6 ms·

The problem is that salt (and other minerals) is required to live. But we eat too much of everything (including salt). It's not the salt that's killing us, it

by Mikeb85 11y ago

The problem is that salt (and other minerals) is required to live. But we eat too much of everything (including salt). It's not the salt that's killing us, it's the shitty diet, too-large portions, and lack of exercise. If we ate reasonable portions of well-prepared meals the salt wouldn't be a big deal. But no, instead we eat extra large portions of everything, way too much meat, starch, fat and salt, so all these food items get a bad rap because we can't simply moderate ourselves...

jerf 11y ago
Why do you think you know that? Since the answer is basically either A: "no good reason" or B: "I believe I have science on my side", this really isn't a good response to an article about how controversial the science is. Which science do you think you have? Why is it better than the other half of the science? This is a generic reply to everybody jumping up to explain what the truth really is.
- darkerside 11y ago
  I agree that it's not a response that is constructive to the science at hand, but it's a fine response for an individual. Unless you want to obsess over having the perfect diet, you can have a diet that is 80% healthy with 20% of the focus if you just diversify your diet across many different sources. The only thing we really know about scientific knowledge is that it will continue to evolve.
- narag 11y ago
  Would "people ate less and suffered less heart diseases time ago?" qualify as C? Of course this point has the same problem of lacking details. But recognizing "modern food" as a culprit is actually less overeaching than putting the blame on a single substance that has been used for centuries.
  - jerf 11y ago
    "Would "people ate less and suffered less heart diseases time ago?" qualify as C?" No; that would fall under "no good reason". Are you sure people "ate less"? Given that we (think we) know that people of the past were also more active (although history is definitely on your side for that one), and how much more active people need to eat to sustain their activity, I would be completely unsurprised to learn that people in the past consumed more calories than the average American. You'd need to do quite a bit of science to nail this down. Unless, of course, you've seen the relevant science, in which case it falls under B. It's hard to escape from needing to have done science to really know what the problem is, and it's also hard to escape from the fact that all the science is really a great deal less clear than we've been led to believe by our government and public health organizations. It's clear we have problems; it's way less clear what the cause truly is. It also is reasonable to observe that you can "eat better" with less processed food, etc., and exercise is reasonably well established as helping, but why, exactly? We may speak in English of that as being one or two changes, but it's not; it's hundreds, thousands, perhaps even more changes, all at once. Which of them are relevant, and exactly how? Those questions are much less well answered. It also doesn't necessarily matter to you personally in the end. But it does mean that confident declarations about what is "really" the cause are poorly supported right now on all fronts. I've been looking at this for many years too, and just about the only conclusions I've come to are A: less processed does seem better B: exercise does seem to be important but it's surprising how much debate about which types of exercise are good for what is still happening, again, despite what we've been led to believe and C: the consensus I was taught growing up in the 1980s is dead wrong in almost (but not quite) every detail, but that doesn't mean I know what is right. There are still entire massive dimensions poorly explored by science; for instance, go look up the science on "intermittent fasting". One of the first things you ram into is that while there have been several studies on it, they all use the exact same schedule, which happens to be fairly unrealistic. No exploration of the space as a whole, just this one point, sampled over and over again. Does the schedule of your food intake matter? What's the best one? Science very nearly just shrugs at this question. Who knows what else we're missing?
    - narag 11y ago
      Unless, of course, you've seen the relevant science, in which case it falls under B. My point was that, even if not exactly science, basic facts are known. Yes, I'm sure people ate less in the past. I've seen the numbers and, to a certain extent, I've seen people changing their habits in my lifetime. This is like a tide, while many studies are focusing in a few waves. That's what my point anyway.
  - Mikeb85 11y ago
    > that has been used for centuries. You mean millenia. There's evidence of people harvesting salt dating back as far as archaeology takes us. Salt mines dating over 8000 years ago. Ancient observers writing about the salt trade 2500 years ago. And so on.
  - tgb 11y ago
