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

81–90 of 165 posts

Re: Salt, We Misjudged You

#81

Post by grannyg00se »

crazygringo wrote: post #41
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…

> 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…

Isn't blood pressure a symptom, or an indication of other processes going on? Why would you want to directly manipulate the measuring tool?

Re: Salt, We Misjudged You

#82

Post by Cushman »

fein wrote: post #54
Cushman wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Good point, and why it's an indispensable seasoning.

Re: Salt, We Misjudged You

#83

Post by jere »

psykotic wrote: post #60
jere wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 a…

>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.

On the last point, of course it's wrong. I never saw Taubes deny CICO as being true. He repeatedly states that, while true, it isn't useful for answering _why_ people get fat.

It's as if I asked why some people are rich and others are poor. And you simply said that the poor people spent more money than they took in. It's true and yet utterly useless if you keep harping on that single point while ignoring inheritance, education, mental illness, drug abuse etc.

You've further convinced me not to recommend GCBC to anyone, since I keep realizing its possible for people to miss the central point of the book.

I'm totally in agreement on Guyenet's stuff, but he agrees with Taubes on CICO being not helpful:

>This is where I agree with Taubes-- 1) the key thing to understand is what is causing the energy imbalance, and 2) the idea that "eat less, move more" is a practical fat loss strategy does not necessarily follow from the first law of thermodynamics. Taking in less energy and expending more does cause fat loss, but the problem is that it's difficult to maintain-- the body opposes changes in its fat stores.

Re: Salt, We Misjudged You

#85

Post by Alex3917 »

muraiki wrote: post #34
3pt14159 wrote: post #12

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…

The other part of it is that if your body is used to a high calorie diet with lots of sugar and fat, vegetables are going to taste bad no matter how good they are. And if you're eating healthfully, then even supermarket vegetables will taste reasonably good.

Re: Salt, We Misjudged You

#87

Post by goostavos »

dbbolton wrote: post #48

Increased blood osmolarity will lead to an increase in blood volume, period. If you add fluid to a closed system, the pressure of that fluid on its container will increase. However, in most cases, excess solutes should be excreted relatively quickly and blood volume will return to normal.

>If you add fluid to a closed system, the pressure of that fluid on its container will increase.

Does the inverse hold up as well (in regards to the human body)? If people have high blood pressure, if the gave a couple of pints of blood each month, would that do anything to lower the pressure?

Re: Salt, We Misjudged You

#88

Post by gregwebs »

There is a good overview of evidence on salt in this series of articles: http://chriskresser.com/shaking-up-the-salt-myth-the-dangers...

Gary Taubes (author of this article) goes over the evidence on salt restriction in more detail in Good Calorires, Bad Calories, but it is missing some recent studies indicating negative outcomes for salt restriction. I believe Taubes is often wrong (as most people are) when proposing his hypotheses. But he is very good at tearing down wrong hyptoheses.

Re: Salt, We Misjudged You

#89

Post by alan-crowe »

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 think that the Cochrane reviews mentioned are these two

http://summaries.cochrane.org/CD009217/advice-to-reduce-the-...

http://summaries.cochrane.org/CD002128/dietary-advice-for-re...

Re: Salt, We Misjudged You

#90

Post by artsrc »

crazygringo wrote: post #41
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…

> 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 studies are not conclusive.

Populations with low sodium intake, and other factors, have no hypertension, and low rates of death and disease from heart disease.

The randomized studies have found lower death and disease from lower sodium. So far the probability that this is just chance is about 10%. So the standard p number is not reached.

The most likely outcome is that a bigger better studies will produce significance.

Post reply on HN