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

No Association Between Salt And Blood Pressure, Study Finds

time.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 158 posts

Re: No Association Between Salt And Blood Pressure, Study Finds

#11

Post by tbrownaw »

bronbron wrote: post #4
lincolnq wrote: post #2

The state of nutrition science is pathetic. The science is conflicted over a simple question of fact -- whether or not a trivially measurable short-term effect occurs when you eat one of the most common food additives in the world. If we can't even answer THIS -- it seems like it should be incredibly easy to answer -- I don't see why people can claim anything at all about diets and macronutrients. Nutrition science n…

> we don't know basic things about what's good and bad for us. Errr, I think we know these 'basic' things quite fine. Energy burned needs to be >= energy taken in. It's just complicated for other reasons. There are a lot of incentives to stay unhealthy. There're the biological incentives (eating a shitload and packing on a few pounds is good if you're in the jungle and might not eat again for a few weeks), and the in…

Errr, I think we know these 'basic' things quite fine. Energy burned needs to be >= energy taken in.

Very long term, energy burned will be == energy taken in. If that's consistently out of balance by... say 100 Kcal/day, that's 0.2 lb/week every week or 10 lb/year or 100 lb/decade. How many 50-year-olds do you know who are 300 pounds heavier (or lighter) than they were at 20?

Re: No Association Between Salt And Blood Pressure, Study Finds

#13

Post by skylan_q »

The orignal study that caused the salt scare didn't claim that increased salt intake caused increased blood pressure. The claim was that a sodium intake on the high end of regular sodium intake was closely correlated with increased mortality rates in heart attack victims. There was no claim made about sodium intake and blood pressure, nor was there a claim about sodium intake and heart attack rates.

This is why I hate the intersection of journalism, science, and the public.

Re: No Association Between Salt And Blood Pressure, Study Finds

#14

Post by bronbron »

superuser2 wrote: post #9
bronbron wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> we don't know basic things about what's good and bad for us. Errr, I think we know these 'basic' things quite fine. Energy burned needs to be >= energy taken in. It's just complicated for other reasons. There are a lot of incentives to stay unhealthy. There're the biological incentives (eating a shitload and packing on a few pounds is good if you're in the jungle and might not eat again for a few weeks), and the in…

Except that energy burned is not by any means a 1:1 correlation with exercised performed. We are inefficient machines, and our efficiency characteristics vary wildly in ways we don't fully understand. Two people consuming the same quantity of energy and exerting the same number of joules on exercise equipment do not see identical or even necessarily related physiological effects. There are many, many factors - other…

> Except that energy burned is not by any means a 1:1 correlation with exercised performed. We are inefficient machines, and our efficiency characteristics vary wildly in ways we don't fully understand.

Your basal metabolic rate is not much different from the guy next to you of similar age and weight, barring some extremely rare circumstance. I don't know what to tell you, other than that.

> Two people consuming the same quantity of energy and exerting the same number of joules on exercise equipment do not see identical or even necessarily related physiological effects. There are many, many factors - other nutrients, genetics, timing, the distribution of work over time (short intense exercise vs. long less intense exercise, etc.) and they all matter.

Exercise is probably the least important part in proper weight maintenance, because of all the reasons you listed. Most people promoting the 'calories calories calories' mantra will tell you the exact same thing.

Your diet, and specifically how much you're consuming (regardless of carbs/fats/salt/etc.) is critical, the rest is secondary.

> There are skinny people who have never been inside a gym. There are fat people who work harder than you. Obviously you can still influence your outcomes, but "energy out >= energy in" is a gross oversimplification.

Not really. Those skinny people are eating less (in aggregate) than the fat people, again barring some very rare metabolic condition. Guaranteed.

Re: No Association Between Salt And Blood Pressure, Study Finds

#16

Post by chc »

bronbron wrote: post #4
lincolnq wrote: post #2

The state of nutrition science is pathetic. The science is conflicted over a simple question of fact -- whether or not a trivially measurable short-term effect occurs when you eat one of the most common food additives in the world. If we can't even answer THIS -- it seems like it should be incredibly easy to answer -- I don't see why people can claim anything at all about diets and macronutrients. Nutrition science n…

> we don't know basic things about what's good and bad for us. Errr, I think we know these 'basic' things quite fine. Energy burned needs to be >= energy taken in. It's just complicated for other reasons. There are a lot of incentives to stay unhealthy. There're the biological incentives (eating a shitload and packing on a few pounds is good if you're in the jungle and might not eat again for a few weeks), and the in…

If you take in 500 calories per day and burn 1600, that will fit the "energy burned needs to be >= energy taken in" rule, but you'll still die. Even that basic question is more complicated than you're making it out to be.

