SALT

MinimalistShoeAddict

I ended the day by adding 2 grams of salt to a glass of water. If you are active it is important that you get enough sodium to replace what you lose during exercise:

http://www.runnersworld.com/nutrition-runners/pass-salt?page=single

Tigg_er

I never thought about salt.....until today! 6 month dr check, all is great, lost some lbs, cholesterol is almost perfect, & he took me off bp & cholesterol meds. THEN he said you need to start watching your sodium intake now. I was like what??? And he said something about the meds I took for 7 years had a diuretic or something & now I won't have that & blah, blah, blah.
So I guess I will start paying attention...

That's kinda the same way I found out also.

Sieden76

Just eat it, it won't kill you. Stop worryin'

Eating too much salt is the worst thing you can ever do, never tell someone that.

RosyBest

I have high blood pressure and take medication for it. One day I hope to not have it at all. I say, buy low-sodium products. Also use flavors like Mrs. Dash instead of salt. You definitely don't want high blood pressure. It can cause swelling (retaining water) heart attacks and put you at risk for a stroke.

bcattoes

Just eat it, it won't kill you. Stop worryin'

You have no idea whether it will kill her or not.

Well, lets be realistic here and not over-dramatic.

Obviously the OP want's to reduce her salt, or wouldn't have even started this post, so saying "just eat it, it won't kill you, Stop worrying" isn't very helpful is it.

Everyone on MFP worries about everything for no reason, just like sugar intake, my point was, she probably doesn't even NEED to reduce her salt intake.

Everyone else's point was: You don't know the person, so she very well might need to reduce/watch her sodium. Since she made a post about it, I'd say it's more likely that she DOES need to monitor her intake. So, just be careful what you say...although to be fair most people who have to limit their salt (like me, due to both heart and liver failure; I hear the person who said they have to limit to 1000mg) already know that they can't "just eat it" or else the consequences actually could be quite dire. So there was probably no reason to jump down your throat. But I wish I could "just eat it!" I love salt. Especially salty crunchy things like...mmmmm....pretzels.

To the OP: Assuming that you do have a valid reason to watch your sodium, the best way to do it aside from throwing out your salt shaker is to ditch all frozen meals/snacks, processed foods, and canned foods as much as possible. Those are the things that have a ton of added salt in them, used as both a preservative and a flavoring/flavor enhancer. That includes unnaturally fat-free foods which...yeah, don't bother. Eat the fat. Also, cook more so you control what goes in your food. Do that, and you should be good to go.

Not that you've been hostile towards me,, but telling me to watch what I say? I'll say what I want. If they don't provide info saying they have a medical issue, thats their problem.. not mine.

If it's not your problem, then why keep defending your position? Your original post may or may not be correct as you are ignorant of the specifics. How is that different than those telling everyone they need to limit salt? The fact is most people consume more salt than they need. Is this harmful? Not always, but cutting back is far less likely to have negative consequences than eating it with abandon.

CookNLift

I cook my chicken medieval style and keg it with salt to preserve it.

mrmagee3

Just eat it, it won't kill you. Stop worryin'

You have no idea whether it will kill her or not.

Well, lets be realistic here and not over-dramatic.

Obviously the OP want's to reduce her salt, or wouldn't have even started this post, so saying "just eat it, it won't kill you, Stop worrying" isn't very helpful is it.

Everyone on MFP worries about everything for no reason, just like sugar intake, my point was, she probably doesn't even NEED to reduce her salt intake.

"probably"

Let's hope so, because Dr. Ritchiebulk doesn't like considering that preexisting conditions could even exist before offering diagnoses.

mrmagee3

Just eat it, it won't kill you. Stop worryin'

Eating too much salt is the worst thing you can ever do, never tell someone that.

It's actually too bad that his style is completely offensive and his timing is inappropriate, because he's actually pretty likely to be correct on the salt thing. Absent a legitimate medical reason (for what it's worth, I don't include moderate hypertension in this) salt has been pretty unfairly maligned, dietarily. The original research that went into the recommendations to lower sodium is pretty poor.

