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

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

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 231 posts

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

#211

Post by rhapsodic »

goldenkey wrote: post #207
rhapsodic wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Salt really only tastes good when you need salt. It's satiation depends on the body's current levels/needs. So people who scarf down potato chips by the bag are low on salt?

They are eating more than just salt..the fat and carbohydrates in the chips. But yes, people will eat saltier foods more often if they are lacking in salt. There is literally a craving. "A number of hormonal, central nervous, and behavioral systems are engaged when an animal is truly deficient in sodium, which motivates it to search for sodium salts, avidly consume them based on their salt taste, and thereby restore…

>They are eating more than just salt..the fat and carbohydrates in the chips. But yes, people will eat saltier foods more often if they are lacking in salt. There is literally a craving.

Well, yeah, I won't argue with that. I've experienced it myself during intense hangovers. But how do you get from that to "Salt really only tastes good when you need salt"? I love the taste of salt. I would never eat french fries that had no salt on them. Nor would I consider making a margarita without rimming the glass with salt.

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

#212

Post by rapsey »

ivraatiems wrote: post #203
rapsey wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are all cargo cult sciences. Fields dominated by theories entirely unproven because they are practically unprovable. Those theories remain even after they are often demonstratably wrong. Look up replication crisis.

I don't buy your premise, but supposing I did, what alternative do you propose? The purpose of social science is to understand human society. Do you have some concept of a way to do that which you feel would be more clearly accurate or scientific than what's currently done? Bear in mind that the 'hard' sciences use theories which are partially or wholly incorrect, too; we still use Newtonian physics in many cases bec…

> what alternative do you propose?

That they don't call themselves science. Maybe call themselves studies and that they put more effort into what they call experiments.

> we still use Newtonian physics in many cases because they're easier to use as a model, even if they don't capture everything.

This is frankly a terrible example. Because it does not tell the whole story does not mean it is incorrect. There is no unifying theory of sociology either.

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

#213

Post by j88439h84 »

rapsey wrote: post #212
ivraatiems wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't buy your premise, but supposing I did, what alternative do you propose? The purpose of social science is to understand human society. Do you have some concept of a way to do that which you feel would be more clearly accurate or scientific than what's currently done? Bear in mind that the 'hard' sciences use theories which are partially or wholly incorrect, too; we still use Newtonian physics in many cases bec…

> what alternative do you propose? That they don't call themselves science. Maybe call themselves studies and that they put more effort into what they call experiments. > we still use Newtonian physics in many cases because they're easier to use as a model, even if they don't capture everything. This is frankly a terrible example. Because it does not tell the whole story does not mean it is incorrect. There is no uni…

I believe there are a wide variety of methods used in social science. Are you specifically referring to small experiments conducted with undergrads in a classroom? Or do you have other targets in mind?

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

#214

Post by rapsey »

j88439h84 wrote: post #213
rapsey wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> what alternative do you propose? That they don't call themselves science. Maybe call themselves studies and that they put more effort into what they call experiments. > we still use Newtonian physics in many cases because they're easier to use as a model, even if they don't capture everything. This is frankly a terrible example. Because it does not tell the whole story does not mean it is incorrect. There is no uni…

I believe there are a wide variety of methods used in social science. Are you specifically referring to small experiments conducted with undergrads in a classroom? Or do you have other targets in mind?

> Are you specifically referring to small experiments conducted with undergrads in a classroom?

No I'm talking about the entire field of social science being dominated by complete nonsense.

See the following documentary:

https://imgur.com/gallery/7EPPT

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

#215

Post by 3x »

crankylinuxuser wrote: post #188
3x wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Eating fresh vegetables and fruits all day is glorious, not miserable. Foods like legumes, seitan, tempeh, tofu, nuts, and mushrooms are all excellent sources of protein and can even be made to taste very similar to meat. Since I stopped eating meat there are a few tastes that I'll miss like bluefin tuna, soft-shell crabs, etc. but overall it's not difficult.

I know what anthropology has said about who we homo sapiens have smaller jaws and larger craniums - we went from omnivores to omnivores who cooked meat. Higher calorie density and better nutrient profile. So our muscles for tearing through tough meat got smaller, so we could have more brain. What this WFPB appears to be is a religion in dietary form, complete with diatribes of papers written by them. And it ignores w…

Yeah, eating plants is just so crazy, like a religion! Do you have any pets? How would you feel if I chainsawed a dog's head off right in front of you? You wouldn't start throwing out "moral epithets" about how I shouldn't be doing that, would you?

