4 ms·

Interesting bit: >>In May European researchers publishing in the Journal of the American Medical Association reported that the less sodium that study subjects

Interesting bit: >>In May 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. These findings call into question the common wisdom that excess salt is bad for you << If I'm reading this correctly it is saying that people that urinate less sodium have higher chances of dying from heart disease. Then the author uses this as evidence that less sodium actually increase your chances of dying from heart disease. If so then I would hypothesize that less sodium could simply mean that the body is no longer able to expunge it from the body and hence that is what is causing the heart disease.

JacobAldridge 15y ago
"less sodium [output] could simply mean that the body is no longer able to expunge it from the body" "the less sodium that study subjects excreted in their urine - an excellent measure of prior consumption" These two statements seem mutually exclusive. If the amount of sodium a subject excretes is an excellent measure of prior consumption (ie, more out is demonstrably linked with more in, and less out = less in), then your hypothesis (less out may mean more retained, and therefore output can't be linked to input) cannot be true. Of course, it could also be the "excellent measure" which is incorrect - my point is simply that these two are contradictory.
- GreenNight 15y ago
  Or it could also be that people that were eating less salt where the ones that had a history of heart problems (their own or their parents) so it had nothing to do with the sodium intake.
- felipemnoa 15y ago
  >>my point is simply that these two are contradictory My hypothesis assumes that the following statement is false on sick individuals. >>"the less sodium that study subjects excreted in their urine - an excellent measure of prior consumption Hence there would be no contradiction.
  - JacobAldridge 15y ago
    You're assuming that statement is false in specific cases; the OP assumes it is true in all cases - that sounds like a contradiction to me.

JacobAldridge 15y ago

"less sodium [output] could simply mean that the body is no longer able to expunge it from the body" "the less sodium that study subjects excreted in their urine - an excellent measure of prior consumption" These two statements seem mutually exclusive. If the amount of sodium a subject excretes is an excellent measure of prior consumption (ie, more out is demonstrably linked with more in, and less out = less in), then your hypothesis (less out may mean more retained, and therefore output can't be linked to input) cannot be true. Of course, it could also be the "excellent measure" which is incorrect - my point is simply that these two are contradictory.

GreenNight 15y ago
Or it could also be that people that were eating less salt where the ones that had a history of heart problems (their own or their parents) so it had nothing to do with the sodium intake.
felipemnoa 15y ago
>>my point is simply that these two are contradictory My hypothesis assumes that the following statement is false on sick individuals. >>"the less sodium that study subjects excreted in their urine - an excellent measure of prior consumption Hence there would be no contradiction.
- JacobAldridge 15y ago
  You're assuming that statement is false in specific cases; the OP assumes it is true in all cases - that sounds like a contradiction to me.