Edit to say, the research isn't poor. The research is research, and the methodologies appear sound. The conclusions taken from that research, and the resulting changes in public health policy, were poor.

mrmagee3

I cook my chicken medieval style and keg it with salt to preserve it.

Do you? Can you share how you do this, and what type of preservation you get from it?

bcattoes

Just eat it, it won't kill you. Stop worryin'

Eating too much salt is the worst thing you can ever do, never tell someone that.

It's actually too bad that his style is completely offensive and his timing is inappropriate, because he's actually pretty likely to be correct on the salt thing. Absent a legitimate medical reason (for what it's worth, I don't include moderate hypertension in this) salt has been pretty unfairly maligned, dietarily. The original research that went into the recommendations to lower sodium is pretty poor.

Edit to say, the research isn't poor. The research is research, and the methodologies appear sound. The conclusions taken from that research, and the resulting changes in public health policy, were poor.

Says you. But some pretty big names in the field of nutrition research might disagree.

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/lower-sodium-and-salt/

WendyTerry420

Why is everthing so high in salt when low in fat? any tips to cut out salt? Are higher calorie vinigarettes actually better to have? I LOVE salads

If you cut out fat, you have to increase the sodium/sugar content to make it palatable.

WendyTerry420

Just eat it, it won't kill you. Stop worryin'

Eating too much salt is the worst thing you can ever do, never tell someone that.

I can think of much worse things people can do to their bodies. You must have a limited imagination. :laugh:

casmithis

There is the DASH Diet (Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension). It's basically eating with no or low sodium recipes. I have read the book and reduced my sodium intake to a very low level (I have genetic high blood pressure).

Here's the salad dressing use regularly:
1 cup of oil ( I use grape seed)
1/3 cup of apple cider vinegar
3 taplespoons of honey
garlic to your liking

Delicious!!

Cindy

WendyTerry420

I cook my chicken medieval style and keg it with salt to preserve it.

Do you? Can you share how you do this, and what type of preservation you get from it?

I'd be interested too. Sounds great!

Binkie1955

There's no compelling scientific basis for avoiding salt or lowering your sodium intake.
you're in more danger reducing your sodium intake than increasing it.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/03/opinion/sunday/we-only-think-we-know-the-truth-about-salt.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

mrmagee3

Just eat it, it won't kill you. Stop worryin'

Eating too much salt is the worst thing you can ever do, never tell someone that.

It's actually too bad that his style is completely offensive and his timing is inappropriate, because he's actually pretty likely to be correct on the salt thing. Absent a legitimate medical reason (for what it's worth, I don't include moderate hypertension in this) salt has been pretty unfairly maligned, dietarily. The original research that went into the recommendations to lower sodium is pretty poor.

Edit to say, the research isn't poor. The research is research, and the methodologies appear sound. The conclusions taken from that research, and the resulting changes in public health policy, were poor.

Says you. But some pretty big names in the field of nutrition research might disagree.

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/lower-sodium-and-salt/

Couple things:

1. Says me, plenty of others, and plenty of legitimate research sources as well. Simply because there's a public health policy on something doesn't mean that a contradicting stance is a lonely one - or wrong.

2. This is an article that takes a position and uses their citations to bolster that position. That's obviously a legitimate thing, but I like to be clear on that because you would criticize an article differently than you would, for instance, criticize published research. Criticizing an article like this in a coherent manner is something that would take days of research (because I actually like to go back and read all of the citations and take notes on their methodologies, conclusions, etc.), but here's my first thoughts upon reading the references section: they refer to a lot of research that focuses on generalizing the intake habits of sodium for a given population, and on other articles (similar to their own) that attempt to use that research towards a purpose. I dislike using abstracts only, but as a for instance:

They say, "Current U.S. recommendations call for a maximum of one teaspoon of salt (2,300 milligrams of sodium) a day, and two-thirds of a teaspoon (1,500 milligrams of sodium) for people who have high blood pressure or are at high risk of developing it. The latter group includes people who are over the age of 40, are African American, or have somewhat elevated blood pressure (prehypertension)—which encompasses almost 70 percent of adults in the United States! (5) People with diabetes, kidney disease, heart failure and other conditions should cut back, too."

The effect of a statement like this is to get the reader to say, "hey, 70% of all Americans should be eating the 1,500mg sodium/day diet! Most of us eat way too much!" However, the statement relies on the assumption that the recommendation is correct -- the cited study, "Application of lower sodium intake recommendations to adults" speaks only to how well the U.S. recmmended message is relayed to the people of the U.S. but doesn't speak at all to the efficacy of the treatment.

Their last sentence, regarding people with diabetes -- there exists directly contradictory research to that recommendation as well:
http://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/34/3/703.short
"In patients with type 2 diabetes, lower 24-h urinary sodium excretion was paradoxically associated with increased all-cause and cardiovascular mortality. Interventional studies are necessary to determine if dietary salt has a causative role in determining adverse outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes and the appropriateness of guidelines advocating salt restriction in this setting."

There are likely others.

The next thing I saw from the Harvard article was that it references several articles from the Center for Science in the Public Interest. This is a pretty controversial group -- you can read up and form your own opinions on them. Aside from their name, it should be understood that CSPI is a public advocacy group, and not a group dedicated to medical research. I would be interested to see any peer reviewed science that CSPI has ever done, to be honest. I don't think they've done or funded any.

The only research that they cite that actually addresses a connection of sodium, CVD, and all-cause mortality from the causation standpoint is as follows:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19934192

It's a meta-analysis of a bunch of different studies that links high salt intake to increased risk of stroke and total CVD. The problemm with meta-analyses in general is that to properly discuss it, one should consider problems with the studies they use, not just their analysis of those studies. Basically, I'm not going to critique it without reading it first.

One of the issues is that salt intake correlates to obesity quite well, and obesity is the best positive correlator for CVD and all-cause mortality. Also, a lot of these studies refer to a reduction in sodium from an extremely high level to a very low level (lower than what even MFP would represent). I would be interested in seeing the same studies done on a reduction in, say, 4,000mg sodium to 2,300mg sodium.

Another issue is addressing the hypertension/sodium link, in which most of the recommendations result in a 1mmHg-6mmHg lowering of systolic BP and a smaller reduction in diastolic. For a rather drastic dietary change in most people, the resulting change in blood pressure seems like a low payout -- focusing on other things (overall calorie restriction, weight loss, exercise) will likely be far more beneficial to those populations.

So, with apologies for my rambling and the long post, I think within reasonable bounds (i.e., maybe we shouldn't be at around 12,000mg of salt a day) for a person focusing on health, one should focus on getting enough salt (as it is necessary), eating a wholesome, calorie restricted diet, and getting enough exercise. Within that structure, salt intake is unlikely to be an issue.

bcattoes

Just eat it, it won't kill you. Stop worryin'

Eating too much salt is the worst thing you can ever do, never tell someone that.

It's actually too bad that his style is completely offensive and his timing is inappropriate, because he's actually pretty likely to be correct on the salt thing. Absent a legitimate medical reason (for what it's worth, I don't include moderate hypertension in this) salt has been pretty unfairly maligned, dietarily. The original research that went into the recommendations to lower sodium is pretty poor.

Edit to say, the research isn't poor. The research is research, and the methodologies appear sound. The conclusions taken from that research, and the resulting changes in public health policy, were poor.

Says you. But some pretty big names in the field of nutrition research might disagree.

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/lower-sodium-and-salt/

Couple things:

1. Says me, plenty of others, and plenty of legitimate research sources as well. Simply because there's a public health policy on something doesn't mean that a contradicting stance is a lonely one - or wrong.

