Sodium- come on people, scare me!

Options
1235»

Replies

  • cuterbee
    cuterbee Posts: 545
    Options
    I don't want to freak you out too much, but I probably average 6000 mg of sodium per day, I'm 83 lbs overweight, and I consistently come in at 100/70 BP.

    In other words, all the hullabaloo about sodium is WAY overdone for a lot of people. Salt is delicious and you NEED it, so unless your doctor says to stay away, be free.

    Dang! Wish I had YOUR genetics! I love salt (as a kid, sometimes I'd just eat salt plain) but really have to watch my sodium levels. As much as I like salt, I like not having a stroke even more. :wink:
  • ninerbuff
    ninerbuff Posts: 48,699 Member
    Options
    I joined a research study in 2008 that looked at the effects of cutting sodium intake... i started at over 8000mg a day.... i cut it to 2000mg a day and lost 40 lbs.... when the research study was over I threw everything I had learned out the window went back to eating out a lot, eating processed foods etc... gained all the weight back and more and my rare migraines started happening every month or two...

    since December I've gone back to really focusing on my sodium intake which has also cut my calories big time (clean food tends to be lower cal) and I've dropped a little over 10 lbs in a month and have not had a migraine fully onset....

    its probably a bigger thing than we think
    So you're saying that the 6000mg of sodium you cut back a day contained 140,000 calories? I mean to lose 40lbs of fat, that's the calculation. Or did food calories have something to do with it?
    You're correlating high sodium with high calories (which is somewhat true), but in reality you could eat high sodium and low calorie foods and still achieve the same results. Go to Asia and they'll prove it to you.

    A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
    IDEA Fitness member
    Kickboxing Certified Instructor
    Been in fitness for 28+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
  • VorJoshigan
    VorJoshigan Posts: 1,106 Member
    Options
    If you can, listen to this programme on the BBC i-player - Inside medicine broadcast on 16 th January. It is about the most extensive study of salt (sodium) yet achieved and their observations. It has taken into account nearly every other piece of research on salt and even names who the sponsors of the previous experiments that give favourable results to not control salt usage - especially in food production. Bit like the tobacco and alcohol industry publishing glowing reports on their vested interests.

    remember, on the whole experiments conclude with observations and then they ask if other people will run the experiment (peer review) in order to confirm the findings. Papers are just that untill they are peer reviewed and accepted as "such as we know at this time, then this is the gold standard"

    Everybody has an agenda.

    Companies that use salt like studies that show salt is not dangerous.
    Companies that make drugs like studies that show salt is dangerous and you need their drugs.
    Scientists like studies that get them funding. "OMG u'r gonna die!" type of studies are a great way to get attention & funding for future studies.
  • LiftAllThePizzas
    LiftAllThePizzas Posts: 17,857 Member
    Options
    If you can, listen to this programme on the BBC i-player - Inside medicine broadcast on 16 th January. It is about the most extensive study of salt (sodium) yet achieved and their observations. It has taken into account nearly every other piece of research on salt and even names who the sponsors of the previous experiments that give favourable results to not control salt usage - especially in food production. Bit like the tobacco and alcohol industry publishing glowing reports on their vested interests.

    remember, on the whole experiments conclude with observations and then they ask if other people will run the experiment (peer review) in order to confirm the findings. Papers are just that untill they are peer reviewed and accepted as "such as we know at this time, then this is the gold standard"
    The BBC has a vested interest in scaring people, that's how the media makes a living. So the BBC's report is as "suspect" as anyone else with a motive. I mean, seriously, the guest they had on was described by the host as, "he regards salt as a toxin."

    These guys are also talking about results that occurred when salt was reduced from 16 grams a day. They keep talking about salt reduction but they don't say to within what range or discuss whether there is a linear relationship, which there can't be because obviously the 'ideal' amount of dietary salt is not zero nor is it infinite.

    They don't discuss how much that range varies between individuals based on genetic makeup and activity levels. Like if I sweat a LOT and dump lots of salt out through my sweat, it's a pretty good bet I'm going to have a higher need for it than I otherwise would. Their mentality is one size fits all.
  • Mel85CJ
    Mel85CJ Posts: 1 Member
    Options
    Well, it will slow down the weight loss, But my Dr. told me to drink at least 1/2 my body weight in water, Water will flush the sodium out

    Half your body weight in water...... everyday? Every week? Half of your body weight in water for a 180 pound person would be 11.25 GALLONS of water a day....
  • CyberEd312
    CyberEd312 Posts: 3,536 Member
    Options
    Well, it will slow down the weight loss, But my Dr. told me to drink at least 1/2 my body weight in water, Water will flush the sodium out

    Half your body weight in water...... everyday? Every week? Half of your body weight in water for a 180 pound person would be 11.25 GALLONS of water a day....

    Pretty sure that was meant to be in Ounces of water... I follow this method and have for the last couple years. I weigh 250 lbs. so half that is 125 oz. of water a day. Pretty much drink 4 of my 32 oz. gatorade bottles a day (have 4 in the fridge and normally there is 4 on the counter before bed, then fill them up put them back in the fridge and rise and repeat.... lol) Best of Luck
  • bloomgirl96
    bloomgirl96 Posts: 3 Member
    Options
    For "normal" people it can raise your blood pressure and many other scary things. It's also important to make sure you're keeping up with your potassium, because they go hand and hand as far as making sure your heart works properly. Your sodium and potassium levels are sort of like a scale...as one goes up the other goes down. I have Addison's Disease and part of that is that my body "salt wastes". I can't maintain a sodium level without medication so I have to eat more salt then normal people, which sometimes causes people to look at my funny! (my husband says that I salt my salt).

    Anywho, as long as you're a generally healthy person, it's good to keep an eye on your sodium intake... Best of luck!
  • ninerbuff
    ninerbuff Posts: 48,699 Member
    Options
    Well, it will slow down the weight loss, But my Dr. told me to drink at least 1/2 my body weight in water, Water will flush the sodium out

    Half your body weight in water...... everyday? Every week? Half of your body weight in water for a 180 pound person would be 11.25 GALLONS of water a day....
    I believe they meant in oz of water per day.

    A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
    IDEA Fitness member
    Kickboxing Certified Instructor
    Been in fitness for 28+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
  • notthatthis
    Options
    If you can, listen to this programme on the BBC i-player - Inside medicine broadcast on 16 th January. It is about the most extensive study of salt (sodium) yet achieved and their observations. It has taken into account nearly every other piece of research on salt and even names who the sponsors of the previous experiments that give favourable results to not control salt usage - especially in food production. Bit like the tobacco and alcohol industry publishing glowing reports on their vested interests.

    remember, on the whole experiments conclude with observations and then they ask if other people will run the experiment (peer review) in order to confirm the findings. Papers are just that untill they are peer reviewed and accepted as "such as we know at this time, then this is the gold standard"
    The BBC has a vested interest in scaring people, that's how the media makes a living. So the BBC's report is as "suspect" as anyone else with a motive. I mean, seriously, the guest they had on was described by the host as, "he regards salt as a toxin."

    These guys are also talking about results that occurred when salt was reduced from 16 grams a day. They keep talking about salt reduction but they don't say to within what range or discuss whether there is a linear relationship, which there can't be because obviously the 'ideal' amount of dietary salt is not zero nor is it infinite.

    They don't discuss how much that range varies between individuals based on genetic makeup and activity levels. