cut down on sodium! !!
Replies
-
Maybe it's just "added" salt and not "naturally occurring" salt that's the problem
*evil grin*0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
Absolutely, as a question of logic, that would make sense. I can't find anything online that suggests the chlorine in sodium chloride is problematic, though. Maybe the person who made the claim will support it.snickerscharlie wrote: »
I wasn't making a point to fight about. I was clarifying for you, since you didn't know the difference between sodium and salt.snickerscharlie wrote: »
Salt contains sodium. There is sodium in there. It's not 100% sodium.snickerscharlie wrote: »
There is a LOT of talk about the fact that salt itself, and not sodium necessarily, is more of a problem.PeachyCarol wrote: »Just throwing this monkey wrench into the works, but aren't there murmurs that they're going to revise the guidelines on sodium just like they did on cholesterol?
Isn't salt sodium? <confused>
But salt cannot be salt without the sodium component, so what's your point?
I understand perfectly the difference between sodium and salt. Salt is a chemical combination of two elements: sodium and chlorine - which becomes sodium chloride aka table salt when bonded. Since table salt cannot exist without sodium, your previous statement - "There is a LOT of talk about the fact that salt itself, and not sodium necessarily, is more of a problem" - makes absolutely no sense.
It does if chlorine is the issue...
Nah, I'm guessing they will just take their toy and go home as they don't have anything to support it...
0 -
So, you lied to create a fight? Really?snickerscharlie wrote: »
I wasn't making a point to fight about. I was clarifying for you, since you didn't know the difference between sodium and salt.snickerscharlie wrote: »
Salt contains sodium. There is sodium in there. It's not 100% sodium.snickerscharlie wrote: »
There is a LOT of talk about the fact that salt itself, and not sodium necessarily, is more of a problem.PeachyCarol wrote: »Just throwing this monkey wrench into the works, but aren't there murmurs that they're going to revise the guidelines on sodium just like they did on cholesterol?
Isn't salt sodium? <confused>
But salt cannot be salt without the sodium component, so what's your point?
I understand perfectly the difference between sodium and salt. Salt is a chemical combination of two elements: sodium and chlorine - which becomes sodium chloride aka table salt when bonded. Since table salt cannot exist without sodium, your previous statement - "There is a LOT of talk about the fact that salt itself, and not sodium necessarily, is more of a problem" - makes absolutely no sense.
There is lots of talk and much studying being done about salt. It's not new.
It may even be googleable. I don't know. I didn't google it and won't be googling it.
I'm also done arguing about this ridiculous thing.
I 100% agree that people should really ask their doctors about their salt.
She didn't lie. She asked a question because you made 0 sense...
Nope, she did not lie. I also did not understand what you were trying to say, Kalikel.0 -
ceoverturf wrote: »Maybe it's just "added" salt and not "naturally occurring" salt that's the problem
*evil grin*
I know that's a joke, but it's not far from correct.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »ceoverturf wrote: »Maybe it's just "added" salt and not "naturally occurring" salt that's the problem
*evil grin*
I know that's a joke, but it's not far from correct.
Oh...now this I HAVE to hear.
How is 'added' NaCl different from 'naturally occurring' NaCl such that one would be problematic, and other would not?0 -
ceoverturf wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »ceoverturf wrote: »Maybe it's just "added" salt and not "naturally occurring" salt that's the problem
*evil grin*
I know that's a joke, but it's not far from correct.
Oh...now this I HAVE to hear.
How is 'added' NaCl different from 'naturally occurring' NaCl such that one would be problematic, and other would not?
I'm guessing it's just volume.0 -
So, you lied to create a fight? Really?snickerscharlie wrote: »
I wasn't making a point to fight about. I was clarifying for you, since you didn't know the difference between sodium and salt.snickerscharlie wrote: »
Salt contains sodium. There is sodium in there. It's not 100% sodium.snickerscharlie wrote: »
There is a LOT of talk about the fact that salt itself, and not sodium necessarily, is more of a problem.PeachyCarol wrote: »Just throwing this monkey wrench into the works, but aren't there murmurs that they're going to revise the guidelines on sodium just like they did on cholesterol?
Isn't salt sodium? <confused>
But salt cannot be salt without the sodium component, so what's your point?
I understand perfectly the difference between sodium and salt. Salt is a chemical combination of two elements: sodium and chlorine - which becomes sodium chloride aka table salt when bonded. Since table salt cannot exist without sodium, your previous statement - "There is a LOT of talk about the fact that salt itself, and not sodium necessarily, is more of a problem" - makes absolutely no sense.
