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

41–48 of 48 posts

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

#41

Post by learc83 »

ekianjo wrote: post #36
learc83 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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: Be…

> So I'm not sure where you got the impression people ate so much meat in the early 1900s

I said this in the comment you're replying too "We're eating more meat than we did 100 years ago sure". I'm agreeing with your assertion that we eat more meat than we did 100 years ago. 100 years ago we ate significantly less meat than our hunter gatherer ancestors did.

>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

They didn't need industrial farms because there were far fewer people. They hunted animals, which were relatively abundant. Meat is much more calorie dense than most plants.

Hunter gatherers didn't have agriculture, so many of the plants we eat today weren't yet domesticated. They lacked entire categories of food that we have today.

The largest percentage of daily caloric intake today comes from grains--hunter gathers didn't farm grains, so they had to get the largest share of their calories from something else--meat.

>Besides, percentages is one thing, absolute intakes are another, too.

An average adult male can't live long term with fewer than around 2000 calories per day (A very active hunter gatherer would require a far amount more than 2000 per day). The average American male eats about 2700 calories per day.

Let's take the lower end estimate for 2000 calories per day for a hunter gatherer. At 65%, meat accounts for 1300 calories per day.

At 20% of 2700 calories, an average American male gets 540 calories per day from meat.

So 1300 for the hunter gatherer vs 540 for the average American male. Almost 3 times as much. Even in absolute numbers, the hunter gatherer at much more meat.

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

#42

Post by jckt »

ekianjo wrote: post #36
learc83 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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: Be…

"But looking back significantly further than that", says the GP. Our bodies are mostly what they are based on thousands of years ago (or more), not hundreds. In other words, the 1900s are irrelevant.

It cost a lot of time/energy to hunt, for sure. But that's basically all they did. And reading descriptions of say, the Americas before European colonisation, meat was plenty despite industrial breeding, or any breeding at all.

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

#43

Post by Semaphor »

tsmash wrote: post #30

lol no shit, old news do people still believe salt raises blood pressure too? keto recommends between 3 and 5 grams of salt per day your blood is salty, only way to replenish salt is through the diet, especially important if you're sweating

> keto recommends between 3 and 5 grams of salt per day

While I'm on keto myself and I love it, that sentence isn't exactly a proof for anything.

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

#44

Post by Semaphor »

refurb wrote: post #6

You know what would be super helpful? If scientists came up with a rating system that described how confident they were in the results from a study. That way the public would know how much weight they should give the results. Independent body who runs a well-controlled double blinded study? A+ Biased organization who runs an analysis of questionable observational data with barely passible statistical significance? F…

examine.com does that, they list level of confidence (A - "Robust research conducted with repeated double blind clinical trials" to D - "Uncontrolled or observational studies only") with a percentage value for consensus and a rating of the magnitude of the effects.

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

#45

Post by Evgeny »

k-mcgrady wrote: post #33

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

This one appears to be useful because it has some concrete numbers. Because otherwise how would you define moderation? What is moderation to one is excess to another. Here we at least have "less than X and more than Y appears to be harmful", which is some actionable information.

Edit: actually, my opinion on "everything in moderation" is even stronger: I consider it a useless advice. Because, where do you even begin? Should you use some salt in your cooking? But how much? Or should you use none, because there is already some present in foods you buy? Or should you actively avoid foods that have already some salt added?

And it ends up like this: everyone thinks that he eats X in moderation, while anyone who eats less X is just unnecessary resticting himself, and anyone who eats more X is a glutton.

Or consider, would you say "smoking in moderation is okay and healthful"? And if not, how do we know that there are no substances consumed as foods that act in a similar way - hurt us even taken in moderation?

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

#46

Post by Mikeb85 »

nitrogen wrote: post #18
Mikeb85 wrote: post #8

Come on, some common sense is needed. Salt is required by our bodies, too little and we die, too much and the same thing. Same goes for fat, sugar, vitamins, minerals, etc... This isn't even new knowledge... Our bodies need various proteins, sugars and minerals in certain quantities - call the fucking press...

As I've commented on similar articles in the past, it's not enough to "just know" things; science has to prove them, repeatedly, in multiple ways. Sure it's tedious and repetitive, but it's absolutely essential to lay a solid foundation for the next generation of research.

One only has to look into history - where there have been epidemics and people have died from lacking salt in their diet in various salt-deficient places.

As an aside, there's also a reason that iodine is required to be added to salt and various stable products in some countries.

Animals seek salt because they need it, as did ancient humans to the present day, saying humans need salt is like saying humans need water, or protein, or vitamin B.

It's not like salt is some new chemical we know nothing about - we've known about it for at least 10,000 years (probably longer). It's nice and all that now we know you should have between 3000 and 6000 mg per day (which is higher than what agencies recommend, but apparently around the average consumption in many places anyway), but come on...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyponatremia

Also, there's a reason athletes drink liquids with electrolytes in them (salt is one) - because the effects of a deficiency of salt and other electrolytes is known...

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

#47

Post by panarky »

The research was funded through a variety of public, private and corporate sources, according to PHRI.

Until I know who funded the research, I'm taking the results with a grain of salt.

Do populations with high sodium intake also have other lifestyle factors that influence mortality and morbidity? Is it really the sodium that's causing the differences found in the study or are there other factors?

How many times have we seen corporations fund research designed to support their interests and then selectively publish the results that are favorable to them?

Would you view the research in a different light if you knew it was funded by PepsiCo, McDonalds, Sara Lee and Campbell Soup Company?

Why aren't the funders disclosed along with the results?

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

#48

Post by jimmaswell »

trhway wrote: post #28
jimmaswell wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>doesn't it sound like it better be not too low and not too much ? :) That statement is pretty much impossible to logically disagree with so yes

>That statement is pretty much impossible to logically disagree with so yes not impossible. At least for proponents of low sodium it is possible.

If you're a proponent of low sodium then you don't believe the amount of sodium you advocate is "too low", you believe it's correct, and that the standard amount is "too high".
Post reply on HN