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

Salt, We Misjudged You

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 165 posts

Re: Salt, We Misjudged You

#51

Post by nessus42 »

arn wrote: post #45
crazygringo wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> He points out that the DASH study didn't conclude anything about death or cardiovascular disease. Yes, that's true. So sure, there's a chance that despite blood pressure reductions a low salt diet could cause problems. But it's not the obvious conclusion. That's the whole point, you say it yourself. The idea that "salt is bad" has just as shaky underpinnings as "lower blood pressure is good". The only thing we care…

> The idea that "salt is bad" has just as shaky underpinnings as "lower blood pressure is good". Wait, "lower blood pressure is good" has shaky underpinnings? Is there a debate on that? I don't think there's a debate that high blood pressure results in worse (death/disease) outcomes.

Well, my mother had a stroke due to low blood pressure, so it's certainly not the case that lower is always better.

Re: Salt, We Misjudged You

#52

Post by j_baker »

arn wrote: post #45
crazygringo wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> He points out that the DASH study didn't conclude anything about death or cardiovascular disease. Yes, that's true. So sure, there's a chance that despite blood pressure reductions a low salt diet could cause problems. But it's not the obvious conclusion. That's the whole point, you say it yourself. The idea that "salt is bad" has just as shaky underpinnings as "lower blood pressure is good". The only thing we care…

> The idea that "salt is bad" has just as shaky underpinnings as "lower blood pressure is good". Wait, "lower blood pressure is good" has shaky underpinnings? Is there a debate on that? I don't think there's a debate that high blood pressure results in worse (death/disease) outcomes.

Indeed. But is lower blood pressure good in a person who doesn't have high blood pressure? This is a serious question too. :-)

Re: Salt, We Misjudged You

#53

Post by refurb »

arn wrote: post #45
crazygringo wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> He points out that the DASH study didn't conclude anything about death or cardiovascular disease. Yes, that's true. So sure, there's a chance that despite blood pressure reductions a low salt diet could cause problems. But it's not the obvious conclusion. That's the whole point, you say it yourself. The idea that "salt is bad" has just as shaky underpinnings as "lower blood pressure is good". The only thing we care…

> The idea that "salt is bad" has just as shaky underpinnings as "lower blood pressure is good". Wait, "lower blood pressure is good" has shaky underpinnings? Is there a debate on that? I don't think there's a debate that high blood pressure results in worse (death/disease) outcomes.

It all depends. What was the starting blood pressure? How much was it reduced?

From what I've read, for those with sodium-sensitive hypertension, removing salt from the diet can be a good thing.

For everyone else, the lowering of blood pressure if pretty modest. A few mmHg?

So to answer your question, reducing your average BP from 125/85 to 120/80 doesn't have a lot of evidence of benefit.

Lowering your blood pressure from 140/100 to 120/80, has a lot of evidence for a reduction in morbidity and mortality.

Re: Salt, We Misjudged You

#54

Post by fein »

Cushman wrote: post #28
fein wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think part of the problem with MSG is the name. It's hard to convince the general public that something with the name "Monosodium Glutamate" is a naturally occurring substance, let alone one of the more abundant naturally occurring amino acids. Hell, if we called table salt "Sodium Chloride" all the time, people would probably have a bit of a changed perspective. None the less, MSG is delicious!

I think that's the idea behind the "All Natural AC'CENT® Flavor Enhancer" branding-- they don't say "monosodium glutamate" anywhere on the package except the ingredients. I just call it supersalt . Because it's like salt, but not salty!

Technically, MSG is supposed to be the "extra" taste area they didn't know about/ teach in school. So although it seems salty, it's actually the savory flavor. MSG is found in just about every single food you eat that has that "savory" flavor.

Re: Salt, We Misjudged You

#55

Post by arn »

j_baker wrote: post #52
arn wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The idea that "salt is bad" has just as shaky underpinnings as "lower blood pressure is good". Wait, "lower blood pressure is good" has shaky underpinnings? Is there a debate on that? I don't think there's a debate that high blood pressure results in worse (death/disease) outcomes.

Indeed. But is lower blood pressure good in a person who doesn't have high blood pressure? This is a serious question too. :-)

If you have normal* blood pressure, you don't have to lower it anymore.

In fact, there's a J shaped curve for Blood pressure. Too high or too low, you're at increased risk of dying.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J_curve#Medicine

* definition of normal may change over time.

Re: Salt, We Misjudged You

#56

Post by Symmetry »

arn wrote: post #25

So, I always cringe a little when I read medical conclusions in the mainstream media. And I'll be upfront. I'm probably biased on the side of medicine on this one. I'm a former nephrologist. The one study this person mentions by name (and dismisses) is the DASH-Sodium Study. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DASH_diet#Study_Results "Like the previous study, it was based on a large sample (412 participants) and was a multi…

I believe the contention is that studies like DASH show that changes in sodium consumption, rather than levels of sodium consumption, can effect blood pressure. That is, if you go onto a low sodium diet your blood pressure will fall, but then rise again to its previous level as your body adjusts.