There is lots of talk and much studying being done about salt. It's not new.
It may even be googleable. I don't know. I didn't google it and won't be googling it.
I'm also done arguing about this ridiculous thing.
I 100% agree that people should really ask their doctors about their salt.
Shocking!0 -
ceoverturf wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »ceoverturf wrote: »Maybe it's just "added" salt and not "naturally occurring" salt that's the problem
*evil grin*
I know that's a joke, but it's not far from correct.
Oh...now this I HAVE to hear.
How is 'added' NaCl different from 'naturally occurring' NaCl such that one would be problematic, and other would not?
You would be more likely to get too much from added, and most people can get enough from naturally occurring.0 -
Then it mustn't be true! If you can't find it by googling, it must not be true!DeguelloTex wrote: »
Absolutely, as a question of logic, that would make sense. I can't find anything online that suggests the chlorine in sodium chloride is problematic, though. Maybe the person who made the claim will support it.snickerscharlie wrote: »
I wasn't making a point to fight about. I was clarifying for you, since you didn't know the difference between sodium and salt.snickerscharlie wrote: »
Salt contains sodium. There is sodium in there. It's not 100% sodium.snickerscharlie wrote: »
There is a LOT of talk about the fact that salt itself, and not sodium necessarily, is more of a problem.PeachyCarol wrote: »Just throwing this monkey wrench into the works, but aren't there murmurs that they're going to revise the guidelines on sodium just like they did on cholesterol?
Isn't salt sodium? <confused>
But salt cannot be salt without the sodium component, so what's your point?
I understand perfectly the difference between sodium and salt. Salt is a chemical combination of two elements: sodium and chlorine - which becomes sodium chloride aka table salt when bonded. Since table salt cannot exist without sodium, your previous statement - "There is a LOT of talk about the fact that salt itself, and not sodium necessarily, is more of a problem" - makes absolutely no sense.
It does if chlorine is the issue...
If the googlers don't find it, but i say it's true, it must be false.
Thank you for that. I know you probably didn't intend it as a nice comment, but I'm taking it as such, anyway. Nice boost for my morning.
0 -
I asked the question in order to give you an opportunity to clarify your original stance, which at the onset, made little sense because science. :
So, you lied to create a fight? Really?snickerscharlie wrote: »
I wasn't making a point to fight about. I was clarifying for you, since you didn't know the difference between sodium and salt.snickerscharlie wrote: »
Salt contains sodium. There is sodium in there. It's not 100% sodium.snickerscharlie wrote: »
There is a LOT of talk about the fact that salt itself, and not sodium necessarily, is more of a problem.PeachyCarol wrote: »Just throwing this monkey wrench into the works, but aren't there murmurs that they're going to revise the guidelines on sodium just like they did on cholesterol?
Isn't salt sodium? <confused>
But salt cannot be salt without the sodium component, so what's your point?
I understand perfectly the difference between sodium and salt. Salt is a chemical combination of two elements: sodium and chlorine - which becomes sodium chloride aka table salt when bonded. Since table salt cannot exist without sodium, your previous statement - "There is a LOT of talk about the fact that salt itself, and not sodium necessarily, is more of a problem" - makes absolutely no sense.
There is lots of talk and much studying being done about salt. It's not new.
It may even be googleable. I don't know. I didn't google it and won't be googling it.
I'm also done arguing about this ridiculous thing.There is a LOT of talk about the fact that salt itself, and not sodium necessarily, is more of a problem.
You chose to view my subsequent response to this as an attack on your credibility, and the only way to counter the fact that your statement is misinformed is to call me a liar and then flounce off refusing to admit that perhaps - just perhaps - you were actually mistaken in your original assertion?
There nothing wrong with being mistaken, btw. Those are simply opportunities to learn.
0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
Absolutely, as a question of logic, that would make sense. I can't find anything online that suggests the chlorine in sodium chloride is problematic, though. Maybe the person who made the claim will support it.snickerscharlie wrote: »
I wasn't making a point to fight about. I was clarifying for you, since you didn't know the difference between sodium and salt.snickerscharlie wrote: »
Salt contains sodium. There is sodium in there. It's not 100% sodium.snickerscharlie wrote: »
There is a LOT of talk about the fact that salt itself, and not sodium necessarily, is more of a problem.PeachyCarol wrote: »Just throwing this monkey wrench into the works, but aren't there murmurs that they're going to revise the guidelines on sodium just like they did on cholesterol?
