RSS
Another article, More scientists doubt salt is as bad for you as the government says, in the respectable Washington Post, arguing that the salt dietary guidelines in vogue for the last generation were not based on strong science. The problem here is that bureaucratic organizations are making decisions about the health of hundreds of millions on correlational science. The incentives are skewed, and the decisions are not without cost. In the piece the journalist reports on studies which suggest that excessively low sodium content might be associated with health problems, but perhaps more important than that is that most people love salty food. Withholding salt is another way to diminish the simple pleasures of life from the populace at large.
An interesting twist on this public health issue is that it turns out that some of the original scholars argued against salt on “Paleo” grounds. That is, the small-scale and Pleistocene societies likely had very low salt intake, suggesting we were not well adapted for it. But the fact that until recently the salt guidelines for African Americans and those over 50 were more stringent implies that even then there are individual differences. Populations likely vary on “optimal” salt (or fat or sugar) intake.
English
Arabic
Chinese (Simplified)
Dutch
French
German
Hebrew
Hindi
Italian
Japanese
Korean
Persian
Polish
Portuguese
Russian
Spanish
Swedish
Turkish
Vietnamese
ditto that for fish oil, i guess. although, obviously, not as many are effected by this:
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/03/30/fish-oil-claims-not-supported-by-research/?smid=tw-nytimeswell&seid=auto
also brings this to mind: http://abc1230news.1230thefan.com/2015/04/02/scientists-reveal-real-paleo-diet-of-ancient-skeleton/
A big side effect of the government’s low sodium crusade has been the increase in thyroid related health issues due to the low iodine intake, since most Americans get their iodine needs from iodized salt.
A key point – one that is often complete overlooked in these discussions.
It is my understanding that the body uses and requires a much greater range of fatty oils or whatever they are of the class that one's standard supermarket Omega-3 pair (?DHA & EPA) belong to. Might it not follow that one could easily take what is an excessive amount because the supplements create an imbalance preventing some of the other needed fatty acids from being absorbed or, if absorbed, used in proper proportion?
I take 6 x 1gm capsules a day (3 +3) and each is said to contain 300mg of marine triglycerides including EPA 180mg and DHA 120mg.Replies: @sammysamsam, @JayMan
My cardiologist who is not given to fads and enthusiasms but responds to his patients who try and keep up with the fashions told me that some research at the Royal Melbourne Hospital had affirmed the value of fish oil for the health of the heart’s electricals. I think my history of mild atrial flutter which he had fixed with an ablation made him think the fish oil tablets I was taking might be beneficial. However he had nothing to say when I proffered the thesis which I now state here.
It is my understanding that the body uses and requires a much greater range of fatty oils or whatever they are of the class that one’s standard supermarket Omega-3 pair (?DHA & EPA) belong to. Might it not follow that one could easily take what is an excessive amount because the supplements create an imbalance preventing some of the other needed fatty acids from being absorbed or, if absorbed, used in proper proportion?
I take 6 x 1gm capsules a day (3 +3) and each is said to contain 300mg of marine triglycerides including EPA 180mg and DHA 120mg.
1. Animal fat, butter, eggs… now salt. Is there anything, anything at all, that the high priests of modern dietology actually got right?
2. That said, the paleo movement has some fruitcakes amongst their numbers as well. Just because hunter-gatherers didn’t eat a lot of salt doesn’t mean it’s necessarily the optimal state of affairs. It could be many of them suffered from chronic salt deficiency. (Many wild animals spend long hours at “salt licks” to ward off chronic salt deficiency in the environment. If this is true for wild animals, why not for humans? But I’ve never heard of humans congregating to lick salt-bearing rock columns, possibly because biological instinct was by then put aside in favor of not appearing weird).
One argument I’ve heard is that if you remove one source of flavor, people try to compensate with another. It’s hard to get people to eat food without any salt, fat or sugar. So removing a relatively harmless source of flavor will result in worse diets.
The latest Soylent -http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2015/04/soylent-1-4-formula-changes-taste-shifts-macronutrients-ditches-oils/ – has upped the sodium levels because people were getting headaches and other problems. I haven’t tried it myself – I prefer to enjoy ‘real’ food, rather than treat myself as a factory farm animal.
So far as I can tell, the US federal dietary guidelines are just that (guidelines, suggestions, etc.) No compulsion is involved and no guns are being held to any heads, so I’m perplexed at comments about the government “making decisions about the health of hundreds of millions” or “withholding salt … from the populace at large” as a way of diminishing the pleasure they get from food.
Many hospitals, schools, and other organizations that serve food for large numbers of people, follow these guidelines as a condition of receiving funding. The idea is that following these guidelines will have positive health outcomes for the children in school or the patients in the hospital.Replies: @Joe Q., @Stephen
Really?
http://thefreethoughtproject.com/feds-to-public-school-kids-must-have-a-doctors-note-to-bring-their-own-lunch/
We used to have a genetic test on the market, for a variant in the angiotensin promoter. The ancestral / African variant predisposes to high blood pressure in response to sodium, but half of the Caucasians are with the derived alleles. [An easy speculation about climates, salt access, and evolution may be inserted here]
The test never took off because the docs found it much easier to treat everybody the same.
(BTW nice to see the image of a Kurlansky’s book, love them for the slightly silly yet highly informative style!)
Government guidelines do indeed have real impacts for many people’s diets.
Many hospitals, schools, and other organizations that serve food for large numbers of people, follow these guidelines as a condition of receiving funding. The idea is that following these guidelines will have positive health outcomes for the children in school or the patients in the hospital.
The taste argument seems to assume that people's tastes are innate and unchangeable, but observation suggests that to a significant extend they are acquired through habituation. I cut down my use of salt years ago, only partly in response to health campaigns, and to me most food now tastes better without added salt.
the guidelines influence what doctors tell their patients, and patients are often automatons in relation to what doctors and nutritionists say. it’s just like the *food babe* crap. there’s no compulsion, but people believe her.
I see a fundamental difference between this case and the Food Babe: in the former, recommendations based on actual research (lacking though it may be) are revised over time, whereas in the latter, there is no actual research to begin with.
Yes, food babe is crap. Mindful Eating is the new hotness!
A study published in Natural News that focused on 12 pairs of identical twin squirrels showed that a combination mindfulness, fish oil and season 1 of Dr Oz can extend your life by 50-75 years. Source: Gwyneth Paltrow
It is my understanding that the body uses and requires a much greater range of fatty oils or whatever they are of the class that one's standard supermarket Omega-3 pair (?DHA & EPA) belong to. Might it not follow that one could easily take what is an excessive amount because the supplements create an imbalance preventing some of the other needed fatty acids from being absorbed or, if absorbed, used in proper proportion?
I take 6 x 1gm capsules a day (3 +3) and each is said to contain 300mg of marine triglycerides including EPA 180mg and DHA 120mg.Replies: @sammysamsam, @JayMan
The body has virtually no requirement for dietary fats. The body can synthesize the fats it needs. It’s best to minimize intake of unsaturated fats because they accumulate in tissues over time and are linked to aging.
Fish oil is dangerous bunkum. Saturated and monounsaturated animal fats, coconut oil, and olive oil are a fairly benign sources of calories. On the other hand, you really want to minimize consumption of polyunsaturated seed oils and fish oils to the extent possible.
It’s also pretty easy to argue that getting too much saturated fat isn’t a great idea, but it’s nowhere near the problem the media has made it out to be.
Many hospitals, schools, and other organizations that serve food for large numbers of people, follow these guidelines as a condition of receiving funding. The idea is that following these guidelines will have positive health outcomes for the children in school or the patients in the hospital.Replies: @Joe Q., @Stephen
Fair enough, I was unaware that these institutions had to adhere to the guidelines to receive funding. (I don’t live in the USA)
It's hard not to see American kids have dietary issues, but it's also hard to understand how that can be corrected with one meal a day that they don't eat if it's not tasty. And a mass-produced meal is always going to have limitations. It seems like salt can be used to get kids to eat healthier foods.Replies: @Joe Q.
The patients may be automatons, but there is still a gap between influencing medical advice and the idea that salt is being withheld from people, against their will (with the exception of government funded institutional kitchens, as noted above).
I see a fundamental difference between this case and the Food Babe: in the former, recommendations based on actual research (lacking though it may be) are revised over time, whereas in the latter, there is no actual research to begin with.
I’m guessing they got the advice on whole grains and limiting sugar intake right. For most of human history, and even after the advent of agriculture, the average person probably consumed less sugar over the course of a few weeks or even months, than most people now eat on a daily basis.
I don't know if whole grains are significantly any more benefical (or rather, less harmful) than conventional ones.@ J Yan,
LOL.
Bit of a mixed metaphor there. How about rotten eggs instead?
A while back, I read something to the effect that if you have high blood pressure, restricting your salt intake may be good for you, but that if you don't, the amount of salt you consume doesn't matter. Studies had found benefits of low-salt diets for hypertensive patients, and that was extrapolated over the entire population. The current article hints at that history, as well as saying that someone found several groups of hunter-gatherers with low salt intake and low heart disease, which was then extrapolated to all Americans.
I'm not about to do the research to figure out whether either (or both) story is true, but they both illustrate the problems with extrapolating beyond your initial conditions.
Nutrition suffers from a malady that affects many other endeavors, such as sociology and human biology, viz excessive enthusiasm for ideas that go against common sense.
I blame physics, or at least its popular interpretations. 20th-century physics discovered relativity and quantum mechanics, both of which are extremely counterintuitive. The other sciences saw this and reasoned that to be “real sciences”, they, too would have to vindicate bold and/or ridiculous conjectures, the way physics did. The trouble is, that’s not what physics set out to do; it just happened that way. Others seems intent on going down the same path, even when reality is a lot more boring.
School lunches is where this issue hits home for me. The Feds provided money, including free lunches, to public schools that provided healthier meals, including less salt. This appears to have been an important concern for Michelle Obama. Kids stopped eating lunch, and protested by video. Some days I think my daughter just has iceberg lettuce and water for lunch. There are stories about kids fainting in class. And the guidelines are getting stricter.
It’s hard not to see American kids have dietary issues, but it’s also hard to understand how that can be corrected with one meal a day that they don’t eat if it’s not tasty. And a mass-produced meal is always going to have limitations. It seems like salt can be used to get kids to eat healthier foods.
Sugar and whole grains, for sure. I would add trans fatty acids to the list.
It's hard not to see American kids have dietary issues, but it's also hard to understand how that can be corrected with one meal a day that they don't eat if it's not tasty. And a mass-produced meal is always going to have limitations. It seems like salt can be used to get kids to eat healthier foods.Replies: @Joe Q.
Thank you for pointing this out. Here in Ontario, likely also in the rest of Canada, there is no cafeteria service in schools until you get to the high-school level. Kids bring their lunch from home.
I’ve read two paleo-oriented books: The Paleo Diet by Loren Cordain and Why We Get Fat by Gary Taubes. Salt is one of the few areas where they seem to disagree strongly. Taubes is pretty much okay with continuing to eat salt to taste. Cordain, on the other hand, believes that salt is bad just like carbs and legumes, so he recommends dramatically reducing salt intake to get closer to hunter-gatherer levels.
Blogpost title a nod to Kim Stanley Robinson?
yes
It is my understanding that the body uses and requires a much greater range of fatty oils or whatever they are of the class that one's standard supermarket Omega-3 pair (?DHA & EPA) belong to. Might it not follow that one could easily take what is an excessive amount because the supplements create an imbalance preventing some of the other needed fatty acids from being absorbed or, if absorbed, used in proper proportion?
I take 6 x 1gm capsules a day (3 +3) and each is said to contain 300mg of marine triglycerides including EPA 180mg and DHA 120mg.Replies: @sammysamsam, @JayMan
Studies on the effectiveness of fish oil have not been looking good.
Limiting sugar intake – sure. But that’s no achievement since pretty much everyone but the faddiest of faddists is in agreement there.
I don’t know if whole grains are significantly any more benefical (or rather, less harmful) than conventional ones.
@ J Yan,
LOL.
“No compulsion is involved and no guns are being held to any heads,”
Really?
http://thefreethoughtproject.com/feds-to-public-school-kids-must-have-a-doctors-note-to-bring-their-own-lunch/
Fruitcakes last longer.
A while back, I read something to the effect that if you have high blood pressure, restricting your salt intake may be good for you, but that if you don’t, the amount of salt you consume doesn’t matter. Studies had found benefits of low-salt diets for hypertensive patients, and that was extrapolated over the entire population. The current article hints at that history, as well as saying that someone found several groups of hunter-gatherers with low salt intake and low heart disease, which was then extrapolated to all Americans.
I’m not about to do the research to figure out whether either (or both) story is true, but they both illustrate the problems with extrapolating beyond your initial conditions.
Many hospitals, schools, and other organizations that serve food for large numbers of people, follow these guidelines as a condition of receiving funding. The idea is that following these guidelines will have positive health outcomes for the children in school or the patients in the hospital.Replies: @Joe Q., @Stephen
On the other hand, notwithstanding government guidelines and other campaigns, many manufacturers and restaurants still add large quantities of salt to prepared foods – presumably because they think they will sell more that way. I personally prefer salt in moderation and have welcomed the reduction in salt levels in some prepared foods.
The taste argument seems to assume that people’s tastes are innate and unchangeable, but observation suggests that to a significant extend they are acquired through habituation. I cut down my use of salt years ago, only partly in response to health campaigns, and to me most food now tastes better without added salt.
That turns out not to be the case. For instance, millions of schoolchildren are forced to eat meals that comply with government guidelines; healthy food sent with them by their parents is often confiscated on the grounds that it contains too much fat, salt, etc.
A man who could handle a salt lick with aplomb was often popular with the ladies