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

Salt not as damaging to health as previously thought, says study

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 231 posts

Re: Salt not as damaging to health as previously thought, says study

#181

Post by cies »

barry-cotter wrote: post #119
cies wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All primates eat high carb. They are not fat. It is fat that blocks insulin on yr cells. No (or little) fat and you can absorb your carbs as nature intended. > Fats are not inherently bad for you, doesn’t matter if they are plant based or not. I agree. It is the refined fats that are bad.

The Inuit and other Eskimos ate basically nothing but meat and fat in their traditional lifestyle. Not all primates eat high carb. The Neanderthals didn’t either. Hominids have been eating diets high in meat and fat for a really long time.

> Inuit and other Eskimos

The not "other" primates. They humans using tech to survive in harsh conditions.

> The Neanderthals didn’t either. Hominids [...]

They dead! And hard to study as sibling poster shows.

Name one wild ape in one location not on HCLF please. I will change my understanding given proper evidence.

Re: Salt not as damaging to health as previously thought, says study

#182

Post by cies »

tacotime wrote: post #112
cies wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd avoid both. But if I have to pick one to eat 4 tblsp from every day, I pick sugar hands down.

I think that's a bad comparison. Intuitively this might feel less healthy because you are consuming more than twice as many calories with the butter. Double check your intuition on this one. People on high fat diets tend to eat less volume as compared to those on high carb diets for a good reason. Fat is more than twice as calorie dense as compared to sugar. 1 cup of sugar = 201 g. 1 cup of Butter = 227 grams. 201/22…

Good point. Yet still I rather take 6 spoons of sugar than 3 spoons of butter.

But that's HCLF me :)

Re: Salt not as damaging to health as previously thought, says study

#183

Post by ramblerman »

rwnspace wrote: post #169
ramblerman wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not OP, but Karl Popper's notion of falsifiability places a lot of the social sciences in the domain of myth vs actual science.

Good job Popper's falsifiability is flawed then; else evolution is not science.

> It does appear that some people think that I denied scientific character to the historical sciences, such as palaeontology, or the history of the evolution of life on Earth. This is a mistake, and I here wish to affirm that these and other historical sciences have in my opinion scientific character; their hypotheses can in many cases be tested. [Popper, 1981]

Certain things like 'carbon dating' are certainly scientific, and can be falsified. Evolution itself is the best historical explanation we have, but hard to set up an experiment to disprove.

I personally think 'falsifiability" is particularly useful in separating a soft 'fact' like Freud's theory of the id, and the Oedipus Complex from something like say, the theory of gravity.

Re: Salt not as damaging to health as previously thought, says study

#184

Post by dogma1138 »

cies wrote: post #179
dogma1138 wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s not really not true, apes have very different diets e.g. Gorillas are folivore and mostly consume leaves they can actually digest cellulose (they ferment it which is why they have a huge belly as their colon is huge), while chimps are omnivores that actually eat meat and hunt colobus monkeys, as well as consume eggs, insects, birds, nuts and honey. Also the human genetic and epigenetic landscape is utterly diffe…

https://seaworld.org/animal-info/animal-infobooks/gorilla/di... I read "Western lowland gorilla (Gorilla gorilla gorilla): This subspecies consumes parts of at least 97 plant species. About 67% of their diet is fruit, 17% is leaves, seeds and stems and 3% is termites and caterpillars." Another type of gorilla eats more/mostly leafs. Still gorilla eat HCLF. I'm not saying eat only leafs. I'm saying other primates eat…

Nice that you cherry pick a quote, I also suggest that you check which fruits they eat hint it’s not what you would consider fruit or be able to digest.

We do not have a similar GI tract to other primates we have a GI tract simmilar to some primates Gorillas have a closer GI tract to hippos than to humans.

Even the lowland gorilla which it eats “fruit” would say not eat a banana, in fact they destroy banana trees as they eat the leaves and the stem rather than the fruits.

Gorillas can digest about 70% of the plant cell wall material they consume they are one of the most efficient herbivores on the planet in this regard the fruits they eat at rich in cellulose not sugar or starch.

And while cellulose is carb the fermentation process turns it into fatty acids.

What little ripen fruit they eat seem to involve around maintaining fermentation not as a source of energy.

Re: Salt not as damaging to health as previously thought, says study

#185

Post by dogma1138 »

cies wrote: post #181
barry-cotter wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Inuit and other Eskimos ate basically nothing but meat and fat in their traditional lifestyle. Not all primates eat high carb. The Neanderthals didn’t either. Hominids have been eating diets high in meat and fat for a really long time.

> Inuit and other Eskimos The not "other" primates. They humans using tech to survive in harsh conditions. > The Neanderthals didn’t either. Hominids [...] They dead! And hard to study as sibling poster shows. Name one wild ape in one location not on HCLF please. I will change my understanding given proper evidence.

Nearly all of them would not be on a high carb diet even the herbivore gorilla does not get its energy from carbs:

The macronutrient profile of this diet would be as follows: 2.5% energy as fat, 24.3% protein, 15.8% available carbohydrate, with potentially 57.3% of metabolizable energy from short-chain fatty acids (SCFA) derived from colonic fermentation of fiber. Gorillas would therefore obtain considerable energy through fiber fermentation.

The largest macro nutrient of nearly all apes boils down to fatty acids just through various different mechanisms.

Even the fruits they eat at very different non-domesticated ripen fruit and pith isn’t rich in sugar it’s rich in fatty acids.

https://academic.oup.com/jn/article/127/10/2000/4722347

No offense but what ever vegan eat like an ape BS you’ve been sold on its categorically wrong.