Isn't salt sodium? <confused>
But salt cannot be salt without the sodium component, so what's your point?
I understand perfectly the difference between sodium and salt. Salt is a chemical combination of two elements: sodium and chlorine - which becomes sodium chloride aka table salt when bonded. Since table salt cannot exist without sodium, your previous statement - "There is a LOT of talk about the fact that salt itself, and not sodium necessarily, is more of a problem" - makes absolutely no sense.
It does if chlorine is the issue...
I wasn't able to find something that says there is too much Chlorine is an issue, but I did find some information about too little:
http://www.britannica.com/science/chlorine-deficiency0 -
Then it mustn't be true! If you can't find it by googling, it must not be true!DeguelloTex wrote: »
Absolutely, as a question of logic, that would make sense. I can't find anything online that suggests the chlorine in sodium chloride is problematic, though. Maybe the person who made the claim will support it.snickerscharlie wrote: »
I wasn't making a point to fight about. I was clarifying for you, since you didn't know the difference between sodium and salt.snickerscharlie wrote: »
Salt contains sodium. There is sodium in there. It's not 100% sodium.snickerscharlie wrote: »
There is a LOT of talk about the fact that salt itself, and not sodium necessarily, is more of a problem.PeachyCarol wrote: »Just throwing this monkey wrench into the works, but aren't there murmurs that they're going to revise the guidelines on sodium just like they did on cholesterol?
Isn't salt sodium? <confused>
But salt cannot be salt without the sodium component, so what's your point?
I understand perfectly the difference between sodium and salt. Salt is a chemical combination of two elements: sodium and chlorine - which becomes sodium chloride aka table salt when bonded. Since table salt cannot exist without sodium, your previous statement - "There is a LOT of talk about the fact that salt itself, and not sodium necessarily, is more of a problem" - makes absolutely no sense.
It does if chlorine is the issue...
If the googlers don't find it, but i say it's true, it must be false.
Thank you for that. I know you probably didn't intend it as a nice comment, but I'm taking it as such, anyway. Nice boost for my morning.
People are just asking you to support your claim, that's all.0 -
I didn't say it was false. It does sound like you just made it up, though. Do you have any links to support your claim?
Then it mustn't be true! If you can't find it by googling, it must not be true!DeguelloTex wrote: »
Absolutely, as a question of logic, that would make sense. I can't find anything online that suggests the chlorine in sodium chloride is problematic, though. Maybe the person who made the claim will support it.snickerscharlie wrote: »
I wasn't making a point to fight about. I was clarifying for you, since you didn't know the difference between sodium and salt.snickerscharlie wrote: »
Salt contains sodium. There is sodium in there. It's not 100% sodium.snickerscharlie wrote: »
There is a LOT of talk about the fact that salt itself, and not sodium necessarily, is more of a problem.PeachyCarol wrote: »Just throwing this monkey wrench into the works, but aren't there murmurs that they're going to revise the guidelines on sodium just like they did on cholesterol?
Isn't salt sodium? <confused>
But salt cannot be salt without the sodium component, so what's your point?
I understand perfectly the difference between sodium and salt. Salt is a chemical combination of two elements: sodium and chlorine - which becomes sodium chloride aka table salt when bonded. Since table salt cannot exist without sodium, your previous statement - "There is a LOT of talk about the fact that salt itself, and not sodium necessarily, is more of a problem" - makes absolutely no sense.
It does if chlorine is the issue...
If the googlers don't find it, but i say it's true, it must be false.
Thank you for that. I know you probably didn't intend it as a nice comment, but I'm taking it as such, anyway. Nice boost for my morning.
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
Given lack of scientific consensus, 112/63 BP, and the fact that I like salt, I'm going to keep using a lot. Especially my chipotle salt. I mean, when someone gets salt as a Christmas present it makes a statement.So I guess you guys can bicker/be sarcastic/be hostile or whatever as much as you want to in this thread, but the science at the moment regarding sodium intake is very unclear.
0 -
Pass the chipotle salt, I love it!DeguelloTex wrote: »
Given lack of scientific consensus, 112/63 BP, and the fact that I like salt, I'm going to keep using a lot. Especially my chipotle salt. I mean, when someone gets salt as a Christmas present it makes a statement.So I guess you guys can bicker/be sarcastic/be hostile or whatever as much as you want to in this thread, but the science at the moment regarding sodium intake is very unclear.
