Live data from Hacker News

Salt, We Misjudged You

nytimes.com

61–70 of 165 posts

Re: Salt, We Misjudged You

#61
post #55
post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

So then it sounds like one might say that lower blood pressure isn't necessarily good unless you already have high blood pressure (or are on the cusp of having high blood pressure)?

Re: Salt, We Misjudged You

#62
post #20

All right! Next up: MSG. Even those of my friends who know that the health concerns are bogus have a weird paranoia of MSG. I think it's a general suspicion of any chemical which makes food taste better (which somehow doesn't apply to salt and sugar).

One way to look at MSG (the way I look at it) is that it has been shown to stimulate the appetite. As a result of this, people often eat MSG-infused food more than they should. My wife once said that MSG "makes me think this tastes better than it really does".

So, MSG may or may not be bad by itself, but the highly processed empty calories that it hangs out with, definitely bad. Bet you can't eat just one? I don't take that bet anymore, I lose too often.

Re: Salt, We Misjudged You

#63
post #61
post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

So then it sounds like one might say that lower blood pressure isn't necessarily good unless you already have high blood pressure (or are on the cusp of having high blood pressure)?

As is the case with so many things, there's a range of healthy, and it's possible to be too high and too low.

Having zero blood pressure whatsoever is strongly correlated with being dead.

Re: Salt, We Misjudged You

#65
post #61
post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

So then it sounds like one might say that lower blood pressure isn't necessarily good unless you already have high blood pressure (or are on the cusp of having high blood pressure)?

[deleted]

Re: Salt, We Misjudged You

#66
post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

" ...we are a species who's evolution has made us so that we crave foods that are actually killing us. " " ...it sets up a health amount of skepticism towards the idea that our innate cravings are in fact harmful. " It's modern processed food that's harmful. We evolved to cope with the amount of salt, sugar, carbohydrates etc. that was readily available to our ancestors on a hunter-gatherer diet (we would've reached…

Salt is a very important part of a human's diet and was a major trade item for all of recorded history. Salt has been used as a preservative for meat for as long as I'm aware of. Animals often sit and lick natural salt deposits. There is a common belief that meat and especially fat are bad for you and cause heart disease, which is the particular idea that Fat Head makes fun of. He reduces his carb and sugar intake an…

"If you believe that there is good reason that evolution may be guiding you towards something unhealthy..."

I don't think there's any doubt about this. Compared to evolutionary rates, the typical diet in the west has changed at lightning pace from just a few decades ago, meaning our bodies and taste buds are behind the curve. We need willpower and common sense to have a healthy diet, rather than raw survival instincts.

Unfortunately what's driving change in our diet is the demand for companies to serve food with high profit margins and low cost raw materials (e.g. high-fructose corn syrup). Capitalism is great for providing us with cheaper clothes and ever-cheaper computing power, but providing cheaper food means providing crappier food. There's no Moore's Law for food.

I think it was here on HN I read about studies done in remote communities (possibly some remote whaling community) that had recently become westerised, and the diet quickly shifted to one more similar to a typical American diet. Within 5-10 years (or a relatively short time frame, can't remember exactly) obesity and type-II diabetes rates exploded.

Another interesting story was reports from surgeons who operated on injured Afghan fighters from the current conflict. Normally when operating on westerners, you expect a certain amount of yellowish fatty tissue surrounding the major internal organs. This wasn't present on Afghan locals, which surprised the surgeons who were so used to seeing it on western patients and pretty much assumed it was normal up till that point. The difference was down to diet.

Re: Salt, We Misjudged You

#67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Primal Blueprint by Mark Sisson is also great and changed my life. Reading 'Good Calories Bad Calories' now from Gary Taubes (the author of the op) and it is awesome too.

Thanks for the references. Are they solid science? all I have personally come across about the paleo diet is unconvincing and does not stand up to scrutiny. "I want to believe" would be my stance.

Stephen Guyenet's my favorite writer in this area, by that criterion. http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/

On Good Calories, Bad Calories, I was convinced by the critique of the mainstream but not by his alternative proposal.

Re: Salt, We Misjudged You

#68
TBH my general health has improved after I stopped giving a crap about rules and regulations and just eat when I need to not when I want to. Determining between want and need is the hard bit.

