas » Mon, Aug 13, 2018, 12:25 AM UTC

dogma1138 wrote: post #53

cies wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AFAIK, butter is still worse then no butter (and more calories from whole plant foods instead). Margarine may or may not be worse than butter (I think it is worse). It is better to avoid/reduce all refined fats (oils), except maybe for a high DHA omega 3 supplement. If you want to eat for health, look into WFPB, they have a lot of science on their side.

High carb or low carb high protein diets which any low fat diet would turn into is a terrible idea in the both short and long term as they are glucose focused you want to avoid high blood sugar and high insulin levels since insulin causes your body to store fat. Fats are not inherently bad for you, doesn’t matter if they are plant based or not.

The problem with this is epidemiological. As people move from traditional high-carb (=low cost) diets to fat and protein rich western-style diets, obesity and diabetes tend to increase.

Re: Salt not as damaging to health as previously thought, says study

#98

Post by kevin_thibedeau » Mon, Aug 13, 2018, 12:26 AM UTC

anfilt wrote: post #79

kevin_thibedeau wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> too much is bad In what way? Your kidneys dump any excess salt your body doesn't need. The long standing 20th century salt alarmism has no basis in reality.

If you were to eat lets say a pound of salt (probably lethal). You probably would have to be rushed to the ER. Your body can only process things so fast and deal with changes so quickly. Obviously, a person would not eat a pound of salt in one sitting. So you body can not dump any excess salt. It can dump excess to a point.

You argument is pointless. Nobody would voluntarily consume that much salt. The same as nobody will drink sea water unless desperate. Once past the point of satiation you would have no desire for more. Hypernatremia will still be a long way off in normal healthy people.

Re: Salt not as damaging to health as previously thought, says study

#99

Post by robmaister » Mon, Aug 13, 2018, 12:33 AM UTC

nicoburns wrote: post #68

macspoofing wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nutrition Science is a huge mess even though it is a core part of human health. As in, it is a total disaster. Here's something depressing to think about: if the Keto people are correct, mainstream nutrition science was a key contributor to American obesity crisis and resulted in countless premature deaths and major suffering over the last few decades. Anyway, recently I wanted to look into whether or not eggs are go…

> mainstream nutrition science was a key contributor to American obesity crisis This seems unlikely given that mainstream nutrition science is the same in most of the western world, but the obesity levels are far more severe in the US. From what I hear from friends who have travelled to the US (from the UK), standard portion sizes can be over twice as over on your side of the pond. And it can be very difficult to tra…

As a single data point, I live in the US and I've lost ~45lbs over a year and a half by aggressively reducing my portion sizes (to the point where the average meal from a restaurant is comfortably two meals for me), significantly reducing my excess sugar and sweetener intake, and making sure I get a few thousand steps in every day (probably like 5-6k on average). I don't follow a particular diet, I try to make my own meals, and I don't sweat it if I want to have a cookie or slice of cake every once in a while, and it's been really working for me.

This was prompted by an annual checkup with my doctor. I was 265lbs (6'0" tall) at 23 and had a number of issues related to my weight, including high cholesterol and an inflamed liver. My last annual checkup, I was down I think 30-35lbs and everything they tested was back in the normal range. So yeah, portion sizes are important.

Re: Salt not as damaging to health as previously thought, says study

#100

Post by Izkata » Mon, Aug 13, 2018, 12:36 AM UTC

barking wrote: post #45

quakenul wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Getting definitive information on nutrition always seems to be a lot harder than it should be in 2018

Then there was the 6 glasses of water a day that became dogma but had no basis.

It was based on a misunderstanding: People need the equivalent of 6 glasses of water a day, but a large chunk of that comes in through food and drink you already have. For most, adding one or two glasses of water a day would put you up at the goal.

That said, I don't recall where the target number came from.