    Surely the easy way to have less heart disease is to have more other disease. Or to not diagnose heart disease at all.
    - narag 11y ago
      The later seems tongue in cheek, isn't it? But the former is actually true. I guess cancer is now a bigger cause of mortality just because we live longer and so we have more time to get it, instead of dying earlier of another, now tractable, illness. I don't think raise in heart diseases can be explained just by that effect.
- Mikeb85 11y ago
  To be honest, the article doesn't have much to say anyway. It's about how each paper cites other like-minded papers, so each side basically turns into a Reddit circle-jerk, and no one appears to be doing any real science. And of course, as I posted in my other response, it's far easier to prove a hypothesis than to disprove one, especially if your test subjects are humans that likely aren't going to put up with your shit for more than a few days anyway. Test A - feed subjects a salt-heavy diet for a few days. Observe that they're still alive. Salt is good. Test B - feed subjects a salt-poor diet for a few days. Observe that they're still alive. Salt is bad. Observation A - observe that healthy subjects eat a lot of salt. Salt is good. Observation B - observe that unhealthy subjects eat a lot of salt. Salt is bad. And so on...
vixen99 11y ago
All likely true but that's not what this is about. I think it is a concern that in many issues of public interest, some scientists are much too ready to adopt strongly polarized views and thereby operate with an aggressive agenda which precludes a cool appraisal of data which fails to reinforce their 'party line'.
- Mikeb85 11y ago
  So science is biased? Of course it is, any observer who pays attention for more than a few years knows it is. When you're looking for a specific phenomenon, you're more likely to find supporting evidence. For example, if my hypothesis is that a crow can use a television remote, I'm going to stick a crow in a room with a television remote, and the crow will likely mash enough buttons that I can convince you it's true. And then of course there's statistics, and the famous saying which goes with it. Maybe the real problem is that humans are biased, we're not really looking for the truth, we're looking for confirmation of beliefs we develop for whatever reason. We've always been far better at beating the natural world into submission than observing it anyway...
norea-armozel 11y ago
Salt is a problem for people with hypertension or related blood pressure conditions. And there's a strong correlation between cutting down salt and reducing your BP in those cases. Especially since it's safer than just increasing some BP medication doses. Also, your exercise and diet suggestions effectively reduce salt in your body. Less food, less salt. More exercise and more water means salt gets removed from your body faster. I'm not trying to say salt is universally bad, but I'm pretty sure no one should literally swallow spoonfuls of the stuff either.
fpoling 11y ago
On cannot eat too much starch. Try to eat only potatoes or rice prepared without any oil/butter for couple of weeks with perhaps few vegetables or fruits in addition with any amount of salt or herbs for taste. You learn that it is impossible to overeat as normal appetite controlling signals kicks in and limit the consumed amount. One does not gain weight on such diet and likely even loose some. Similarly with sugar. Try to drink plain water with sugar (not tee/coffee or anything else that bring own taste). It is just impossible to drink too much of it. In fact for many people such plain water with sugar is a useful trick to limit appetite and loose weight. So it is not the amount of what is eaten but rather something in food or food composition that makes people overweight. As regarding exercising consider that doing high-intensity strength training for 15 minutes once per week is often enough to get into shape. So again, it is not the amount but rather the details of the exercise that are important.
- suprfnk 11y ago
  > So it is not the amount of what is eaten but rather something in food or food composition that makes people overweight. > As regarding exercising consider that doing high-intensity strength training for 15 minutes once per week is often enough to get into shape. So again, it is not the amount but rather the details of the exercise that are important. You make some wild claims here. Do you have anything to back that up, or are you just hypothesizing?
  - fpoling 11y ago
    For the starch just search for effects of starch diet. For sugar water, see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Shangri-La_Diet. For high-intensity training, see www.bodybyscience.net - the blog there links quite a few medical studies about high intensity training. My personal experience or experience of my relatives confirms this.
- obsurveyor 11y ago
  > Try to drink plain water with sugar (not tee/coffee or anything else that bring own taste). It is just impossible to drink too much of it This is blatantly not true in the US, you can observe any number of people anywhere drinking full sugar sodas all day long.

