4 ms·

I bet you that title is going to cause some people to not get on the dash diet ... when they really need to.

by viro 4y ago

Retric 4y ago
Uhh need to based on what evidence? This isn’t the only study suggests minimal if any improvement with lowered salt intake and the often quoted reasoning for why salt would matter is flawed. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5179550/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5179550/. “Graudal et al. (40) observed that sodium restriction (sodium reduction of 42–341 mmol/24 h in studies lasting 4–90 days) was independently associated with increased heart rate in healthy individuals and individuals with hypertension.”
- squeaky-clean 4y ago
  You're quoting one small section of one referenced study in meta-study and leaving out the conclusion of this section that more serious studies are needed to determine the relationship between sodium intake and heart rate (not morbidity due to heart disease, just heart rate). > Given the discrepancy in results, more studies in this area are required to investigate the relationship between dietary sodium intake and heart rate. You're cherry picking one small part from a section not really related to the topic at hand and also ignoring the conclusion the study authors draw. The sentence literally before the one you quote is > Studies that demonstrated the effects of dietary sodium on heart rate have shown conflicting results. And then you cherrypick the one example that agrees with your point while ignoring the examples that refute your point. If you want to say the science is still unsettled, sure. But to pretend that it is settled in the way you want and quote one sentence out of context in a meta-study who's entire point is that the debate is not settled? Come on.
  - Retric 4y ago
    > If you want to say the science is still unsettled, sure. I agree studies give conflicting results and there is isn’t a clear winner here. I agree more studies are perfectly reasonable. However, the default when faced with conflicting information isn’t to put forth effort into changing behavior. That requires justification, which isn’t available. Consider if millions where micro-dosing Tylenol to avoid dementia and the results where inconclusive, what messaging would you provide? (Stop your wasting money), (do it it’s probably worth it), (might help, might not, we don’t know do what you want). The temptation is to say ‘do it’, the costs are low and the benefits could be significant. However, when there are known useful things people could be doing it’s probably best to stick with the third option. PS: Ok you could jump on the latest study and constantly flip flop on recommendations, but that just confuses people and erodes trust in the process.
    - squeaky-clean 4y ago
      Look man, my comment was saying you can't just cherrypick a single sentence out of context from a long study (especially when the context of that section contradicts your own point). If you want to argue about sodium intake there's other comments in here for that. The statement you picked made it out that there is no correlation between sodium intake and heart rate. The study you took that statement from was making the point that we can't draw such conclusions either way. I didn't say anything about whether or not people should flip flop recommendations. But don't irresponsibly cite studies. It defeats your entire argument when you do so.
      - Retric 4y ago
        > The statement you picked made it out that there is no correlation between sodium intake and heart rate. “was independently associated with increased heart rate in healthy individuals and individuals with hypertension.” Cherry picking would have been linking to the study that suggested lower salt intake was unhealthy directly. Instead I linked to the meta study to give better context.

I bet you that title is going to cause some people to not get on the dash diet ... when they really need to.

by viro 4y ago

I bet you that title is going to cause some people to not get on the dash diet ... when they really need to.

Uhh need to based on what evidence? This isn’t the only study suggests minimal if any improvement with lowered salt intake and the often quoted reasoning for why salt would matter is flawed. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5179550/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5179550/. “Graudal et al. (40) observed that sodium restriction (sodium reduction of 42–341 mmol/24 h in studies lasting 4–90 days) was independently associated with increased heart rate in healthy individuals and individuals with hypertension.”

squeaky-clean 4y ago
You're quoting one small section of one referenced study in meta-study and leaving out the conclusion of this section that more serious studies are needed to determine the relationship between sodium intake and heart rate (not morbidity due to heart disease, just heart rate). > Given the discrepancy in results, more studies in this area are required to investigate the relationship between dietary sodium intake and heart rate. You're cherry picking one small part from a section not really related to the topic at hand and also ignoring the conclusion the study authors draw. The sentence literally before the one you quote is > Studies that demonstrated the effects of dietary sodium on heart rate have shown conflicting results. And then you cherrypick the one example that agrees with your point while ignoring the examples that refute your point. If you want to say the science is still unsettled, sure. But to pretend that it is settled in the way you want and quote one sentence out of context in a meta-study who's entire point is that the debate is not settled? Come on.
- Retric 4y ago
  > If you want to say the science is still unsettled, sure. I agree studies give conflicting results and there is isn’t a clear winner here. I agree more studies are perfectly reasonable. However, the default when faced with conflicting information isn’t to put forth effort into changing behavior. That requires justification, which isn’t available. Consider if millions where micro-dosing Tylenol to avoid dementia and the results where inconclusive, what messaging would you provide? (Stop your wasting money), (do it it’s probably worth it), (might help, might not, we don’t know do what you want). The temptation is to say ‘do it’, the costs are low and the benefits could be significant. However, when there are known useful things people could be doing it’s probably best to stick with the third option. PS: Ok you could jump on the latest study and constantly flip flop on recommendations, but that just confuses people and erodes trust in the process.
  - squeaky-clean 4y ago
    Look man, my comment was saying you can't just cherrypick a single sentence out of context from a long study (especially when the context of that section contradicts your own point). If you want to argue about sodium intake there's other comments in here for that. The statement you picked made it out that there is no correlation between sodium intake and heart rate. The study you took that statement from was making the point that we can't draw such conclusions either way. I didn't say anything about whether or not people should flip flop recommendations. But don't irresponsibly cite studies. It defeats your entire argument when you do so.
    - Retric 4y ago
      > The statement you picked made it out that there is no correlation between sodium intake and heart rate. “was independently associated with increased heart rate in healthy individuals and individuals with hypertension.” Cherry picking would have been linking to the study that suggested lower salt intake was unhealthy directly. Instead I linked to the meta study to give better context.