0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
If you look back over the thread, like the sugar threads, there's a whole lot of "If you don't have a medical condition..." prefacing the comments. Do you see those? Do you agree that that's not the same thing as will-nilly telling every user to ignore sodium intake?Need2Exerc1se wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »Yes. A little info, indeed.
It seems mostly to revolve around high blood pressure. If you don't have high blood pressure and your blood pressure isn't turning into a problem...
Mostly, yes. That is the biggest concern. Do you know the statistics on high BP?
http://www.cdc.gov/dhdsp/data_statistics/fact_sheets/fs_bloodpressure.htm
Exceeding the sodium recommendation is obviously not going to be a problem for everyone. That's true of any RDA. They are general rules. But what sense if there in telling every user that asks about sodium that it's okay to ignore the RDA when it is likely to be harmful more often than not?
No, because high sodium is associated with causing disease not just exacerbating it. Just because your BP is high today doesn't mean it won't be later. 1/3 of Americans have high BP. Another 1/3 have pre-hypertension. For some populations the numbers are much higher. Eat all the sodium you want. It's your life, but saying it's fine for everyone who doesn't have a disease right now makes no sense given the available data.
Keep in mind there are a lot of factors that contribute to hypertension... obesity is probably one of the biggest ones, but also not being physically active, smoking and drinking.
Being on MFP, the majority of us are working out and trying to lose weight. I frequently eat 5000mg+ of sodium because I workout hard. But I also aim to get foods high in potassium and magnesium which help stabilize your electrolytes. And my BP is 110/70
You can add my wife to the list of people who need really high sodium (like 10,000mg). She has a medical condition that burns through electrolytes. So her doctors have said, you can never get enough salt.
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
PeachyCarol wrote: »Just throwing this monkey wrench into the works, but aren't there murmurs that they're going to revise the guidelines on sodium just like they did on cholesterol?
I work in pharmacovigilance, and epidemiology is a good portion of my daily tasks. There are several movements to get this amended, but as you can imagine the AHA takes a very strong stance against this revision. They are still operating under a CYA philosophy, so as long as the number of hypertension cases > hyponatremia - its status quo.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »PeachyCarol wrote: »Just throwing this monkey wrench into the works, but aren't there murmurs that they're going to revise the guidelines on sodium just like they did on cholesterol?
From what I've read no. Some groups have proposed lowering it, but so far there isn't enough consensus on that recommendation for the general public.
Did the RDA for cholesterol change?
they're doing away with it completely because it's completely irrelevant.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
If you look back over the thread, like the sugar threads, there's a whole lot of "If you don't have a medical condition..." prefacing the comments. Do you see those? Do you agree that that's not the same thing as will-nilly telling every user to ignore sodium intake?Need2Exerc1se wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »Yes. A little info, indeed.
It seems mostly to revolve around high blood pressure. If you don't have high blood pressure and your blood pressure isn't turning into a problem...
Mostly, yes. That is the biggest concern. Do you know the statistics on high BP?
http://www.cdc.gov/dhdsp/data_statistics/fact_sheets/fs_bloodpressure.htm
Exceeding the sodium recommendation is obviously not going to be a problem for everyone. That's true of any RDA. They are general rules. But what sense if there in telling every user that asks about sodium that it's okay to ignore the RDA when it is likely to be harmful more often than not?
No, because high sodium is associated with causing disease not just exacerbating it. Just because your BP is high today doesn't mean it won't be later. 1/3 of Americans have high BP. Another 1/3 have pre-hypertension. For some populations the numbers are much higher. Eat all the sodium you want. It's your life, but saying it's fine for everyone who doesn't have a disease right now makes no sense given the available data.
Keep in mind there are a lot of factors that contribute to hypertension... obesity is probably one of the biggest ones, but also not being physically active, smoking and drinking.
Being on MFP, the majority of us are working out and trying to lose weight. I frequently eat 5000mg+ of sodium because I workout hard. But I also aim to get foods high in potassium and magnesium which help stabilize your electrolytes. And my BP is 110/70
You can add my wife to the list of people who need really high sodium (like 10,000mg). She has a medical condition that burns through electrolytes. So her doctors have said, you can never get enough salt.
Your n of 2 doesn't really change statistics though.
The fact is that most Americans will develop hypertension or pre-hypertension in their lifetime. Another fact is that high sodium intake is associated with developing hypertension. Saying that everyone that doesn't currently have a medical condition does not need to be concerned with sodium intake flies in the face of current data.
