Posted on 06/03/2012 7:37:05 PM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer
THE first time I questioned the conventional wisdom on the nature of a healthy diet, I was in my salad days, almost 40 years ago, and the subject was salt. Researchers were claiming that salt supplementation was unnecessary after strenuous exercise, and this advice was being passed on by health reporters.
When I spent the better part of a year researching the state of the salt science back in 1998 — already a quarter century into the eat-less-salt recommendations — journal editors and public health administrators were still remarkably candid in their assessment of how flimsy the evidence was implicating salt as the cause of hypertension.
“You can say without any shadow of a doubt,” as I was told then by Drummond Rennie, an editor for The Journal of the American Medical Association, that the authorities pushing the eat-less-salt message had “made a commitment to salt education that goes way beyond the scientific facts.”
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.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
>>Well, of course they do. - a problem was that the AMA - and doctors in general - said for many years that steroids do no such thing & warnings were placed on the package literature to that effect.<<
Amen.
And the killer of it is, medicine is not an exact science. What may work for one may not work for another.
Yet, advice is given as an absolute.
Sorry, but it’s not that simple. 2000 calories consisting of mostly junk (bad carbs) is not nearly in the same league as 2100 good calories (small varying amounts of good carbs, plus an ample amount of protein & healthy fats).
_____________________________________________________________
It doesn’t make any difference where the calories come from.
You are incorrect:
“Sea salt is produced through evaporation of seawater, usually with little processing, which leaves behind certain trace minerals and elements depending on its water source. The minerals add flavor and color to sea salt, which also comes in a variety of coarseness levels.
Table salt is mined from underground salt deposits. Table salt is more heavily processed to eliminate minerals and usually contains an additive to prevent clumping. Most table salt also has added iodine, an essential nutrient that’s lacking in naturally occurring sea salt. “
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/sea-salt/AN01142
I don’t drink ‘purified’ water, I drink spring water, and I do not use iodized salt or any other processed salt; I use sea salt, and take kelp tablets to provide iodine naturally.
.
I don’t drink ‘purified’ water, I drink spring water, and I do not use iodized salt or any other processed salt; I use sea salt, and take kelp tablets to provide iodine naturally.
.
I’ll cross my fingers. I’ve been on the lisinopril for several years now, and no side effects at all, apart from the light headedness I had the first few times I took it.
While it is true that some processed salt started out as sea salt, it is highly processed by fusing it at high temperature to remove other valuable trace minerals that are then sold separately.
If it doesn’t stick together and look damp, it isn’t sea salt anymore.
All salt is sea salt. The extra that you pay for “Sea Salt” is just to pay for the label that says “Sea Salt”.
____________________________________________
THAT I KNOW...non-salt people just needed a new “label” to give themselves permission to consume salt....
“If it doesn’t stick together and look damp, it isn’t sea salt anymore...”
This may be true of Celtic Salt, but otherwise this is not a correct statement. Lack of water does not take away from it. And Celtic Salt is rescently ‘made’ sea salt that has all the toxins in it that contaminate the sea.
Our preference is for Redmond RealSalt, laid down in anchient sea beads eons ago in Redmond Utah. Himalayan Salt is a similar high quality natural salt. These salt beds came about before the seas were contaminated.
I heard that the reason why big game cats rarely, almost never, hunt humans is that we taste salty to them.
Women are 76% water, which comes to a total of 0 calories. The rest is sugar and spice.
It does make a difference. Yes, we know that's not the conventional wisdom. But like the beliefs about salt, the conventional wisdom is not based an science. And it's wrong.
Salt mines are deposits of salt formed by the evaporation of prehistoric seas; thus, all salt is sea salt.
I have 50 Lbs of the Himalayan, and it has plenty of contaminants of its own. There is no real evidence that it was ever part of the sea though.
The eons stop at about 6000 years anyway.
The "daily value", formerly known as the "recommended daily amount" is 2,400mg daily, eight times the average human requirement.
The average North American male consumes 3,900gm daily and the average female consumes 2,700gm daily.
It is virtually impossible to consume too little sodium.
Sodium consumption increases blood volume and decreases artery and capillary size. This increases blood pressure, which over the course of many years can cause hypertension with associated cardiological problems.
Only a portion of people with high sodium intake contract hypertension later in life. Family history is correlated.
The problem is that by the time you have a cardiological problem, the damage has been done. Many people start consuming NoSalt or equivalent at age sixty, which is forty years too late.
I, for one, would rather alter my palate early in life than risk becoming a statistic later.
Many people do not realize that all animal products are high in sodium, including meat, dairy and eggs.
I see no evidence of this. I therefore reject the theory. It is too far-fetched.
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof."
My wife and I (for the most part) stand while we eat our meals. You'd be surprised how quickly you will want to move on to something else.
“The eons stop at about 6000 years anyway.”
Human existance dates back to the re-creation described in Genesis, about 6,000 years ago, mho. The universe, including the earth, I believe, is much older. There is Biblical support for that thinking, though this is not the thread for that kind of a discussion/argument.
God is infinitely bigger than our finite minds can comprehend.
Throw full beer cans at me.
/johnny
I wonder if an analysis of the calorie content of fecal matter would give us a better idea of metabolic efficiencies. Of the 2000 calories the average adult needs to consume in order to maintain their weight, how much are they actually absorbing vs. how much is lost due to inefficiencies within the digestive process? That might explain why some people are able to live on what another would starve to death on. They aren’t extracting more calories than what’s there, it’s that the average person is extracting fewer calories than what’s there.
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.