Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
War On Salt
#1
This is amazing. Other than the global warming issue, perhaps this conflict may be second. For years now the medical community has been pushing the theme that salt is not good for humans, especially salt in high doses. Anyway, we are all pretty much up to speed on this part. Its been drummed into society for several decades now.

Then last year the Journal of the American Medical Association published their own salt study, and concluded that salt really wasn't all that bad after all.

According to Gary Taubes, who wrote the NYTimes article,

Quote:While, back then, the evidence merely failed to demonstrate that salt was harmful, the evidence from studies published over the past two years actually suggests that restricting how much salt we eat can increase our likelihood of dying prematurely. Put simply, the possibility has been raised that if we were to eat as little salt as the U.S.D.A. and the C.D.C. recommend, we’d be harming rather than helping ourselves....

The idea that eating less salt can worsen health outcomes may sound bizarre, but it also has biological plausibility and is celebrating its 40th anniversary this year, too. A 1972 paper in The New England Journal of Medicine reported that the less salt people ate, the higher their levels of a substance secreted by the kidneys, called renin, which set off a physiological cascade of events that seemed to end with an increased risk of heart disease. In this scenario: eat less salt, secrete more renin, get heart disease, die prematurely.

With nearly everyone focused on the supposed benefits of salt restriction, little research was done to look at the potential dangers. But four years ago, Italian researchers began publishing the results from a series of clinical trials, all of which reported that, among patients with heart failure, reducing salt consumption increased the risk of death.

Those trials have been followed by a slew of studies suggesting that reducing sodium to anything like what government policy refers to as a “safe upper limit” is likely to do more harm than good. These covered some 100,000 people in more than 30 countries and showed that salt consumption is remarkably stable among populations over time. In the United States, for instance, it has remained constant for the last 50 years, despite 40 years of the eat-less-salt message. The average salt intake in these populations — what could be called the normal salt intake — was one and a half teaspoons a day, almost 50 percent above what federal agencies consider a safe upper limit for healthy Americans under 50, and more than double what the policy advises for those who aren’t so young or healthy. This consistency, between populations and over time, suggests that how much salt we eat is determined by physiological demands, not diet choices.

One could still argue that all these people should reduce their salt intake to prevent hypertension, except for the fact that four of these studies — involving Type 1 diabetics, Type 2 diabetics, healthy Europeans and patients with chronic heart failure — reported that the people eating salt at the lower limit of normal were more likely to have heart disease than those eating smack in the middle of the normal range. Effectively what the 1972 paper would have predicted.

Proponents of the eat-less-salt campaign tend to deal with this contradictory evidence by implying that anyone raising it is a shill for the food industry and doesn’t care about saving lives. An N.I.H. administrator told me back in 1998 that to publicly question the science on salt was to play into the hands of the industry. “As long as there are things in the media that say the salt controversy continues,” he said, “they win.”

Well, apparently the N.I.H. administrator is being proven correct here, because just one year later comes the following: 1 in 10 U.S. Deaths Blamed on Salt. Say What!? One out of ten? You've got to be kidding, right?

Quote:The new study, by the same Harvard research team, linked excessive salt consumption to nearly 2.3 million cardiovascular deaths worldwide in 2010. One in 10 Americans dies from eating too much salt, the researchers found.

“The burden of sodium is much higher than the burden of sugar-sweetened beverages,” said Dr. Dariush Mozaffarian, an epidemiologist at the Harvard School of Public Health and author of both the salt and sugary drink studies. “That’s because sugar-sweetened beverages are just one type of food that people can avoid, whereas sodium is in everything.”

Mozaffarian and colleagues used data from 247 surveys on sodium intake and 107 clinical trials that measured how salt affects blood pressure, and how blood pressure contributes to cardiovascular disease like heart attacks and stroke.

“From that we could determine the health effects of sodium,” he said, adding that one out of three deaths due to excessive sodium occurred before age 70. “It’s really affecting younger adults, not just the elderly.”

I'm a natural born skeptic, especially of things that don't logically add up. And this study looks quite familiar to the global warming fiasco. I'll get back to that in a moment. But first, let's say they are correct that "nearly 2.3 million cardiovascular deaths worldwide in 2010" is correct, even though 'nearly' is not defined.

Even with those numbers, how does this even remotely come close to the 'One-in-Ten' figure thrown out here? And how can something so essential to the human body be so bad when the body makes us crave salt when we deplete it from the system? Even my dog Charlie will lick my dirty bed sheets in order to get the salt my body has managed to sweat out. Again, something doesn't jibe.

And here is where the statement above, and the global warming issue dovetails in with this controversy. In the AGW debate the Michael Mann Hockey Stick was proven to be a cheap attempt at manipulating data to bolster an issue that doesn't really exist. It was quickly latched on to, and has been very slow to be discarded. But just when it is almost totally refuted, along comes another study that is even whacker than the Hockey Stick. The new Marcott Study is even crazier, and takes things to a new level of absurdity.

[Image: marcott-a-10001.jpg?w=640&h=430&h=430]

Let's go back to the statement above: "“As long as there are things in the media that say the salt controversy continues,” he said, “they win.” This is exactly what the AGW issue has also done. No matter how absurd, as long as it is crowing and screaming, the issue is still there and discredits any science that suggests otherwise.

Does anyone else think along the same lines I am thinking? And are our bodies lying to us when we/animals crave salt to the extent we will do anything to get it? And were the ancients wrong in valuing salt so highly? Or is this just another attempt to perpetuate another giant ruse on the unsuspecting gullible public?
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
Have a Gneiss Day!
Reply
#2
Anything you enjoy is a sin. Redemption only comes through suffering.
Reply
#3
A salt is just a part of the world. A salt is the midway point between acids and bases. I doubt it is all that terrible.
Reply
#4
ABC (today!) 1 in 10 U.S. Deaths Blamed on Salt

The real story is that no one knows, but journalists and scientists are paid for emitting garbage....
Sanders 2020

Reply
#5
Yes, and the greatest cause of death in from Radon.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)