Salt not as damaging to health as previously thought, says study • Hacker News Board

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

#191

Post by dragonwriter » Mon, Aug 13, 2018, 1:36 PM UTC

edanm wrote: post #172

dragonwriter wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> As in, the move to remove fats entirely and replace them with carbs is considered today to have been a bad idea The move to reduce fats may or may not have been backed by “mainstream nutrition science”, but replacing them with carbs never was.

I'm not sure if replace is correct or not. But eating carbs was certainly emphasized, eg search Google for food pyramids from the 1970s, their "eat most"categories are usually vegetables and carbs.

But were those food pyramids ever grounded in science?

There's a difference between “the science was wrong” and “government recommendations served an interest group without being well grounded in science.”

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

#192

Post by dogma1138 » Mon, Aug 13, 2018, 1:37 PM UTC

cies wrote: post #190

dogma1138 wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 suggesti…

Humans do not have the same metabolic paths as most apes, you cannot break down cellular walls and you don't create nutritionally significant amount of fatty acids in your intestines.

The fruits you eat are also rich in fructose since they are domesticated fruits this is in stark opposite to what "fruits" wild apes consume.

I'm not generalizing it for all apes because different apes have different diets and different metabolic paths chimps do not ferment cellulose in their colon but they do eat ripen fruit in which the fatty acids develop they also eat fruit which ferments on the ground, they also eat pith all of which is rich in lipids, when you discount the fiber in the chimp diet you will see that it's also nearly 50% lipids even when accounting for plant sources only and not them sucking the skulls of small monkeys for the juicy fatty acids that make up their brains (don't go looking for that, trust me this is something you cannot unsee...).

Human physiology is very different than that apes if we go back again to the gorilla then the small intestine and colon ratios are reversed in humans the small intestine is about 50% of the overall digestive tract in gorillas the colon is 50% that is because they get most of their nutrients from secondary fermentation where human physiology is centered nearly exclusively around absorbing available nutrients in the food hence why we also cook food and why eating raw vegan or raw anything is a terrible terrible idea.

Saying that our GIs are similar to apes is true but it's like saying that our muscular and skeletal systems are similar but the differences are still night and day. Our bodies are designed to consume ready to use nutrients and more importantly pre-processed nutrients (is suggest reading "Cooking as a biological trait") and to extract as much of them as possible in the shortest time as possible, we don't spend all our day eating and we don't eat 30-40kg of food a day even those of use that weight like a gorilla. Our GI is the gasoline engine while most apes are coal powered steam engines they both still use pistons and consume some form of hydrocarbons but put one in the other and the result will not be pretty.

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

#193

Post by nonbel » Mon, Aug 13, 2018, 1:42 PM UTC

mmirate wrote: post #149

nonbel wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In that case, wouldn't "a fully functional human body model" mean an artificial human, which is even harder to develop than a computational model? Or they do exist, already. All humans are a fully functional human body model.

> Or they do exist, already. All humans are a fully functional human body model. Not quite, but you are catching on. The rest is mostly a matter of cloning, and providing a standardized nurturing to each clone to eliminate confounding differences. (Perhaps in the far future we will be able to raise one clone, scan its brain, and overwrite the brains of each of the rest of its identical siblings with the scan results.…

This isnt something even remotely close to happening.

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

#194

Post by edanm » Mon, Aug 13, 2018, 1:57 PM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #191

edanm wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure if replace is correct or not. But eating carbs was certainly emphasized, eg search Google for food pyramids from the 1970s, their "eat most"categories are usually vegetables and carbs.

But were those food pyramids ever grounded in science? There's a difference between “the science was wrong” and “government recommendations served an interest group without being well grounded in science.”

Oh, if that's your point, then you may very well be right. (I thought you meant it wasn't the recommendation).

I think that the recommendations either were based on science, or at least weren't really disputed until about 10-15 years ago. Then again, what I think I know about this mostly comes from hearing people talk about the issue, e.g. in interviews, forums, etc. But I haven't really read any of the source material on this (either modern-day or older) so I really have no idea if it's at all true.

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

#195

Post by TrisMcC » Mon, Aug 13, 2018, 2:01 PM UTC

chomp wrote: post #46

JeanMarcS wrote: post #31

During the heat wave in France this summer, messages to old persons were to drink regularly (which sometimes they forget) So a quarter of medical consultations related to elders and heat was for a lack of salt [0]. From Google translate it’s call hyponatremia. So as stated in other comments, moderation, may be, lack, bad idea. I’m actually in Ireland. They seem to have taken the salt part very seriously, as everythin…

Yep. I go on longer (60+ mile) bike rides once a week. Salt is so important on those rides, I get severe cramps without it. Especially when cycling on 100+ degree days.

I run 70 miles per week, usually around noon each day in New England. I eat a very low sodium diet. All the sodium I get is naturally occurring in plants, and I do not seek out high-sodium vegetables like celery. I probably get around 500 mg.

I sweat like crazy. My sweat is not overly salty.

It's probably easier for me due to the volume of low-calorie density foods like starches, fruits, and vegetables. If I were eating a lot of high-fat foods like meats or oil I would likely not get enough salt.

Once you are conditioned to a low-salt, no-added-sugar, no-oil diet, your tastebuds become highly sensitized to the existing tastes of the food. Salt deadens the tastebuds.

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

#196

Post by cies » Mon, Aug 13, 2018, 2:06 PM UTC

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…

> as different apes and humans have different GI and metabolic paths.

I never said they were the same, I say they are similar. A quote from the article you provided (thanks again for that):

"Anatomically, the digestive tracts of humans and great apes are very similar (Stevens and Hume 1995)"

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

#197

Post by cies » Mon, Aug 13, 2018, 2:20 PM UTC

dogma1138 wrote: post #192

cies wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 suggesti…

Humans do not have the same metabolic paths as most apes, you cannot break down cellular walls and you don't create nutritionally significant amount of fatty acids in your intestines. The fruits you eat are also rich in fructose since they are domesticated fruits this is in stark opposite to what "fruits" wild apes consume. I'm not generalizing it for all apes because different apes have different diets and different…

> Our bodies are designed to consume ready to use nutrients and more importantly pre-processed nutrients

I find it hard to believe that we are designed to do something that we have later "designed" ourselves. I see cooking as a survival strategy, by which we have grown our habitat by a lot. I look at man as a tropical being, its the only place I can survive without cloths. In the tropics there is also fruits that man can gather/eat without the use of tech. Fruits, leaves, seeds and bugs. Therefor I expect that to be our diets (see bugs there? so not dogmatically vegan here). Also when I put together a diet of said ingredients in cronometer.com it adds up to what we know about RDIs nowadays.

I'l have a look at the book you recommended, tnx for that. Much appreciated.

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

#198

Post by TrisMcC » Mon, Aug 13, 2018, 2:20 PM UTC

castratikron wrote: post #9

Salt in itself may not be bad. But salt makes food taste better, which tends to make people eat more, which causes people to gain weight. And being overweight brings with it health issues. It's the second order effects that you need to be aware of when asking if something is "good" or "bad".

"Salt Sugar Fat" by Michael Moss is a great book around using the trifecta to manufacture addictive "food".

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

#199

Post by dogma1138 » Mon, Aug 13, 2018, 2:34 PM UTC

cies wrote: post #197

dogma1138 wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Humans do not have the same metabolic paths as most apes, you cannot break down cellular walls and you don't create nutritionally significant amount of fatty acids in your intestines. The fruits you eat are also rich in fructose since they are domesticated fruits this is in stark opposite to what "fruits" wild apes consume. I'm not generalizing it for all apes because different apes have different diets and different…

> Our bodies are designed to consume ready to use nutrients and more importantly pre-processed nutrients I find it hard to believe that we are designed to do something that we have later "designed" ourselves. I see cooking as a survival strategy, by which we have grown our habitat by a lot. I look at man as a tropical being, its the only place I can survive without cloths. In the tropics there is also fruits that man…

We are designed that way - we have the largest small intestine of all apes, and i think it's also one of the largest (ratio wise) if not the largest of all omnivore mammals.

Comparison with apes: https://carta.anthropogeny.org/moca/topics/smalllarge-intest... We didn't invent cooking there are good indications that our ancestors cooked food as early as 2m years ago, and cooking here is defined as chemical alteration limited to roasting or boiling.

In fact some animals technically "cook" as they intentionally let food undergo chemical changes and even induce it buy collecting, digging fermentation pits and even covering them with foliage to induce anaerobic fermentation.

Also the reason we are who we are and the rest of the apes are an evolutionary dead end is that we were better at exploiting our environment specifically better at extracting lipids and proteins which was beneficial for cognitive development.

How and what we eat is a the very core reason to why we are considerably more developed than the rest of our ape cibilings, and that is a very important fact to remember.

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

#200

Post by dogma1138 » Mon, Aug 13, 2018, 3:41 PM UTC

cies wrote: post #196

dogma1138 wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> as different apes and humans have different GI and metabolic paths. I never said they were the same, I say they are similar. A quote from the article you provided (thanks again for that): "Anatomically, the digestive tracts of humans and great apes are very similar (Stevens and Hume 1995)"

They are similar in the same fashion that most organs between apes and humans are similar but they are still very different in how they function and what they were designed to do, same goes for differences between all apes.