The biggest thing these all “diets” ignore is the actual underlying energy mechanisms which change the macronutrient landscape of the diet completely as different apes and humans have different GI and metabolic paths.

Re: Salt not as damaging to health as previously thought, says study

#186

Post by macspoofing »

dragonwriter wrote: post #161
macspoofing wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nutrition Science is a huge mess even though it is a core part of human health. As in, it is a total disaster. Here's something depressing to think about: if the Keto people are correct, mainstream nutrition science was a key contributor to American obesity crisis and resulted in countless premature deaths and major suffering over the last few decades. Anyway, recently I wanted to look into whether or not eggs are go…

> if the Keto people are correct, mainstream nutrition science was a key contributor to American obesity crisis Mainstream nutrition fads clearly were. A big part of of those fads were about lay generalization of what science supported for very specific diseases as general advice. Another big part was commercial propaganda from food vendors.

Was it commercial propaganda that villified fats? Because fats being correlated with heart disease was a scientific fact for decades.

Re: Salt not as damaging to health as previously thought, says study

#187

Post by jazoom »

rorykoehler wrote: post #109
jschwartzi wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, I've hiked with people on low-salt diets and they've never failed to get a hyponatremia headache that gets better when they drink some electrolyte(salt). Frankly it doesn't make any sense to me to take an intervention that's good for high blood pressure and unilaterally try to apply it to perfectly healthy people. They did that with fat too and look where we are.

Sodium causes high blood pressure. Electrolyte drinks don't contain sodium but magnesium (and some other salts) if i remember correctly.

Sodium is essential for life, so you could say sodium prevents death.

As always, the poison is in the dose. And, as already mentioned, drinking too much water and not consuming enough sodium leads to hyponatremia. Patients are always surprised when I tell them they're sick from too much water and not enough salt.

Re: Salt not as damaging to health as previously thought, says study

#188

Post by crankylinuxuser »

3x wrote: post #160
barking wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

WFPB, whole food plant based diet. No meat, no fish, no dairy. You can eat fruit but you can't juice it. Seems a bit of a misery diet to me.

Eating fresh vegetables and fruits all day is glorious, not miserable. Foods like legumes, seitan, tempeh, tofu, nuts, and mushrooms are all excellent sources of protein and can even be made to taste very similar to meat. Since I stopped eating meat there are a few tastes that I'll miss like bluefin tuna, soft-shell crabs, etc. but overall it's not difficult.

I know what anthropology has said about who we homo sapiens have smaller jaws and larger craniums - we went from omnivores to omnivores who cooked meat. Higher calorie density and better nutrient profile. So our muscles for tearing through tough meat got smaller, so we could have more brain.

What this WFPB appears to be is a religion in dietary form, complete with diatribes of papers written by them. And it ignores why we have the jaws that we do, on some moral epithet that eating animals is evil and bad.

I'll pass.

Re: Salt not as damaging to health as previously thought, says study

#189

Post by trombonechamp »

rossdavidh wrote: post #129

Whenever I hear discussion of whether we should defer to the judgement of scientists, I always want to ask, which field of science do you mean? In some, like physics, chemistry, evolutionary biology, geology, there is still much to be learned but what we have so far is pretty solid. You don't hear about the basics (matter is made of atoms, species emerge from natural selection, plate tectonics) getting overturned. Th…

The fields of nutrition and economics do have the basics worked out. But the basics aren't things like "is eating too much salt bad for you?" The basics are about nutrient metabolism and the human body is a very complicated (/complex) system. The basics don't necessarily have to be "actionable", and they don't necessarily need to say how the system comes together as a whole. For instance, in your example of evolutionary biology, there is a lot of debate about whether natural selection or neutral evolution is the primary driver behind species diversity. We know that both exist and both happen, but we don't know how they came together to create the species diversity we observe.

Another aspect of this is that there are certain fields (namely economics and nutrition) where the popular press over-exaggerates every single paper as a groundbreaking discovery because it gets clicks. The media tries to present the idea that scientists as a whole have come to a brand new conclusion which should change the way everyone behaves, when in reality it's just a few people in a windowless room reporting on some observations they found and speculating on what those observations might mean.

Re: Salt not as damaging to health as previously thought, says study

#190

Post by cies »

dogma1138 wrote: post #185
cies wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Inuit and other Eskimos The not "other" primates. They humans using tech to survive in harsh conditions. > The Neanderthals didn’t either. Hominids [...] They dead! And hard to study as sibling poster shows. Name one wild ape in one location not on HCLF please. I will change my understanding given proper evidence.

Nearly all of them would not be on a high carb diet even the herbivore gorilla does not get its energy from carbs: The macronutrient profile of this diet would be as follows: 2.5% energy as fat, 24.3% protein, 15.8% available carbohydrate, with potentially 57.3% of metabolizable energy from short-chain fatty acids (SCFA) derived from colonic fermentation of fiber. Gorillas would therefore obtain considerable energy t…

Mighty interesting article, thanks for sharing. One problem I see is that the tools for counting nutrient intake (cronometer.com in my case) base on the nutrients before fermentation. I have no idea what fermentation happens in my body (I expect nothing close to that of a gorilla, but not sure either). It would still be HCLF by "intake" (while possible/potentially being HFLC by "uptake").

The article makes a suggestion ("potentially"), and does so for one type of gorilla (the foliage eating one). How can you generalize from this to all apes? Just curious.

Post reply on HN