Re: Salt, We Misjudged You

#69
post #34

Sort of an aside here, but salt and MSG should be used to increase the tastiness of otherwise bland foods, like asparagus, so that what you eat is more in line with what your body needs, rather than what is the most tasty in our post-industrial world. That is how I use salt: reduce starches and refined grains, and increase vegetables, lentils, and the like. Sure I still have some bread and a normal amount of meat (at…

We might also want to think about _why_ some foods taste bland. I feel that I'd never really tasted what a tomato tastes like until I had some at a monastery in Greece. I was surprised to see tomatoes sitting out at dinner, seemingly to be eaten as-is along with the meal. I bit into one and it had a flavor unlike any tomato I've ever had in the USA. I could finally understand that a tomato is a fruit! It was nicely s…

I started eating vegetables without salt many years ago, and once I got used to it, they don't taste bland to me at all. Even the regular grocery store ones. Of course, if you get homegrown organic ones, they are way better - but even the grocery store ones still have a lot of taste, unless your taste is ruined by years of training it that vegetables should taste like salt. I actually hate when more than a trace of salt is added to the vegetable salad - then only thing I can taste is the salt, it overwhelms everything else.

Re: Salt, We Misjudged You

#70
post #8

As someone who has lost around 40 pounds of fat switching to the high fat paleo diet I'm not at all surprised that the current state of the conventional wisdom on food is wrong in any number of ways. It is funny that we really have no idea what we should be eating naturally at all. Grains were making me sick and I didn't notice for years. It wasn't until I read a book listing side effects of grain consumption that I…

Agreed, nutritional "science" and conventional wisdom has become a joke.

I just wish we could see more directly a sense of how little we know about good nutrition.

My favorite example is Vitamin B12, mostly because I learned the story when I reduced my meat consumption to about once a month. So there's this family of massive molecules containing the metal cobalt which we can't make on our own because we're not adapted to eat cobalt, and they're all called "Vitamin B12". It helps in the last step of making the protein building-block called methionine; if you get malnourished in this way your body just basically fills up with "almost finished" methionine which is useless and might even be poisonous. There can also be a slight risk of nerve damage although as I understand it we don't actually understand why the hell that would be.

The biggest cause of malnutrition in this sense is simply being old -- you can't absorb Vitamin B12 so well in the first place because it is huge and weird, and old people have even more trouble either because their gut is slowly dying or because they're infected with H. pylori, which is a safe bacteria more than 80% of the time and might even be important for a well-functioning stomach, but might sometimes cause a chronic tummy-bug.

Okay, so that's the problem, but what do we know about how much of the B12s we need and get? We know very little. The US Recommended Daily Allowance of B12s is 2.4 μg, but the US Daily Value for B12 is 6.0 μg. How much do you get in your food? You get almost none from vegetables, and vegans are basically all ipso facto suffering from B12 deficiency unless they take supplements or eat enriched cereal -- but most of them are quite healthy and see no problems from it. As for vegetarians like (almost-) me, the exact range for milk and eggs to get to this limit is imprecise because the limit itself varies by a factor of 3, so you might need to eat three eggs per day or else ten; so you might need to drink two cups of milk per day or else five, to live up to those numbers. So in theory there are lots of vegetarians also who come in at half or one-third their daily requirement, and never notice anything. Meanwhile there are people over 60 who eat plenty of meat but are starting to feel the effects anyway.

We actually don't even know how well you absorb it. A USDA researcher named Lindsay Allen did a 2011 study where she marked Vitamin B12 in eggs so that she could detect it, and then fed those eggs to 10 people. She found that the body absorbed 50% of a 1.5 μg dosage but only 20% of a 2.6 μg dosage. Let me repeat that. She found that, in absolute value terms, eating more B12 led to less of it being absorbed, 0.75 μg versus 0.5 μg. It's probably not statistically significant with 10 people, but still. We don't even know that eating more leads to you absorbing more of it. (I also wonder whether RDAs are "amount absorbed" while DVs are "amount eaten", as this is pretty much never reported, but I will assume that they aren't crazy and that it's always "amount eaten.")

I wouldn't use the scare-quotes around "science" when talking about nutrition science, as I think there is potential for real research here and I think people do indeed do it -- but it's a lot of work before we have a firm understanding, and most of that work hasn't been done yet, and yet you hear these confident conclusions. I would just like to hear people publish standards in the form, "you might need this much, or that much, we don't really know."

The engineer in me craves error bars. Where are the error bars?

Post reply on HN