18 ms·

I’m curious what were the dietary sources of salt say earlier than 10 thousand years ago. There’s the argument that goes “people never ate salt in modern quanti

by lovecg 5y ago

I’m curious what were the dietary sources of salt say earlier than 10 thousand years ago. There’s the argument that goes “people never ate salt in modern quantities so evolutionary speaking this is a new shock to the system”. Do we actually _need_ all the extra salt we’re consuming nowadays? Is it good/neutral/bad for us?

mytailorisrich 5y ago
> Do we actually _need_ all the extra salt we’re consuming nowadays? Is it good/neutral/bad for us? Of course we don't need it, and too much salt is indeed bad for us [1] [2] (hence all the campaigns about eating less salty). According to the references I've quickly found, for instance, an American consumes on average 3,400mg of sodium per day when the body needs less than 500mg (obviously this may be higher if you sweat a lot for some reason). [1] https://www.fda.gov/food/nutrition-education-resources-materials/sodium-your-diet https://www.fda.gov/food/nutrition-education-resources-mater... [2] https://www.heart.org/en/healthy-living/healthy-eating/eat-smart/sodium/how-much-sodium-should-i-eat-per-day https://www.heart.org/en/healthy-living/healthy-eating/eat-s...
- nradov 5y ago
  Those links are rather misleading and don't appear to account for the latest research. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(18)31376-X/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6...
  - mytailorisrich 5y ago
    In relation to the commenter I was replying to the key is how much is actually needed. If you have more specific information on this that'd be great. Your point seems only about how much really is too much and the article you linked to is suggesting that the WHO recommendation is very conservative. However, I'm not really clear why you think any of my previous comment or references were misleading: I don't think it is under debate that we do not need all the sodium we eat and that too much of it is indeed bad for health.
    - WalterSear 5y ago
      > Sodium intake was associated with cardiovascular disease and strokes only in communities where mean intake was greater than 5 g/day. A strategy of sodium reduction in these communities and countries but not in others might be appropriate.
      - mytailorisrich 5y ago
        Hence my previous comment you're 'replying' to: It's only arguing about how much sodium becomes really bad, which is at best peripheral to the what was discussed. What's your point?
    - nradov 5y ago
      How much you "need" varies tremendously based on body weight, genetics, climate, and activity. A roofer working outside in the Louisiana summer will need way more salt than a sedentary office worker in Oregon. Most people who are metabolically healthy and sufficiently hydrated can maintain a proper sodium balance with no negative health impacts even if they consume a little extra salt. But some fraction of the population will suffer hypertension and other conditions; this is usually a symptom of deeper underlying physiological problems.
      - mytailorisrich 5y ago
        Obviously different people have different needs (and I did mention that). This is nitpicking. The point being in general we do eat much more sodium than we need (which, to re-centre things, was the original question).
JumpCrisscross 5y ago
> what were the dietary sources of salt say earlier than 10 thousand years ago. For inland communities, meat and salt licks. For coastal communities, seawater. > There’s the argument that goes “people never ate salt in modern quantities so evolutionary speaking this is a new shock to the system”. These arguments are indistinguishable from those suffering from the naturalistic fallacy [1] (EDIT: appeal to nature). One can construct an argument in its form for and against virtually any behavior, depending on what evidence one considers (e.g. which populations one samples), assumptions one makes (interpolating the archaeological evidence) and how far back one looks (early civilization, early humans, early hominids, et cetera). [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy
- hinkley 5y ago
  I think we can also safely assume that if proteins from salmon can be found up to 200 miles inland from their spawning grounds, that the salt and calcium from those fish also makes the same journey.
- thethirdone 5y ago
  Arguing that our current lifestyle is not what evolution optimized for is not a fallacy. There is no "ought" or "good" in the original quote. Many of the modern differences in environment from earlier humans would be considered "good" by most people. Extra salt is probably "bad" in most cases, but it is definitely different.
  - JumpCrisscross 5y ago
    > our current lifestyle is not what evolution optimized for It's not. But neither is a senior person living healthily and happily into their late years something evolution considered. We're trying our biology in ways evolution doesn't care for, aiming for goals it never considered. Rhetorically, I can construct arguments for (coastal communities being historically healthy and consuming more salt) and against (ancient civilizations were chronically salt starved) modern salt consumption with this form of argument. There are too many degrees of freedom amidst sparse evidence in a diverse, heterogenous archaeological record. > modern differences in environment from earlier humans would be considered "good" by most people Those people tend to consider the nutrient-rich versions of plants we've bred for millennia while disregarding the toxins, pathogens and general wear-and-tear a Paleolithic human would have been subjected to.
hinkley 5y ago
I think the only first world people having any issues with salt consumption are folks trying to live entirely off the land, and vegetarian leaning. While looking for other things, I've found a couple of videos talking about what plants bioaccumulate salt and how to extract it. I think it depends on whether the plant is otherwise poisonous. If it's edible then clearly making broth out of it would be the most productive option. Many of our biggest civilizations have access to the ocean or river deltas. They would have had access to salt. From what I understand, predators get their entire salt intake from the animals they eat (blood, in particular?), and when we ate the entire animal that probably would have worked for us as well. If you're trying to get salt from plants it's because you don't or won't have other options. There was a time that discovering salt deposits within your kingdom had huge political implications.
- melolife 5y ago
  It's actually relatively easy to be sodium deficient if you are physically active (as you shed sodium via sweat) and don't eat processed foods regardless of whether or not you are vegetarian. In my case the only significant source of sodium other than the salt shaker is cheese.
jjtheblunt 5y ago
ocean fish?
- cpach 5y ago
  I think so too. And oysters, shellfish, etc.
rhinoceraptor 5y ago
They were primarily animal sources of salt. Once agriculture developed, it became necessary to supplement that missing salt. From what I can find, that number is about 1/2 to 1/3 of what modern people eat. That's not to say that's a good thing, sodium intake is a U-shaped curve. Too little is as bad as too much. Here [1, check figure 1] is a study comparing heart disease, stroke, etc. vs sodium excretion (as a proxy for sodium intake). The standard dietary recommendation is 2300mg, which is well below the minimum point in the graph. And the 'high sodium diet' (3400mg) of average person is also below it, most people should probably be eating more salt, especially if they are sweating more from exercise or live in a hot climate. [1]: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/1105553 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/1105553
- YeGoblynQueenne 5y ago
  The study you link to makes no attempt to control for recent reduction of salt intake because of an increased risk of cardiovascular disease. To put it plainly, people who consume abnormally low amounts of salt don't do it out of choice - nobody enjoys eating their food without salt. They do it because the doctor tells them that it's either that, or a heart attack. It makes sense of course that cardiovascular events will be more prevalent in this group than any other group. Studies like the one you link to control for pre-existing cardiovascular disease, but having CV disease doesn't mean you cut down on salt. The same methodological flaw has previously caused studies to report that very low alcohol consumption is better than moderate alcohol consumption for the heart, for example. I have a link somewhere if you want. Btw, the study you linked to used the data from two studies comparing two anti-hypertensive drugs to each other or to placebo, so we know that basically everyone in the study already had some kind of underlying disease. Additionally, the study data included a one-time measurement, which significantly reduces its statistical power, despite its large population (you gotta take multiple measurements to minimise sampling error).
- mytailorisrich 5y ago
  > And the 'high sodium diet' (3400mg) of average person is also below it, most people should probably be eating more salt, That's a very dangerous advice to give loosely based on one paper and against the advice of about all health organisations worldwide...
obiwan14 5y ago
There were and there are plant sources of salt, just as with sugar. > Do we actually _need_ all the extra salt we’re consuming nowadays? Nyet! I almost got a heart attack after eating a way too salty jambalaya my roommate brought back from a party.
MomoXenosaga 5y ago
People live up to 90 nowadays. We're keeping people alive far longer than "evolutionary nature" ever intended.

