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

Adding iodine to salt played a role in cognitive improvements: research (2013)

discovermagazine.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 180 posts

Re: Adding iodine to salt played a role in cognitive improvements: research (2013)

#171

Post by hansvm »

sfn42 wrote: post #163
hansvm wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Flaky salt is easy to make. You can adjust the texture as desired. I usually start with a bucket of sea water, but iodized salt works too.

My SO bought a bag of "natural sea salt" once. It smelled like rotten ocean which should have been enough of a warning but I used it in a dish anyway and that food went to waste. Tasted horrible.

I wouldn't buy from there again! I'm not sure what they did wrong (maybe they cheated by adding something to normal salt that later rotted?), but that's definitely not how it turns out at home. In most dishes you can't tell the difference between sea salt and table salt (assuming you've formed the same texture in both), and I use the ocean just because it's convenient.

Re: Adding iodine to salt played a role in cognitive improvements: research (2013)

#172

Post by kazinator »

amelius wrote: post #161
jrootabega wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At best, it doesn't say anything useful. You can say the same thing about carbon, nitrogen, hydrogen, etc. At worst, it implies that, like essential amino acids, it CAN be synthesized by some living organism.

> At worst, it implies that, like essential amino acids, it CAN be synthesized by some living organism. It does not imply that.

In terms of a logical implication P -> Q, certainly not.

Rhetorically, it does have that interpretation.

When some unconditional proposition is presented together with some red herring conditions, a less informed reader may take the interpretation that the conditions are relevant; i.e. that it is falsified when the stated conditions do not hold. Because, why would the presenting expert include irrelevant conditions?

"I've noticed that Smith doesn't beat his wife in public."

That doesn't logically imply Smith beats his wife, but he does have to be beating his wife for the "in public" condition to be relevant. To assume that the condition is relevant is to assume that Smith does beat his wife. If the condition is not relevant, why is it there?

I'd like to be able to assume that all conditions given in serious writing about STEM subjects are relevant, so I don't have to waste my time suspecting they are not.

Re: Adding iodine to salt played a role in cognitive improvements: research (2013)

#173

Post by kazinator »

fargle wrote: post #168
jrootabega wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At best, it doesn't say anything useful. You can say the same thing about carbon, nitrogen, hydrogen, etc. At worst, it implies that, like essential amino acids, it CAN be synthesized by some living organism.

it does say something useful. it points out that iodine can't be synthesized in our bodies. the fact it doesn't add more, possibly irrelevant, information does not diminish its usefulness. it does not imply anything about things that aren't being discussed. it's abnormal to read everything with a qualification like "in our bodies" as a implication of some other hidden meaning. as technical people we probably enjoy de…

> it's abnormal to read everything with a qualification like "in our bodies" as a implication of some other hidden meaning.

It is absolutely normal to read every condition given in some technical subject matter as being relevant, and decent writing satisfies this.

It takes extraordinary effort to maintain a constant suspicion that every stated condition might be irrelevant to the proposition to which it is attached.

Re: Adding iodine to salt played a role in cognitive improvements: research (2013)

#174

Post by sfn42 »

hansvm wrote: post #171
sfn42 wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My SO bought a bag of "natural sea salt" once. It smelled like rotten ocean which should have been enough of a warning but I used it in a dish anyway and that food went to waste. Tasted horrible.

I wouldn't buy from there again! I'm not sure what they did wrong (maybe they cheated by adding something to normal salt that later rotted?), but that's definitely not how it turns out at home. In most dishes you can't tell the difference between sea salt and table salt (assuming you've formed the same texture in both), and I use the ocean just because it's convenient.

I just assumed it was due to the same stuff that makes the ocean smell like that in certain places/seasons. Rotting organic matter. Maybe it was unfiltered or something like that.

Maybe it was just s bad batch. Anyway i use regular Maldon sea salt, it's perfect. It's like $2-3 or so for a pack that lasts for months. No need to fix what isn't broken.

My SO just has a habit of buying pointless crap some times.

Re: Adding iodine to salt played a role in cognitive improvements: research (2013)

#175

Post by hansvm »

sfn42 wrote: post #174
hansvm wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wouldn't buy from there again! I'm not sure what they did wrong (maybe they cheated by adding something to normal salt that later rotted?), but that's definitely not how it turns out at home. In most dishes you can't tell the difference between sea salt and table salt (assuming you've formed the same texture in both), and I use the ocean just because it's convenient.

I just assumed it was due to the same stuff that makes the ocean smell like that in certain places/seasons. Rotting organic matter. Maybe it was unfiltered or something like that. Maybe it was just s bad batch. Anyway i use regular Maldon sea salt, it's perfect. It's like $2-3 or so for a pack that lasts for months. No need to fix what isn't broken. My SO just has a habit of buying pointless crap some times.

> maybe unfiltered

That seems plausible. I definitely filter mine. You need at least a coarse filter for sand and whatnot, and various biofilms and whatnot are visibly problematic for culinary salt as you apply heat. I'm sure they're food-safe if you eat them fast enough that they don't rot, but a finer filter to get rid of that crap is prudent.