> Higher calorie density and better nutrient profile

Higher and better than what? I am a high level athlete and have no trouble meeting my nutritional requirements.

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

#216

Post by goldenkey »

rhapsodic wrote: post #211
goldenkey wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are eating more than just salt..the fat and carbohydrates in the chips. But yes, people will eat saltier foods more often if they are lacking in salt. There is literally a craving. "A number of hormonal, central nervous, and behavioral systems are engaged when an animal is truly deficient in sodium, which motivates it to search for sodium salts, avidly consume them based on their salt taste, and thereby restore…

>They are eating more than just salt..the fat and carbohydrates in the chips. But yes, people will eat saltier foods more often if they are lacking in salt. There is literally a craving. Well, yeah, I won't argue with that. I've experienced it myself during intense hangovers. But how do you get from that to "Salt really only tastes good when you need salt"? I love the taste of salt. I would never eat french fries tha…

What I meant is that cravings for sugar and salt modulate taste covariantly. Which you seem to get. None the less, salt still has am enjoyable taste inherently, before being amplified/minified.

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

#217

Post by rhapsodic »

goldenkey wrote: post #216
rhapsodic wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>They are eating more than just salt..the fat and carbohydrates in the chips. But yes, people will eat saltier foods more often if they are lacking in salt. There is literally a craving. Well, yeah, I won't argue with that. I've experienced it myself during intense hangovers. But how do you get from that to "Salt really only tastes good when you need salt"? I love the taste of salt. I would never eat french fries tha…

What I meant is that cravings for sugar and salt modulate taste covariantly. Which you seem to get. None the less, salt still has am enjoyable taste inherently, before being amplified/minified.

> What I meant is that cravings for sugar and salt modulate taste covariantly. Which you seem to get.

Uh, yeah, I think a five year old would get that. Things that one craves taste quite good when they finally hit one's taste buds.

But this:

> Salt really only tastes good when you need salt.

Logically implies that when a person does not need salt, salt does not taste good to that person.

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

#218

Post by goldenkey »

rhapsodic wrote: post #217
goldenkey wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What I meant is that cravings for sugar and salt modulate taste covariantly. Which you seem to get. None the less, salt still has am enjoyable taste inherently, before being amplified/minified.

> What I meant is that cravings for sugar and salt modulate taste covariantly. Which you seem to get. Uh, yeah, I think a five year old would get that. Things that one craves taste quite good when they finally hit one's taste buds. But this: > Salt really only tastes good when you need salt. Logically implies that when a person does not need salt, salt does not taste good to that person.

If a person has high sodium levels, they shouldn't feel attracted to salt. Some people don't listen to their bodies..

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

#219

Post by DougMerritt »

DougMerritt wrote: post #209
mercer wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you elaborate on the 'pile of mud' fundamentals of economics? I've always been inclined to agree, but then I consider my biases in this regard, but also my own field, psychology, and pause. If you subdivide 'science' into various fields, psychology is definitely on much shakier grounds than has often ben assumed. But if you subdivide 'psychology', the picture isn't as clear. I'd say marketing and the broader fiel…

People are very prejudiced against economics because economists don't predict well and have contradictory policy recommendations, but the basis of economics is quite solid. (My favorite illustration: if there were no underlying laws to economics, then dictators would just issue edicts about currency and markets which would then just plain work rather than causing havoc -- and yet dictators very much suffer side effec…

Really, I got downvoted for something where every word was inarguably true in the sense of objective fact not opinion, and informative about half a dozen subjects?

This place is as bad as reddit and slashdot. I haven't returned here very often over the years; this kind of experience makes one feel unwelcome.

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

#220

Post by rhapsodic »

goldenkey wrote: post #218
rhapsodic wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What I meant is that cravings for sugar and salt modulate taste covariantly. Which you seem to get. Uh, yeah, I think a five year old would get that. Things that one craves taste quite good when they finally hit one's taste buds. But this: > Salt really only tastes good when you need salt. Logically implies that when a person does not need salt, salt does not taste good to that person.

If a person has high sodium levels, they shouldn't feel attracted to salt. Some people don't listen to their bodies..

>If a person has high sodium levels, they shouldn't feel attracted to salt. Some people don't listen to their bodies.

Do you have a reference that supports any of this? It runs counter to all of my observations.

Post reply on HN