2. This is an article that takes a position and uses their citations to bolster that position. That's obviously a legitimate thing, but I like to be clear on that because you would criticize an article differently than you would, for instance, criticize published research. Criticizing an article like this in a coherent manner is something that would take days of research (because I actually like to go back and read all of the citations and take notes on their methodologies, conclusions, etc.), but here's my first thoughts upon reading the references section: they refer to a lot of research that focuses on generalizing the intake habits of sodium for a given population, and on other articles (similar to their own) that attempt to use that research towards a purpose. I dislike using abstracts only, but as a for instance:

They say, "Current U.S. recommendations call for a maximum of one teaspoon of salt (2,300 milligrams of sodium) a day, and two-thirds of a teaspoon (1,500 milligrams of sodium) for people who have high blood pressure or are at high risk of developing it. The latter group includes people who are over the age of 40, are African American, or have somewhat elevated blood pressure (prehypertension)—which encompasses almost 70 percent of adults in the United States! (5) People with diabetes, kidney disease, heart failure and other conditions should cut back, too."

The effect of a statement like this is to get the reader to say, "hey, 70% of all Americans should be eating the 1,500mg sodium/day diet! Most of us eat way too much!" However, the statement relies on the assumption that the recommendation is correct -- the cited study, "Application of lower sodium intake recommendations to adults" speaks only to how well the U.S. recmmended message is relayed to the people of the U.S. but doesn't speak at all to the efficacy of the treatment.

Their last sentence, regarding people with diabetes -- there exists directly contradictory research to that recommendation as well:
http://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/34/3/703.short
"In patients with type 2 diabetes, lower 24-h urinary sodium excretion was paradoxically associated with increased all-cause and cardiovascular mortality. Interventional studies are necessary to determine if dietary salt has a causative role in determining adverse outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes and the appropriateness of guidelines advocating salt restriction in this setting."

There are likely others.

The next thing I saw from the Harvard article was that it references several articles from the Center for Science in the Public Interest. This is a pretty controversial group -- you can read up and form your own opinions on them. Aside from their name, it should be understood that CSPI is a public advocacy group, and not a group dedicated to medical research. I would be interested to see any peer reviewed science that CSPI has ever done, to be honest. I don't think they've done or funded any.

The only research that they cite that actually addresses a connection of sodium, CVD, and all-cause mortality from the causation standpoint is as follows:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19934192

It's a meta-analysis of a bunch of different studies that links high salt intake to increased risk of stroke and total CVD. The problemm with meta-analyses in general is that to properly discuss it, one should consider problems with the studies they use, not just their analysis of those studies. Basically, I'm not going to critique it without reading it first.

One of the issues is that salt intake correlates to obesity quite well, and obesity is the best positive correlator for CVD and all-cause mortality. Also, a lot of these studies refer to a reduction in sodium from an extremely high level to a very low level (lower than what even MFP would represent). I would be interested in seeing the same studies done on a reduction in, say, 4,000mg sodium to 2,300mg sodium.

Another issue is addressing the hypertension/sodium link, in which most of the recommendations result in a 1mmHg-6mmHg lowering of systolic BP and a smaller reduction in diastolic. For a rather drastic dietary change in most people, the resulting change in blood pressure seems like a low payout -- focusing on other things (overall calorie restriction, weight loss, exercise) will likely be far more beneficial to those populations.

So, with apologies for my rambling and the long post, I think within reasonable bounds (i.e., maybe we shouldn't be at around 12,000mg of salt a day) for a person focusing on health, one should focus on getting enough salt (as it is necessary), eating a wholesome, calorie restricted diet, and getting enough exercise. Within that structure, salt intake is unlikely to be an issue.

While I did read your long post, I just find it hard to believe that the folks at Harvard haven't taken all the data into consideration. Or why you would consider your long post more compelling than their "article". There are conflicting study results and theories on most nutrition topics, and you are correct that it would take a long time to research it all ourselves. That's why I tend to listen more to those that spend that time as their career. I don't have the time to read every study ever done on salt/sodium. Nor would I have the expertise to analyze the data that Harvard has.