by lovecg 5y ago

mytailorisrich 5y ago

> Do we actually _need_ all the extra salt we’re consuming nowadays? Is it good/neutral/bad for us? Of course we don't need it, and too much salt is indeed bad for us [1] [2] (hence all the campaigns about eating less salty). According to the references I've quickly found, for instance, an American consumes on average 3,400mg of sodium per day when the body needs less than 500mg (obviously this may be higher if you sweat a lot for some reason). [1] https://www.fda.gov/food/nutrition-education-resources-materials/sodium-your-diet https://www.fda.gov/food/nutrition-education-resources-mater... [2] https://www.heart.org/en/healthy-living/healthy-eating/eat-smart/sodium/how-much-sodium-should-i-eat-per-day https://www.heart.org/en/healthy-living/healthy-eating/eat-s...

nradov 5y ago
Those links are rather misleading and don't appear to account for the latest research. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(18)31376-X/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6...
- mytailorisrich 5y ago
  In relation to the commenter I was replying to the key is how much is actually needed. If you have more specific information on this that'd be great. Your point seems only about how much really is too much and the article you linked to is suggesting that the WHO recommendation is very conservative. However, I'm not really clear why you think any of my previous comment or references were misleading: I don't think it is under debate that we do not need all the sodium we eat and that too much of it is indeed bad for health.
  - WalterSear 5y ago
    > Sodium intake was associated with cardiovascular disease and strokes only in communities where mean intake was greater than 5 g/day. A strategy of sodium reduction in these communities and countries but not in others might be appropriate.
    - mytailorisrich 5y ago
      Hence my previous comment you're 'replying' to: It's only arguing about how much sodium becomes really bad, which is at best peripheral to the what was discussed. What's your point?
  - nradov 5y ago
    How much you "need" varies tremendously based on body weight, genetics, climate, and activity. A roofer working outside in the Louisiana summer will need way more salt than a sedentary office worker in Oregon. Most people who are metabolically healthy and sufficiently hydrated can maintain a proper sodium balance with no negative health impacts even if they consume a little extra salt. But some fraction of the population will suffer hypertension and other conditions; this is usually a symptom of deeper underlying physiological problems.
    - mytailorisrich 5y ago
      Obviously different people have different needs (and I did mention that). This is nitpicking. The point being in general we do eat much more sodium than we need (which, to re-centre things, was the original question).

