4 ms·

Actually, the Scientific American article is wrong. This space study also concludes that salt is harmful. Now possibly in more ways than was previously known.

Retric 9y ago
Salt intake over years is not the same as salt intake over a month making this study meaningless in terms of long term heath impacts.
- SepUltra 9y ago
  Nope.
  - Retric 9y ago
    The US recommended salt intake is limited to 1.5g to 2.3g grams of salt depending on some risk factors. Their 'low' intake was 6g and high was 12grams / day. https://sodiumbreakup.heart.org/how_much_sodium_should_i_eat https://sodiumbreakup.heart.org/how_much_sodium_should_i_eat So, I am saying almost 5x the recommended limit for a month might not generalize very well. Sorry, 'Nope' is not going to cut it. Further, the human body climatizes to various situations over time suck as heat or altitude, I suspect salt intake is probably good example of that.
    - SepUltra 9y ago
      Nope. Try again. If you bother to read the study, this describes how salt induces breakdown of proteins and carbohydrates in body. That's in addition to other ill effects salt has that we are more aware of.
    - MandieD 9y ago
      A lot of the cross-talk in the whole salt/sodium debate is caused by conflating salt (sodium chloride) with sodium, one of its constituents. The US daily recommended sodium intake is 1.5-2.3g. The sodium component of sodium chloride is about 40%, so that's more like 3.75-5.75g of salt per day. Still lower than the study, but putting the higher recommended amount right around the lower study amount. (I consume up to an extra teaspoon of salt each day to make sure I'm getting at least 5000mg of sodium so I don't start passing out at an inconvenient moment, on advice of a cardiologist)
      - Retric 9y ago
        Good catch. These are supposed to be limits not minimum recommendations. Also people get sodium from more than just salt so 5.75g of salt is still high and calling 6g low is kind of a misnomer.
  - lee 9y ago
    If you're wondering why you're so downvoted, your reply of "Nope." is at best lacking of any substance in a discussion and at worst offensive.
    - SepUltra 9y ago
      OMG! Is that so?
Broken_Hippo 9y ago
Not really. The articles talk about different sorts of effects of salt: The Scientific American paper is mainly about the link between heart disease and salt, which was basically scientifically shaky. The article we are discussing talks about different sorts of things that happen when we eat a lot of salt. It could be bad, sure, but it could be good when talking of weight loss. We'll see with more research.
- kpil 9y ago
  It's been known to be shaky for at least 20 years, but that have not stopped various government health organisations campaigning for a reduced salt intake. I can give them that it's a complex issue, there are probably no adverse effects and that reducing the risk for stroke even on the margin could be beneficial - such as for those that have a generic invariant that makes them very sensitive to salt levels.

Retric 9y ago

Salt intake over years is not the same as salt intake over a month making this study meaningless in terms of long term heath impacts.

SepUltra 9y ago
Nope.
- Retric 9y ago
  The US recommended salt intake is limited to 1.5g to 2.3g grams of salt depending on some risk factors. Their 'low' intake was 6g and high was 12grams / day. https://sodiumbreakup.heart.org/how_much_sodium_should_i_eat https://sodiumbreakup.heart.org/how_much_sodium_should_i_eat So, I am saying almost 5x the recommended limit for a month might not generalize very well. Sorry, 'Nope' is not going to cut it. Further, the human body climatizes to various situations over time suck as heat or altitude, I suspect salt intake is probably good example of that.
  - SepUltra 9y ago
    Nope. Try again. If you bother to read the study, this describes how salt induces breakdown of proteins and carbohydrates in body. That's in addition to other ill effects salt has that we are more aware of.
  - MandieD 9y ago
    A lot of the cross-talk in the whole salt/sodium debate is caused by conflating salt (sodium chloride) with sodium, one of its constituents. The US daily recommended sodium intake is 1.5-2.3g. The sodium component of sodium chloride is about 40%, so that's more like 3.75-5.75g of salt per day. Still lower than the study, but putting the higher recommended amount right around the lower study amount. (I consume up to an extra teaspoon of salt each day to make sure I'm getting at least 5000mg of sodium so I don't start passing out at an inconvenient moment, on advice of a cardiologist)
    - Retric 9y ago
      Good catch. These are supposed to be limits not minimum recommendations. Also people get sodium from more than just salt so 5.75g of salt is still high and calling 6g low is kind of a misnomer.
- lee 9y ago
  If you're wondering why you're so downvoted, your reply of "Nope." is at best lacking of any substance in a discussion and at worst offensive.
  - SepUltra 9y ago
    OMG! Is that so?

Broken_Hippo 9y ago

Not really. The articles talk about different sorts of effects of salt: The Scientific American paper is mainly about the link between heart disease and salt, which was basically scientifically shaky. The article we are discussing talks about different sorts of things that happen when we eat a lot of salt. It could be bad, sure, but it could be good when talking of weight loss. We'll see with more research.

kpil 9y ago
It's been known to be shaky for at least 20 years, but that have not stopped various government health organisations campaigning for a reduced salt intake. I can give them that it's a complex issue, there are probably no adverse effects and that reducing the risk for stroke even on the margin could be beneficial - such as for those that have a generic invariant that makes them very sensitive to salt levels.