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

111–120 of 158 posts

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

#111

Post by Padding »

bitJericho wrote: post #102
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 know a lot about nutrition and healthy eating. You shouldn't believe everything you hear. Go talk to a dietician.

I'm genuinely curious. Is there any evidence that dieticians are more than just cargo-cultists?

Talking to them usually results in "more of this and less of that and exercise and being thorough and blah blah blah". That sounds a lot like "I have no real idea of what's going on, but something in this broad spectrum of measures is bound to eventually pay off". That's very different from an answer that one would expect from a true professional, which would be more along the lines of "In this long and complex chain of events, this point here is the one that you need to affect in order to experience the effect you're looking for".

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

#112

Post by btilly »

bronbron wrote: post #14
superuser2 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

You made a lot of confident assertions, but provided no evidence backing them up. And they seem to be wrong.

Take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basal_metabolic_rate#Causes_of_... to find actual measured differences. The #1 cause of differences in BMR is lean body mass. A body builder will therefore have a higher BMR than a fat guy of the same height and weight. Energy spent on short intense exercises that bulk you up will have a bigger impact on your weight than long less-intense exercise that doesn't.

It turns out that we can explain about 3/4 of the difference in BMR through known factors such as these. But 1/4 of the normal variation comes from unknown factors, and that variation can easily leave an individual using 10-15% more or less energy than would be otherwise expected. This is a pretty big difference!

Furthermore even if you were right about all of that, you would STILL be wrong! Among the other potential effects of exercise is appetite suppression. So if your goal is to eat less, the easiest route might be 45 minutes per day on a treadmill, and then paying attention to your appetite.

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

#113

Post by Padding »

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…

> Energy burned needs to be >= energy taken in.

I guess that's the equivalent of Stroustrup's "If you understand int and vector you understand C++", for nutritionists.

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

#115

Post by iopq »

equoid wrote: post #93
laichzeit0 wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I read something interesting about high GI vs low GI foods that I didn't know [1]. The TL;DR "The GI value of a food is determined when it’s eaten in isolation after an overnight fast. As in, this is how this food will affect your blood sugar when it’s the FIRST and ONLY thing you’re eating after a full night of not eating anything." So the whole high GI is bad thing taken to the extreme e.g. clean eating, is probabl…

Don't be silly. That measurement technique is to allow you to isolate and measure the effect. You seem to want to infer that the effect does not occur in any other circumstances. That is as inane as disregarding crash test dummy results because they take place in a controlled environment which is not the same as 'real life'.

Actually, you can eat the same "high GI food" like white bread with butter and its GI goes DOWN. This is because eating fat with your high GI foods decreases its GI value! So really, GI is a useless measure for this and many other reasons.

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

#116

Post by alecco »

calvinbhai wrote: post #43

This article is BS. I mean, its a FUD advertorial. I say that based on my personal experience: A nurse in the clinic checked my BP (as a routine) when I went to get checked for some eye infection. And she was shocked that it was 170/100 (normal is 120/80). It was shocking for her (and of course me) because: I was 25 I looked healthy and lean (not too thin). I showed/experienced no signs of hyper tension. My eating ha…

How is this comment downvoted?!

A terrible article from Time magazine going against what a lot of institutions doing research are saying. Not like this is controversy to get eyeballs or perhaps a study backed by industry to confuse people.

And suddenly there are a lot of experts on nutrition and diet on a startup forum.

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

#117

Post by jasallen »

andy_ppp wrote: post #83
jasallen wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Should have stopped at "Eat food. Not too much." Mostly plants is fine, but so is mostly lean meat and some plants.

Mostly lean meat that hasn't been grown eating it's own filth and food that destroys it's immune system meaning we pump the animal with huge amounts of antibiotics.

More opinion and supposition masquerading as dietary advice. Morals and feelings of "eeeww" do not count as sound scientific nutrition principles.

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

#118

Post by leephillips »

Padding wrote: post #111
bitJericho wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We know a lot about nutrition and healthy eating. You shouldn't believe everything you hear. Go talk to a dietician.

I'm genuinely curious. Is there any evidence that dieticians are more than just cargo-cultists? Talking to them usually results in "more of this and less of that and exercise and being thorough and blah blah blah". That sounds a lot like "I have no real idea of what's going on, but something in this broad spectrum of measures is bound to eventually pay off". That's very different from an answer that one would expect…

Dieticians are not health professionals in the sense that doctors, RNs, or physician assistants are. The typical state requirement to be a dietician is a single multiple-choice test with some basic questions about health and nutrition. You might not even need a college degree.

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

#119

Post by zvrba »

svsaraf wrote: post #62
pbhjpbhj wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> your blood pressure WILL NOT be affected for a very long time // I was confused but I think you mean "your blood pressure will only be affected for a short time". You can parse what you said that way but your expression more readily reads [to me, an en-gb native] as saying that blood pressure changes will only appear a long time after salt intake. I've read that salt has an almost immediate effect on blood pressure…

Thanks for the clarification - that's what I meant. I'm not sure I can edit the parent post. Salt does have an immediate effect on blood pressure, as you said, because of osmotic effects. Increased salt in the intravascular space will draw water from other areas into the vessels, thus increasing blood pressure. The kidney has both osmotic and pressure sensitivity.

> Salt does have an immediate effect on blood pressure, as you said, because of osmotic effects.

Oh, that's also how it kills slugs! (Irrelevant remark; I've just put together two contexts containing "osmotic pressure").

Post reply on HN