Re: Salt, We Misjudged You

#57

Post by riffraff »

NoPiece wrote: post #24
riffraff wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

just FYI, in the pre-industrial world of my home town you can still go picking up wild asparagus[1] which are _far_ from bland, I have no idea if those exist in any form where you live but I strongly advice you to try them out if you can. [1] stuff like this http://3.bp.blogspot.com/__88ZCQ5jRIs/Sju4DrHvsZI/AAAAAAAAg1...

That looks amazing, but wouldn't you season it? A little olive oil and salt then throw it on the grill for a minute?

well, I would, but then again I seldom put health before taste I'm afraid.

(though in this case, seasoning them with lemon+olive oil after boiling _is_ the most traditional recipe and reasonably good for your body I think)

Re: Salt, We Misjudged You

#58

Post by jere »

juliano_q wrote: post #40
jere wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I loved GCBC, but unfortunately Taubes goes a little bit too far near the end in condemning carbohydrates. It's really hard to recommend the book because of that overreaching. http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2011/08/carbohydrate-h...

There is a long debate over this post. I personally found the best answer to the matter here: http://paleohacks.com/questions/49970/how-do-we-reconcile-st... Taubes also responded to Guyenet: http://garytaubes.com/2011/11/catching-up-on-lost-time-%E2%8...

It's a long running debate in general and I think I followed the whole damn thing (it officially started at the Ancestral Health Symposium 2011):

http://youtu.be/4hzoFgwFeMQ

I find Guyenet's arguments much better researched and more convincing. Taubes usually admits he doesn't have time to keep up with the research lately.

Re: Salt, We Misjudged You

#59

Post by jere »

psykotic wrote: post #39
jere wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I loved GCBC, but unfortunately Taubes goes a little bit too far near the end in condemning carbohydrates. It's really hard to recommend the book because of that overreaching. http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2011/08/carbohydrate-h...

A little too far is an understatement. I read GCBC when it came out and found its arguments compelling at the time. After learning more, I've reversed my opinion almost completely. James Krieger's critique of the core chapter of GCBC is very worthwhile reading: http://weightology.net/?p=265 . His blog also has other articles addressing the core Atkins-Taubes thesis of the link between insulin, carbs and obesity. Alan…

I could be wrong, but I don't think we disagree.

However, I think most of the book is still worth reading, especially the history behind the demonitization of fat and the uselessness of "calories in, calories out." Taubes is at his best as a science historian and, obviously, not a scientist.

Re: Salt, We Misjudged You

#60

Post by psykotic »

jere wrote: post #59
psykotic wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A little too far is an understatement. I read GCBC when it came out and found its arguments compelling at the time. After learning more, I've reversed my opinion almost completely. James Krieger's critique of the core chapter of GCBC is very worthwhile reading: http://weightology.net/?p=265 . His blog also has other articles addressing the core Atkins-Taubes thesis of the link between insulin, carbs and obesity. Alan…

I could be wrong, but I don't think we disagree. However, I think most of the book is still worth reading, especially the history behind the demonitization of fat and the uselessness of "calories in, calories out." Taubes is at his best as a science historian and, obviously, not a scientist.

> the uselessness of "calories in, calories out."

There's nothing useless about energy balance. It can be misinterpreted and misapplied, but Taubes throws the baby out with the bathwater and pretends it doesn't apply at all. For example, classical low-carber mythology is that on a low-carb diet you can eat virtually unlimited calories (as usually defined) and maintain weight, if perhaps not lose weight outright. As an example, there's an old post on Michael Eades's blog where he talks of a small woman allegedly eating 5000 calories and maintaining her weight. As explained in James Krieger's article, people's reports of their own calorie intake for studies have consistently been found to be way off the mark, to the point of being useless. When you actually measure what is being eaten under clinical conditions, the result is in line with the conventional theory of energy balance.

The main benefit of low-carb diets for weight loss is that they spontaneously reduce calorie intake by cutting out whole groups of foods (by looking at studies it's been shown that any diet that restricts food choices like this will tend to induce weight loss but is usually unsustainable), and especially lots of highly palatable foods (to use Guyenet's terminology). But most longer-term comparative studies of diets that look at the performance past the 12-month mark show that low-carb diets don't fare any better on average than other standard weight-loss diets. The one exception is a study the low-carbers like to hold up as a vindication of their views; Lyle McDonald addresses that one here: http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/research-review/comparison-....

Two other pertinent articles by McDonald are http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/is-a-calorie-a-cal... and http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/the-energy-balance....

Post reply on HN