I feel like you're trying to grind some axe relating to weight loss here, but in doing so you are obviously oversimplifying the field of nutrition.

Re: No Association Between Salt And Blood Pressure, Study Finds

#17

Post by bronbron »

tbrownaw wrote: post #11
bronbron wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> we don't know basic things about what's good and bad for us. Errr, I think we know these 'basic' things quite fine. Energy burned needs to be >= energy taken in. It's just complicated for other reasons. There are a lot of incentives to stay unhealthy. There're the biological incentives (eating a shitload and packing on a few pounds is good if you're in the jungle and might not eat again for a few weeks), and the in…

Errr, I think we know these 'basic' things quite fine. Energy burned needs to be >= energy taken in. Very long term, energy burned will be == energy taken in. If that's consistently out of balance by... say 100 Kcal/day, that's 0.2 lb/week every week or 10 lb/year or 100 lb/decade. How many 50-year-olds do you know who are 300 pounds heavier (or lighter) than they were at 20?

> Very long term, energy burned will be == energy taken in.

Not really, unless we're counting death. Most people gain weight as they get older.

> If that's consistently out of balance by... say 100 Kcal/day, that's 0.2 lb/week every week or 10 lb/year or 100 lb/decade. How many 50-year-olds do you know who are 300 pounds heavier (or lighter) than they were at 20?

You're phrasing that the wrong way. Your BMR changes depending on your current weight. If you weigh 180 pounds at 20 and you eat 2700 calories a day, eventually you'll reach a point where 2700 calories is what you require to maintain your body weight (probably somewhere in the 220-240 lb range).

To gain 300 pounds over 30 years would require you to constantly be consuming more and more as time goes on.

You're also completely negating the fact that most people would (and probably do) have a 'reality check' once they get into the 200+ range, and reduce their caloric intake (though unfortunately most likely only to resume their high caloric intake once they've dropped in weight a little).

Re: No Association Between Salt And Blood Pressure, Study Finds

#19

Post by bronbron »

chc wrote: post #16
bronbron wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> we don't know basic things about what's good and bad for us. Errr, I think we know these 'basic' things quite fine. Energy burned needs to be >= energy taken in. It's just complicated for other reasons. There are a lot of incentives to stay unhealthy. There're the biological incentives (eating a shitload and packing on a few pounds is good if you're in the jungle and might not eat again for a few weeks), and the in…

If you take in 500 calories per day and burn 1600, that will fit the "energy burned needs to be >= energy taken in" rule, but you'll still die. Even that basic question is more complicated than you're making it out to be. I feel like you're trying to grind some axe relating to weight loss here, but in doing so you are obviously oversimplifying the field of nutrition.

> If you take in 500 calories per day and burn 1600, that will fit the "energy burned needs to be >= energy taken in" rule, but you'll still die.

In most developed nations (which, admittedly I assume HN is largely composed of), people have problems with overconsumption as opposed to underconsumption. You're right though, your ideal scenario is energy burned === energy taken in an appropriate weight range for your height and muscular stature.

> Even that basic question is more complicated than you're making it out to be.

It's really, really not.

> I feel like you're trying to grind some axe relating to weight loss here, but in doing so you are obviously oversimplifying the field of nutrition.

I'll repeat what I said in another comment: Maintaining a healthy weight is (or should be, at least) the primary concern of the vast majority of people concerned with their personal nutrition.

Re: No Association Between Salt And Blood Pressure, Study Finds

#20

Post by nazgulnarsil »

I decided to go through the IOMs Sodium Intake in Populations report[1] when the FDAs new DRIs were released. The FDA guidelines pushing for 1500mg a day stand in contrast to the findings of the Cochrane review meta-analysis(summary[2]). After looking over all the studies reviewed by both the IOM and the Cochrane review I can't figure out how the FDA are justifying their recommendations of very low intake. The only truly consistent finding seems to be that below around 2g and above about 4g is clearly harmful in that it definitely results in more hospital visits. In between is a lot more shaky. The FDA basically asked the IOM to write the bottom line first and still the IOM wasn't able to come up with any evidence that lowering sodium intake below that range was helpful. It is important to note that the vast majority of sodium studies additionally do not control for a very important confounder which is potassium intake, and that those that do seem to agree strongly with the conclusions of the Cochrane Review. IOM makes note of this shortcoming but does not draw any conclusions from it.

MealSquares (http://mealsquares.com) will be sticking with the Cochrane Review conclusions for now, but of course we will update and inform our customers based on the recommendations with the strongest evidence behind them. It's interesting to note that Soylent 1.0 went with around 1g of salt/day and was forced to change this when people started getting dizzy. it will be interesting to see what they change it to.

1. http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=18311&page=R1

2. http://www.nhs.uk/news/2011/11November/Pages/cochrane-review...

Post reply on HN