> no need to fix what isn't broken

Agreed. For most applications I portion out from a giant bag of salt from Costco or similar. The flaky sea salt is just a fun side-activity/hobby combined with a psychological aversion to paying market rates for flaky salt.

> buying pointless crap

Aw :(

Re: Adding iodine to salt played a role in cognitive improvements: research (2013)

#176

Post by fargle »

kazinator wrote: post #173
fargle wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

it does say something useful. it points out that iodine can't be synthesized in our bodies. the fact it doesn't add more, possibly irrelevant, information does not diminish its usefulness. it does not imply anything about things that aren't being discussed. it's abnormal to read everything with a qualification like "in our bodies" as a implication of some other hidden meaning. as technical people we probably enjoy de…

> it's abnormal to read everything with a qualification like "in our bodies" as a implication of some other hidden meaning. It is absolutely normal to read every condition given in some technical subject matter as being relevant , and decent writing satisfies this. It takes extraordinary effort to maintain a constant suspicion that every stated condition might be irrelevant to the proposition to which it is attached.

that doesn't mean, as the GP comment said and i'm objecting to, that it implies anything about when the condition is false.

this is a magazine article, not a proof. so i'm certain the author felt it was relevant to say it that way because the whole article is about what happens in the body, whether or not it was logically relevant to the condition.

the fact that he made a narrower than necessary true statement does not imply he meant anything beyond that either, even if you read it pedantically. it takes extraordinary effort to maintain a constant suspicion that every unstated condition might be relevant too.

Re: Adding iodine to salt played a role in cognitive improvements: research (2013)

#177

Post by kazinator »

fargle wrote: post #176
kazinator wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it's abnormal to read everything with a qualification like "in our bodies" as a implication of some other hidden meaning. It is absolutely normal to read every condition given in some technical subject matter as being relevant , and decent writing satisfies this. It takes extraordinary effort to maintain a constant suspicion that every stated condition might be irrelevant to the proposition to which it is attached.

that doesn't mean, as the GP comment said and i'm objecting to, that it implies anything about when the condition is false. this is a magazine article, not a proof. so i'm certain the author felt it was relevant to say it that way because the whole article is about what happens in the body, whether or not it was logically relevant to the condition. the fact that he made a narrower than necessary true statement does n…

Using what definition of "implies"? From formal logic, or the rhetorical implies?

Re: Adding iodine to salt played a role in cognitive improvements: research (2013)

#178

Post by fargle »

kazinator wrote: post #177
fargle wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

that doesn't mean, as the GP comment said and i'm objecting to, that it implies anything about when the condition is false. this is a magazine article, not a proof. so i'm certain the author felt it was relevant to say it that way because the whole article is about what happens in the body, whether or not it was logically relevant to the condition. the fact that he made a narrower than necessary true statement does n…

Using what definition of "implies"? From formal logic, or the rhetorical implies?

both. either.

Re: Adding iodine to salt played a role in cognitive improvements: research (2013)

#179

Post by _yb2s »

ufo wrote: post #155
_yb2s wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Adding iodine can't help Iodine can still push forward the pathways that synthesize thyroid hormones and increase levels, even in many cases where the thyroid is damaged, e.g. hashimotos. In fact, most hormones can have their synthesis pushed by megadosing on their chemical precursors- however that can be unsafe of course. Yes, it can be harmful, and depends on context- but you'll find a ton of info online about pe…

> On the other side, doctors such as X, Y, Z, have claimed success prescribing high doses of iodine for Hashimoto’s and for breast and thyroid cancers. The blog post above didn't take long to go off the rails. Already in the introduction, the only "experts" in favor of high iodine are a bunch of quacks saying it can cure cancer. I have no sympathy for these fellows who are making a quick buck on the backs of vulnerab…

You are thinking in terms of authority instead of as a scientist synthesizing diverse evidence and considering possible biological mechanisms.

They are not vouching for those cited three doctors here, but considering their claims as weak evidence within a broader context.

If you’re going to look just at authority, consider that the authors of that blog are well respected cancer researchers who recently discovered a promising new cancer treatment in active clinical trials. I’m an academic in a related field, have met them personally, and can vouch for the fact that they are innovative out of the box thinkers with a lot of good ideas.

It is important to distinguish between quackery and open minded scientific thinking. This is how the “sausage” of new medical discoveries are made: by creative people thinking “off the rails.”

Again, I am not in any way advocating for high dose iodine to anyone- and I would not do it myself. Only that it can increase thyroid hormone levels through a well understood mechanism, and some people have treated their hypothyroidism this way.

Re: Adding iodine to salt played a role in cognitive improvements: research (2013)

#180

Post by amelius »

kazinator wrote: post #172
amelius wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> At worst, it implies that, like essential amino acids, it CAN be synthesized by some living organism. It does not imply that.

In terms of a logical implication P -> Q, certainly not. Rhetorically, it does have that interpretation. When some unconditional proposition is presented together with some red herring conditions, a less informed reader may take the interpretation that the conditions are relevant; i.e. that it is falsified when the stated conditions do not hold. Because, why would the presenting expert include irrelevant conditions?…

But it __is__ relevant to the article that iodine cannot be synthesized by the human body ...
Post reply on HN