3 ms·
Sodium is necessary for neural activity, which I assume most people would say is a useful thing to have. It doesn’t mean we should load up on salt. I’m not say
by zarzavat 5y ago
Sodium is necessary for neural activity, which I assume most people would say is a useful thing to have. It doesn’t mean we should load up on salt.
I’m not saying that consuming more cholesterol is bad for you, or even that consuming more salt is bad for you. But we need to be careful about inferring deficiency from the fact that a given nutrient is essential.
It’s absolutely possible for a nutrient to be important yet commonly over-consumed, it’s also possible for a nutrient to be important and yet to have a very wide window whereby people get similar health outcomes from moderate or high consumption (e.g. vitamin C).
- AnthonBerg 5y agoAgreed! I want to underline that the avoidance of a nutrient should be based in fact, and I also want to suggest that people examine what facts lay under a given piece of advice. I do not see a clear scientific structure that would serve as a foundation for avoiding cholesterol as a general and default thing to almost always do. I do not see references to any such basis of evidence in the article. And have seen evidence that supports making several rather different conclusions than the article does. There’s also the question of outdated science. Saturated fat was believed to harm pancreatic islet cells. As far as I understand more recent studies, it is the opposite. We can ask ourselves: Is the full picture being re-examined when it ought to? How do we know? How do we know if the author of this article has cared to do that? In short: Is it science?