by Mikeb85 11y ago

jerf 11y ago

Why do you think you know that? Since the answer is basically either A: "no good reason" or B: "I believe I have science on my side", this really isn't a good response to an article about how controversial the science is. Which science do you think you have? Why is it better than the other half of the science? This is a generic reply to everybody jumping up to explain what the truth really is.

darkerside 11y ago
I agree that it's not a response that is constructive to the science at hand, but it's a fine response for an individual. Unless you want to obsess over having the perfect diet, you can have a diet that is 80% healthy with 20% of the focus if you just diversify your diet across many different sources. The only thing we really know about scientific knowledge is that it will continue to evolve.
narag 11y ago
Would "people ate less and suffered less heart diseases time ago?" qualify as C? Of course this point has the same problem of lacking details. But recognizing "modern food" as a culprit is actually less overeaching than putting the blame on a single substance that has been used for centuries.
- jerf 11y ago
  "Would "people ate less and suffered less heart diseases time ago?" qualify as C?" No; that would fall under "no good reason". Are you sure people "ate less"? Given that we (think we) know that people of the past were also more active (although history is definitely on your side for that one), and how much more active people need to eat to sustain their activity, I would be completely unsurprised to learn that people in the past consumed more calories than the average American. You'd need to do quite a bit of science to nail this down. Unless, of course, you've seen the relevant science, in which case it falls under B. It's hard to escape from needing to have done science to really know what the problem is, and it's also hard to escape from the fact that all the science is really a great deal less clear than we've been led to believe by our government and public health organizations. It's clear we have problems; it's way less clear what the cause truly is. It also is reasonable to observe that you can "eat better" with less processed food, etc., and exercise is reasonably well established as helping, but why, exactly? We may speak in English of that as being one or two changes, but it's not; it's hundreds, thousands, perhaps even more changes, all at once. Which of them are relevant, and exactly how? Those questions are much less well answered. It also doesn't necessarily matter to you personally in the end. But it does mean that confident declarations about what is "really" the cause are poorly supported right now on all fronts. I've been looking at this for many years too, and just about the only conclusions I've come to are A: less processed does seem better B: exercise does seem to be important but it's surprising how much debate about which types of exercise are good for what is still happening, again, despite what we've been led to believe and C: the consensus I was taught growing up in the 1980s is dead wrong in almost (but not quite) every detail, but that doesn't mean I know what is right. There are still entire massive dimensions poorly explored by science; for instance, go look up the science on "intermittent fasting". One of the first things you ram into is that while there have been several studies on it, they all use the exact same schedule, which happens to be fairly unrealistic. No exploration of the space as a whole, just this one point, sampled over and over again. Does the schedule of your food intake matter? What's the best one? Science very nearly just shrugs at this question. Who knows what else we're missing?
  - narag 11y ago
    Unless, of course, you've seen the relevant science, in which case it falls under B. My point was that, even if not exactly science, basic facts are known. Yes, I'm sure people ate less in the past. I've seen the numbers and, to a certain extent, I've seen people changing their habits in my lifetime. This is like a tide, while many studies are focusing in a few waves. That's what my point anyway.
- Mikeb85 11y ago
  > that has been used for centuries. You mean millenia. There's evidence of people harvesting salt dating back as far as archaeology takes us. Salt mines dating over 8000 years ago. Ancient observers writing about the salt trade 2500 years ago. And so on.
- tgb 11y ago
  Surely the easy way to have less heart disease is to have more other disease. Or to not diagnose heart disease at all.
  - narag 11y ago
    The later seems tongue in cheek, isn't it? But the former is actually true. I guess cancer is now a bigger cause of mortality just because we live longer and so we have more time to get it, instead of dying earlier of another, now tractable, illness. I don't think raise in heart diseases can be explained just by that effect.
Mikeb85 11y ago
To be honest, the article doesn't have much to say anyway. It's about how each paper cites other like-minded papers, so each side basically turns into a Reddit circle-jerk, and no one appears to be doing any real science. And of course, as I posted in my other response, it's far easier to prove a hypothesis than to disprove one, especially if your test subjects are humans that likely aren't going to put up with your shit for more than a few days anyway. Test A - feed subjects a salt-heavy diet for a few days. Observe that they're still alive. Salt is good. Test B - feed subjects a salt-poor diet for a few days. Observe that they're still alive. Salt is bad. Observation A - observe that healthy subjects eat a lot of salt. Salt is good. Observation B - observe that unhealthy subjects eat a lot of salt. Salt is bad. And so on...

vixen99 11y ago

All likely true but that's not what this is about. I think it is a concern that in many issues of public interest, some scientists are much too ready to adopt strongly polarized views and thereby operate with an aggressive agenda which precludes a cool appraisal of data which fails to reinforce their 'party line'.

Mikeb85 11y ago
So science is biased? Of course it is, any observer who pays attention for more than a few years knows it is. When you're looking for a specific phenomenon, you're more likely to find supporting evidence. For example, if my hypothesis is that a crow can use a television remote, I'm going to stick a crow in a room with a television remote, and the crow will likely mash enough buttons that I can convince you it's true. And then of course there's statistics, and the famous saying which goes with it. Maybe the real problem is that humans are biased, we're not really looking for the truth, we're looking for confirmation of beliefs we develop for whatever reason. We've always been far better at beating the natural world into submission than observing it anyway...

norea-armozel 11y ago

Salt is a problem for people with hypertension or related blood pressure conditions. And there's a strong correlation between cutting down salt and reducing your BP in those cases. Especially since it's safer than just increasing some BP medication doses. Also, your exercise and diet suggestions effectively reduce salt in your body. Less food, less salt. More exercise and more water means salt gets removed from your body faster. I'm not trying to say salt is universally bad, but I'm pretty sure no one should literally swallow spoonfuls of the stuff either.

fpoling 11y ago

On cannot eat too much starch. Try to eat only potatoes or rice prepared without any oil/butter for couple of weeks with perhaps few vegetables or fruits in addition with any amount of salt or herbs for taste. You learn that it is impossible to overeat as normal appetite controlling signals kicks in and limit the consumed amount. One does not gain weight on such diet and likely even loose some. Similarly with sugar. Try to drink plain water with sugar (not tee/coffee or anything else that bring own taste). It is just impossible to drink too much of it. In fact for many people such plain water with sugar is a useful trick to limit appetite and loose weight. So it is not the amount of what is eaten but rather something in food or food composition that makes people overweight. As regarding exercising consider that doing high-intensity strength training for 15 minutes once per week is often enough to get into shape. So again, it is not the amount but rather the details of the exercise that are important.

suprfnk 11y ago
> So it is not the amount of what is eaten but rather something in food or food composition that makes people overweight. > As regarding exercising consider that doing high-intensity strength training for 15 minutes once per week is often enough to get into shape. So again, it is not the amount but rather the details of the exercise that are important. You make some wild claims here. Do you have anything to back that up, or are you just hypothesizing?
- fpoling 11y ago
  For the starch just search for effects of starch diet. For sugar water, see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Shangri-La_Diet. For high-intensity training, see www.bodybyscience.net - the blog there links quite a few medical studies about high intensity training. My personal experience or experience of my relatives confirms this.
obsurveyor 11y ago
> Try to drink plain water with sugar (not tee/coffee or anything else that bring own taste). It is just impossible to drink too much of it This is blatantly not true in the US, you can observe any number of people anywhere drinking full sugar sodas all day long.