2 ms·

Oh good grief. Another article mangling science into sound bites? I particularly enjoy the seemingly wilful conflation with hyponatraemia (too low sodium). >

Oh good grief. Another article mangling science into sound bites? I particularly enjoy the seemingly wilful conflation with hyponatraemia (too low sodium). > European researchers publishing in the Journal of the American Medical Association reported that the less sodium that study subjects excreted in their urine —an excellent measure of prior consumption— the greater their risk was of dying from heart disease Nobody has ever argued that NO SALT is the right idea. So of course people with the lowest output, people with hyponatraemia and knackered kidneys, are going to have other issues. Sodium is essential for neural function and osmotic control. And the outcome of main meta-analysis in this wasn't "DO THIS INSTEAD" it was to recommend conducting an actual long-term controlled study to see what the actual effects of sodium control are. Either which way, repeatedly highlight articles that say "EVERYTHING YOU KNEW BEFORE WAS WRONG: DO THIS INSTEAD" just makes people give up completely. Especially when the meta-meta-analysis is as weak as this is.

efaref 11y ago
> Nobody has ever argued that NO SALT is the right idea. Some people have been saying exactly that, e.g.: http://www.enformy.com/blog/benefits-of-no-salt-diet.php http://www.enformy.com/blog/benefits-of-no-salt-diet.php
- oliwarner 11y ago
  It's called the "No Salt Diet" but it doesn't actually cut out salt completely. It's more about processed rubbish and vast quantities of added salt. Either which way, you are probably right. If you look hard enough, there probably is somebody out there saying anything you want. I should adjust the statement to: > Nobody qualified to talk on the subject has ever ...
rsfern 11y ago
I think I agree with you about the quality of the science journalism here[1], but I thought the actual text wasn't as sensational as you're making it out to be, despite the title. I didn't read it as a call for completely reversing dietary policy on salt immediately. I think it was a call to end a crusade that isn't supported by a compelling body of evidence. It seems clear that better controlled studies are needed. [1]I spent a few minutes on google scholar trying to find the paper you called out (mostly because I wanted to know if the study actually entails hypo atresia--the linked article doesn't mention it). I haven't been able to find it yet. I'm disappointed that something published in Scientific American has such inadequate citations...

efaref 11y ago

> Nobody has ever argued that NO SALT is the right idea. Some people have been saying exactly that, e.g.: http://www.enformy.com/blog/benefits-of-no-salt-diet.php http://www.enformy.com/blog/benefits-of-no-salt-diet.php

oliwarner 11y ago
It's called the "No Salt Diet" but it doesn't actually cut out salt completely. It's more about processed rubbish and vast quantities of added salt. Either which way, you are probably right. If you look hard enough, there probably is somebody out there saying anything you want. I should adjust the statement to: > Nobody qualified to talk on the subject has ever ...

rsfern 11y ago

I think I agree with you about the quality of the science journalism here[1], but I thought the actual text wasn't as sensational as you're making it out to be, despite the title. I didn't read it as a call for completely reversing dietary policy on salt immediately. I think it was a call to end a crusade that isn't supported by a compelling body of evidence. It seems clear that better controlled studies are needed. [1]I spent a few minutes on google scholar trying to find the paper you called out (mostly because I wanted to know if the study actually entails hypo atresia--the linked article doesn't mention it). I haven't been able to find it yet. I'm disappointed that something published in Scientific American has such inadequate citations...