Even the fact that obesity could be a bigger factor doesn't mean too much dietary sodium shouldn't be of concern. Statistics also show that most people who lose weight will regain it. Most people should be concerned about sodium intake.0 -
Yes, but most should be in the 3-6 gram range...and needn't worry about the RDA.0
-
The point I think some are missing (and granted, it hasn't specifically been put down in black & white) is that I don't believe anyone is under the impression that you should completely ignore sodium/salt intake and just eat teaspoons full of pure salt...any more than one would say you should completely ignore any micronutrient.
But that for most people, absent a specific medical condition which requires one to monitor their sodium intake, going a few hundred milligrams over or under the RDA is not any cause for concern. In other words, eat salty/sodium-rich foods in moderation, and there's no need to pearl-clutch.
If anyone disagrees with that I would welcome an intelligent debate as to where that is wrong.0 -
ceoverturf wrote: »The point I think some are missing (and granted, it hasn't specifically been put down in black & white) is that I don't believe anyone is under the impression that you should completely ignore sodium/salt intake and just eat teaspoons full of pure salt...any more than one would say you should completely ignore any micronutrient.
But that for most people, absent a specific medical condition which requires one to monitor their sodium intake, going a few hundred milligrams over or under the RDA is not any cause for concern. In other words, eat salty/sodium-rich foods in moderation, and there's no need to pearl-clutch.
If anyone disagrees with that I would welcome an intelligent debate as to where that is wrong.
I agree with this.
I do not however think that "If you have no medical condition you don't need to worry about sodium" implies this.0 -
ceoverturf wrote: »The point I think some are missing (and granted, it hasn't specifically been put down in black & white) is that I don't believe anyone is under the impression that you should completely ignore sodium/salt intake and just eat teaspoons full of pure salt...any more than one would say you should completely ignore any micronutrient.
But that for most people, absent a specific medical condition which requires one to monitor their sodium intake, going a few hundred milligrams over or under the RDA is not any cause for concern. In other words, eat salty/sodium-rich foods in moderation, and there's no need to pearl-clutch.
If anyone disagrees with that I would welcome an intelligent debate as to where that is wrong.
Do you even MFP bro?
You know it's all or nothing around here...either no sodium or all of the sodium...no sugar or all of the sugar...no carbs or all of the carbs...
c'mon...you know this...there's no such thing as actual commonsense or moderation on MFP...ya know...when someone says have a slice of pizza once in awhile, it obviously means it all of the pizza all day, every day...
0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »ceoverturf wrote: »The point I think some are missing (and granted, it hasn't specifically been put down in black & white) is that I don't believe anyone is under the impression that you should completely ignore sodium/salt intake and just eat teaspoons full of pure salt...any more than one would say you should completely ignore any micronutrient.
But that for most people, absent a specific medical condition which requires one to monitor their sodium intake, going a few hundred milligrams over or under the RDA is not any cause for concern. In other words, eat salty/sodium-rich foods in moderation, and there's no need to pearl-clutch.
If anyone disagrees with that I would welcome an intelligent debate as to where that is wrong.
I agree with this.
I do not however think that "If you have no medical condition you don't need to worry about sodium" implies this.
I guess it depends on how you define/interpret the word "worry".
To me, not 'worrying' about something doesn't mean I ignore it completely. For example, I'm not constantly worrying about whether I'm going to get into a serious automobile accident...but I still wear a seat belt.
In this context, not "worrying" about sodium to me means I don't micro-manage my diet so strictly that I maintain a daily intake range of only 5-10 mg above/below the RDAs.0 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »ceoverturf wrote: »The point I think some are missing (and granted, it hasn't specifically been put down in black & white) is that I don't believe anyone is under the impression that you should completely ignore sodium/salt intake and just eat teaspoons full of pure salt...any more than one would say you should completely ignore any micronutrient.
But that for most people, absent a specific medical condition which requires one to monitor their sodium intake, going a few hundred milligrams over or under the RDA is not any cause for concern. In other words, eat salty/sodium-rich foods in moderation, and there's no need to pearl-clutch.
If anyone disagrees with that I would welcome an intelligent debate as to where that is wrong.
Do you even MFP bro?
You know it's all or nothing around here...either no sodium or all of the sodium...no sugar or all of the sugar...no carbs or all of the carbs...
c'mon...you know this...there's no such thing as actual commonsense or moderation on MFP...ya know...when someone says have a slice of pizza once in awhile, it obviously means it all of the pizza all day, every day...
