SALT

mrmagee3

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.

Duly noted, though i think my point stands. I'm not saying that research supporting the article hasn't come out of other places -- I'm just saying that we should caution giving the Harvard article extra weight, simply because it came from Harvard. Conflicting research comes from elsewhere, too. It's the nature of the scientific community,

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.

I think reasonable people can disagree about the best way to approach the issues from a public health perspective, though I think we might be conflating some issues (and this is possibly my own fault). I try to look at it as a lifecycle:

Research is done --> Conclusions are formed about the research --> We determine if it's applicable to public health --> Form a plan to impact public health --> See what happens. It's almost a meta-experiment with things like this. I think the research piece should continue on in all directions at all times. But from a public policy perspective, if our desired "see what happens" is "a reduction in the incidence of x, y, and z", and we're limiting scope to the things that salt can supposedly affect, I would think finding a more effective way of treating the obesity problem is the best bang for our buck.

As for your last paragraph, I agree strongly with the first and the last sentences. I'm not sure, though, that you can hand-waive the impact on public health that at least a couple of the things you mention have had. There's a reason why food companies spend millions researching the exact amount of pressure necessary for a potato chip to break, or that they've done thousands of focus groups, slightly changing macronutrient proportions, in order to find the "right" one - because it works. Are food companies forcing us to eat Pringles? Of course not -- but Pringles cans are designed to attract and hold our attention. Broccoli crowns are not. The outcome of the interrelationship between marketing, food science, and public health is pretty predictable, if people act like people.

And, public policy has been influencing our behaviors as long as there's been a populace to influence. It's the same thing as what I described above with the food companies. The goal, though, should be to find that effective way to influence public health for the better.

I start at the idea that fat people, in general, don't wish to be fat. The fact that the vast, vast majority of attempts at weight loss fail, including in people who otherwise possess very good willpower is a tough issue to tackle.

GadgetGuy2

Good for you Ritchibulk. This time you qualified with the word "probably", instead of an absolute statement that it wouldn't kill her.

I commend you for amending your reply to match the reality some people face.

I sometimes speak before fully thinking thru my words. I find it very beneficial for me and the recipient of my "not so deep" thinking to then say something like "DOH....there I go again, open mouth, stick foot in".