Posted on 07/11/2013 12:41:32 PM PDT by servo1969
The only people I can think of who have a wider gap between Asserted Expertise and Actual Expertise than the media are nutritionists.
I don't think this applies to people specifically diagnosed with hypertension or other salt-sensitive conditions, but for most of us:
A recent report commissioned by the Center for Disease Control (CDC) reviewed the health benefits of reducing salt intake and the take-home message is that salt, in the quantities consumed by most Americans, is no longer considered a substantial health hazard. What the CDC study reported explicitly is that there is no benefit, and may be a danger, from reducing our salt intake below 1 tsp per day. What was absent about the report was is the difference between healthy mineral salts and iodized table salt.It may be that we’re better off with more salt than less, up to 2 or even 3 tsp per day. How did it happen that such standard medical advice drifted astray, then went un-corrected for so long?
Because arrogant, controlling people, who really should just be kindergarten teachers, have a certain way they live their lives, or a way they think you should live your life, and they gloss over things like actual science in order to reach the conclusion that you should Do What They Want You To Do.
CDC: Turns Out There’s No Benefit to Reducing Salt At All
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Oh crud. I better start reducing my intake of sale. Right away. If the CDC says there is “No Benefit to Reducing Salt At All’, then I better reduce.
The CDC.
~hocc ptui~
No, now they’re telling us fish oil supplements promote prostate cancer.
I figure that my salt use is for preservation.
I figure that my salt intake is for preservation.
And I heard that additional fish oil cause prostrate cancer in men. Sooner or later the sheeple will tire of all the junk science and those that "Know what's best for YOU".
All those crappy bland Moochelle fries for naught...
***Because arrogant, controlling people, who really should just be kindergarten teachers***
Sounds like a NYC mayor I know.
So here is the current medical thinking: Exercise regularly, maintain a low body mass index, don’t smoke, drink alcohol only in moderation, keep cholesterol in goal range, eat fruits and vegetables, consume only “approved” medicines and supplements.
Do this and you are likely to live to age 85 at which point you’ll have a 50% likelihood of developing Alzheimer’s disease and then you won’t care about anything...
CDC: Turns Out There’s No Benefit to Reducing Salt At All
Ping
Well, by God, Lay’s better get their chips salted back to pre-Mooch requirements.
We stopped buying them when they cut back on their salt- and Campbell’s soups as well.
Great... now I will not feel guilty about eating potato chips.
I tried to tell everyone this, but who listens to me? ;-)
For much better info on food and the current scares, try reading junkfoodscience.blogspot.com and http://www.consumerfreedom.com/
Speaking of consumer issues, Consumer Reports has about totally gone over to the dark side. One of their main guys is now on some UN panel on global consumer issues. What a crock.
Yes, who, what is the CDC?
While I would support a constitutional amendment which would give the feds the power to monitor diseases, it remains that the states have never delegated to the feds the power to regulate, tax and spend for healthcare purposes.
My tagline.
In addition to the restrictions mentioned in the article, kidney problems should have been mentioned as well.
This reminds me of Algore telling us that trace amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere are going to cause the earth to burn to a crisp.
Most of these studies are bogus, and this one is no exception.
First of all, they didn’t say how old the men were in this study. Most elderly men get prostate cancer, it’s just that it’s slow-growing and something else will take them away first.
Second, I didn’t see anywhere if they reported this in terms of relative or absolute risk. If 6 men out of 10,000 were the ones with high omega-3 levels and got cancer but only 2 men with low levels got cancer, then what does that mean? Not much.
There is so much bad science out there that you really can’t believe much of anything. This group analyzes medical stories in the news and points out the errors: http://www.healthnewsreview.org/
Yeah, yeah. And eggs and sugar are bad for ya too.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.