0 -
I have a tendency toward high blood pressure -it's been a factor for most of my life, at both healthy and unhealthy weights (bummer), and so am careful with my salt intake. In addition, I try to get a healthy helping of potassium each day. Finding that my healthy daily helping seems to between 1800 and 1200g of Potassium, I try to keep the daily sodium intake at a lower level than that, without going nutty.
Yes to more home-made meals, and careful reading of labels for me. Yes to finding and enjoying salt substitutes for cooking: I like dry wines, fresh lemon juice and other acids. Yes to being careful when not eating at home. And yes to not worrying too much about the way the day goes, because tension is a cause of high blood pressure, too.0 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »ceoverturf wrote: »The point I think some are missing (and granted, it hasn't specifically been put down in black & white) is that I don't believe anyone is under the impression that you should completely ignore sodium/salt intake and just eat teaspoons full of pure salt...any more than one would say you should completely ignore any micronutrient.
But that for most people, absent a specific medical condition which requires one to monitor their sodium intake, going a few hundred milligrams over or under the RDA is not any cause for concern. In other words, eat salty/sodium-rich foods in moderation, and there's no need to pearl-clutch.
If anyone disagrees with that I would welcome an intelligent debate as to where that is wrong.
Do you even MFP bro?
You know it's all or nothing around here...either no sodium or all of the sodium...no sugar or all of the sugar...no carbs or all of the carbs...
c'mon...you know this...there's no such thing as actual commonsense or moderation on MFP...ya know...when someone says have a slice of pizza once in awhile, it obviously means it all of the pizza all day, every day...
You are so right. I shall now banish myself to the corner and flog myself appropriately
And now I'm hungry for pizza....0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
If you look back over the thread, like the sugar threads, there's a whole lot of "If you don't have a medical condition..." prefacing the comments. Do you see those? Do you agree that that's not the same thing as will-nilly telling every user to ignore sodium intake?Need2Exerc1se wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »Yes. A little info, indeed.
It seems mostly to revolve around high blood pressure. If you don't have high blood pressure and your blood pressure isn't turning into a problem...
Mostly, yes. That is the biggest concern. Do you know the statistics on high BP?
http://www.cdc.gov/dhdsp/data_statistics/fact_sheets/fs_bloodpressure.htm
Exceeding the sodium recommendation is obviously not going to be a problem for everyone. That's true of any RDA. They are general rules. But what sense if there in telling every user that asks about sodium that it's okay to ignore the RDA when it is likely to be harmful more often than not?
No, because high sodium is associated with causing disease not just exacerbating it. Just because your BP is high today doesn't mean it won't be later. 1/3 of Americans have high BP. Another 1/3 have pre-hypertension. For some populations the numbers are much higher. Eat all the sodium you want. It's your life, but saying it's fine for everyone who doesn't have a disease right now makes no sense given the available data.
Keep in mind there are a lot of factors that contribute to hypertension... obesity is probably one of the biggest ones, but also not being physically active, smoking and drinking.
Being on MFP, the majority of us are working out and trying to lose weight. I frequently eat 5000mg+ of sodium because I workout hard. But I also aim to get foods high in potassium and magnesium which help stabilize your electrolytes. And my BP is 110/70
You can add my wife to the list of people who need really high sodium (like 10,000mg). She has a medical condition that burns through electrolytes. So her doctors have said, you can never get enough salt.
Your n of 2 doesn't really change statistics though.
The fact is that most Americans will develop hypertension or pre-hypertension in their lifetime. Another fact is that high sodium intake is associated with developing hypertension. Saying that everyone that doesn't currently have a medical condition does not need to be concerned with sodium intake flies in the face of current data.
Even the fact that obesity could be a bigger factor doesn't mean too much dietary sodium shouldn't be of concern. Statistics also show that most people who lose weight will regain it. Most people should be concerned about sodium intake.
It's not an n of 2. Please. There have been so many people in this thread alone who've given you evidence of hyponatremia, it's more like n of 20 or 30. My nieces make this post alone n of 6, just in one moment more. That called an exponential leap. Statistically speaking, this thread alone proves that hyponatremia, just in one day, is a bigger problem than hypertension as relates to sodium in the pool we're drawing from. Since polls are drawn randomly, and this thread drew random responders, that's a natural poll response and works perfectly within the boundaries.
With obesity and comorbidities contributing more to hypertension than sodium intake alone, researchers are scrambling to redefine the RDA for sodium even now.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions