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

Low-Salt Diets May Pose Health Risks, Study Finds

online.wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 48 posts

Re: Low-Salt Diets May Pose Health Risks, Study Finds

#31

Post by learc83 »

ekianjo wrote: post #19
learc83 wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's been some evidence that sugar is actually worse for you that we used to think. It makes a bit of sense really. Fat and salt has always been part of the human diet, but large quantities of refined sugar are very recent.

> It makes a bit of sense really. Fat and salt has always been part of the human diet, but large quantities of refined sugar are very recent. That kind of reasoning is very much flawed. Why would the diet of x years ago be relevant versus having a better diet nowadays ? For all we know, our ancestors were eating berries and much less meat than we do, yet we seem to live longer those days and yet we ingest substances…

> For all we know, our ancestors were eating berries and much less meat than we do

That's not very likely and there are plenty of studies that back me up here [1]. For a simple explanation as to why that's not likely look at the calorie counts for berries [2]. You'd have to eat about 10 pounds (~4.5 kg) of blackberries a day to get 2000 calories. There are other more calorie dense non-animal foods like nuts, but most likely around 65% of a hunter gatherer's calories came from meat [1]. This is much more than the amount of protein consumed by the average American today, who gets less than 20% of his or her calories from meat [3].

>yet we seem to live longer those days

Most of the improvement in average lifespan is a result of the drastic decline in infant mortality rate. Hunter gatherers regularly lived into their 70s [4] and when you account for the decline in infant mortality the difference isn't as great as most people imagine. The combination of reduced infant mortality, medical care, and relative safety of civilization are what accounts for our increased lifespan. It's very likely (almost certain given the obesity numbers) that our modern diet is driving the numbers down below what they should be given our other advances.

> That's why we run clinical studies. To find out answers.

Yes it is, and those studies are showing that too much sugar (and most of western civilization eats too much sugar) leads to metabolic syndrome which leads to heart attacks. The debate is on whether sugar does this because it directly causes insulin resistance, or if it is just very calorie dense and thus eating too much simply causes weight gain, or if it reduces satiety and actually causes you to eat more.

I'm not saying eating like a hunter gatherer is necessary for your health, and sure we need to do research--I'm not sure why you think I implied that we didn't. However, it seems logical (again the research we have done backs me up here) that our bodies may not be adapted to handle something we've never eaten in anywhere near the quantities we eat now--specifically the fructose in sugar.

[1] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11965522

[2] http://calorielab.com/foods/berries/66

[3] http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/87/5/1554S.full

[4] http://www.anth.ucsb.edu/faculty/gurven/papers/GurvenKaplan2...

Re: Low-Salt Diets May Pose Health Risks, Study Finds

#32

Post by jandrewrogers »

Anecdotally, I have been a massive consumer of salt for my entire life. I consume almost no sugar; I have no attraction to eating food that is sweet and therefore do not eat it. Insulin resistance, and its myriad side effects, are not a major risk factor for me.

I would argue that my risk factors are probably driven by factors associated with salty food that have nothing to do with sodium consumption per se. My blood pressure (and blood sugar) is essentially perfect after decades of absurd sodium consumption. However, as an example, a lot of salty food is deep fried and so there are other relevant consumption biases. Salt and sugar are not uniformly distributed throughout our food. My current (Pacific Northwest) diet of lean protein and fatty fish plus fresh vegetables has not exactly been detrimental as far as I can tell, even though it is loaded with salt.

Re: Low-Salt Diets May Pose Health Risks, Study Finds

#35

Post by learc83 »

ekianjo wrote: post #24
quattrofan wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Possibly but two things to consider: - big factor in longer life spans are the advances in medicine last 150 years - our increase in meat consumption and cooked meat goes ways back and likely tied to our (threefold) increase in brain size

We have been eating meat for a long time, but the quantity of meat eaten since the second half of the 20th century is unprecedented. We are eating way more meat than before, that's for sure.

>he quantity of meat eaten since the second half of the 20th century is unprecedented.

That's not true at all. We're eating more meat than we did 100 years ago sure. But looking back significantly further than that, it's estimated that hunter gatherers got about 65% of their calories from animals, compared to much less than 20% we get today.

See my reply above for references.

Re: Low-Salt Diets May Pose Health Risks, Study Finds

#36

Post by ekianjo »

learc83 wrote: post #35
ekianjo wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We have been eating meat for a long time, but the quantity of meat eaten since the second half of the 20th century is unprecedented. We are eating way more meat than before, that's for sure.

>he quantity of meat eaten since the second half of the 20th century is unprecedented. That's not true at all. We're eating more meat than we did 100 years ago sure. But looking back significantly further than that, it's estimated that hunter gatherers got about 65% of their calories from animals, compared to much less than 20% we get today. See my reply above for references.

I'll check you references later, but I'm wondering where the hunter gatherers got so much meat before they had industrial meat factories that we have - it cost much more energy before to either hunt or breed animals than it does now, it was not a viable proposition to eat as much meat as it is now. It just does not make sense to me at all. Besides, percentages is one thing, absolute intakes are another, too.

EDIT: Besides, I can tell you from what I know on how people were living 50-70 years ago (grandfathers for example) that meat was expensive during their youth and that they only ate it once or twice a month, certainly not every single day like we do now. So I'm not sure where you got the impression people ate so much meat in the early 1900s while it defies all conversations I had with people who lived in that era.

Re: Low-Salt Diets May Pose Health Risks, Study Finds

#38

Post by oldspiceman »

k-mcgrady wrote: post #33

So once again the advice seems to be, "eat a balanced diet, everything in moderation".

And stop trying to avoid food. Try adding healthy things to your diet instead. When I can't have something it just makes me want it more. The more healthy stuff you put in there the less room you'll have for crap.
Post reply on HN