But, all I said was some pretty big names in the field of nutrition research would disagree with you. Everyone will choose their own path. No harm in offering a differing viewpoint.

raylo1313

Just eat it, it won't kill you. Stop worryin'

It can contribute to hypertension which leads to strokes and heart attacks for some. It also could possibly knock your sodium/potassium ratio out of whack. Everybody is different so the above statement is not a "one size fits all".

mrmagee3

While I did read your long post, I just find it hard to believe that the folks at Harvard haven't taken all the data into consideration.

From a science standpoint, there exist many reasons why that would be. Their chosen selection methodology for meta-analyses could be questioned, they could have outcome bias based on either conscious or unconscious goals, they could have made a mistake, so on and so forth. It happens in science all the time - kinda goes with the territory.

Or why you would consider your long post more compelling than their "article".

Given that I was writing a post on MFP, not a technical research paper or an article for public consumption, I wouldn't expect it to be. I treat posts like this the way I would an actual conversation - treating them as anything else should cause you to be sorely disappointed most of the time.

There are conflicting study results and theories on most nutrition topics, and you are correct that it would take a long time to research it all ourselves. That's why I tend to listen more to those that spend that time as their career. I don't have the time to read every study ever done on salt/sodium. Nor would I have the expertise to analyze the data that Harvard has.

That's the problem -- conflicting science exists among well respected scientists doing legitimate research who have spent their careers doing this, as well. Being at Harvard doesn't mean your science is automatically better than if you were at UCLA, Florida State, or Western South Dakota University - El Paso, TX location. It means you're likely to be better funded and higher profile, but these also come with increased pressures of their own which can have an impact on what you put out.

When those conflicts arise, people tend to rely on what the "common understanding" is, or what they're familiar with. If the initial recommendation is unsupported (and was primarily developed based on research of Lewis Dahl), then we are relying on something as "true" when, at best, we should consider it "unsettled".

But, all I said was some pretty big names in the field of nutrition research would disagree with you. Everyone will choose their own path. No harm in offering a differing viewpoint.

No harm at all -- I agree that some big names would disagree. Some big names would also agree. The larger takeaway, in my opinion, is that the primary focus in public health should be in treating obesity, not the dozens of correlative issues that go along with it. That's where we'll see the best public and personal health outcomes.

bcattoes

There are conflicting study results and theories on most nutrition topics, and you are correct that it would take a long time to research it all ourselves. That's why I tend to listen more to those that spend that time as their career. I don't have the time to read every study ever done on salt/sodium. Nor would I have the expertise to analyze the data that Harvard has.

That's the problem -- conflicting science exists among well respected scientists doing legitimate research who have spent their careers doing this, as well. Being at Harvard doesn't mean your science is automatically better than if you were at UCLA, Florida State, or Western South Dakota University - El Paso, TX location. It means you're likely to be better funded and higher profile, but these also come with increased pressures of their own which can have an impact on what you put out.

When those conflicts arise, people tend to rely on what the "common understanding" is, or what they're familiar with. If the initial recommendation is unsupported (and was primarily developed based on research of Lewis Dahl), then we are relying on something as "true" when, at best, we should consider it "unsettled".

Well, to be fair, the Harvard article does not just site their own studies, nor are their recommendation based only on studies conducted by Harvard.

But, all I said was some pretty big names in the field of nutrition research would disagree with you. Everyone will choose their own path. No harm in offering a differing viewpoint.

No harm at all -- I agree that some big names would disagree. Some big names would also agree. The larger takeaway, in my opinion, is that the primary focus in public health should be in treating obesity, not the dozens of correlative issues that go along with it. That's where we'll see the best public and personal health outcomes.

Hmm, not sure I'd agree with that. First of all, there are few (if any) obesity related diseases which only affect the obese. By not focusing research on the diseases we hang those that have the disease without becoming obese out to dry.

And it's not as if everyone doesn't already know the cure for obesity. We can play the blame game forever blaming the govt., food companies, Monsanto, genetics, etc. But we all know we can lose weight if we just stop overeating.