JumpCrisscross 5y ago

> what were the dietary sources of salt say earlier than 10 thousand years ago. For inland communities, meat and salt licks. For coastal communities, seawater. > There’s the argument that goes “people never ate salt in modern quantities so evolutionary speaking this is a new shock to the system”. These arguments are indistinguishable from those suffering from the naturalistic fallacy [1] (EDIT: appeal to nature). One can construct an argument in its form for and against virtually any behavior, depending on what evidence one considers (e.g. which populations one samples), assumptions one makes (interpolating the archaeological evidence) and how far back one looks (early civilization, early humans, early hominids, et cetera). [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy

hinkley 5y ago
I think we can also safely assume that if proteins from salmon can be found up to 200 miles inland from their spawning grounds, that the salt and calcium from those fish also makes the same journey.
thethirdone 5y ago
Arguing that our current lifestyle is not what evolution optimized for is not a fallacy. There is no "ought" or "good" in the original quote. Many of the modern differences in environment from earlier humans would be considered "good" by most people. Extra salt is probably "bad" in most cases, but it is definitely different.
- JumpCrisscross 5y ago
  > our current lifestyle is not what evolution optimized for It's not. But neither is a senior person living healthily and happily into their late years something evolution considered. We're trying our biology in ways evolution doesn't care for, aiming for goals it never considered. Rhetorically, I can construct arguments for (coastal communities being historically healthy and consuming more salt) and against (ancient civilizations were chronically salt starved) modern salt consumption with this form of argument. There are too many degrees of freedom amidst sparse evidence in a diverse, heterogenous archaeological record. > modern differences in environment from earlier humans would be considered "good" by most people Those people tend to consider the nutrient-rich versions of plants we've bred for millennia while disregarding the toxins, pathogens and general wear-and-tear a Paleolithic human would have been subjected to.

hinkley 5y ago

I think the only first world people having any issues with salt consumption are folks trying to live entirely off the land, and vegetarian leaning. While looking for other things, I've found a couple of videos talking about what plants bioaccumulate salt and how to extract it. I think it depends on whether the plant is otherwise poisonous. If it's edible then clearly making broth out of it would be the most productive option. Many of our biggest civilizations have access to the ocean or river deltas. They would have had access to salt. From what I understand, predators get their entire salt intake from the animals they eat (blood, in particular?), and when we ate the entire animal that probably would have worked for us as well. If you're trying to get salt from plants it's because you don't or won't have other options. There was a time that discovering salt deposits within your kingdom had huge political implications.

melolife 5y ago
It's actually relatively easy to be sodium deficient if you are physically active (as you shed sodium via sweat) and don't eat processed foods regardless of whether or not you are vegetarian. In my case the only significant source of sodium other than the salt shaker is cheese.

jjtheblunt 5y ago

ocean fish?

cpach 5y ago
I think so too. And oysters, shellfish, etc.

rhinoceraptor 5y ago

They were primarily animal sources of salt. Once agriculture developed, it became necessary to supplement that missing salt. From what I can find, that number is about 1/2 to 1/3 of what modern people eat. That's not to say that's a good thing, sodium intake is a U-shaped curve. Too little is as bad as too much. Here [1, check figure 1] is a study comparing heart disease, stroke, etc. vs sodium excretion (as a proxy for sodium intake). The standard dietary recommendation is 2300mg, which is well below the minimum point in the graph. And the 'high sodium diet' (3400mg) of average person is also below it, most people should probably be eating more salt, especially if they are sweating more from exercise or live in a hot climate. [1]: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/1105553 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/1105553

YeGoblynQueenne 5y ago
The study you link to makes no attempt to control for recent reduction of salt intake because of an increased risk of cardiovascular disease. To put it plainly, people who consume abnormally low amounts of salt don't do it out of choice - nobody enjoys eating their food without salt. They do it because the doctor tells them that it's either that, or a heart attack. It makes sense of course that cardiovascular events will be more prevalent in this group than any other group. Studies like the one you link to control for pre-existing cardiovascular disease, but having CV disease doesn't mean you cut down on salt. The same methodological flaw has previously caused studies to report that very low alcohol consumption is better than moderate alcohol consumption for the heart, for example. I have a link somewhere if you want. Btw, the study you linked to used the data from two studies comparing two anti-hypertensive drugs to each other or to placebo, so we know that basically everyone in the study already had some kind of underlying disease. Additionally, the study data included a one-time measurement, which significantly reduces its statistical power, despite its large population (you gotta take multiple measurements to minimise sampling error).
mytailorisrich 5y ago
> And the 'high sodium diet' (3400mg) of average person is also below it, most people should probably be eating more salt, That's a very dangerous advice to give loosely based on one paper and against the advice of about all health organisations worldwide...

obiwan14 5y ago

There were and there are plant sources of salt, just as with sugar. > Do we actually _need_ all the extra salt we’re consuming nowadays? Nyet! I almost got a heart attack after eating a way too salty jambalaya my roommate brought back from a party.

MomoXenosaga 5y ago

People live up to 90 nowadays. We're keeping people alive far longer than "evolutionary nature" ever intended.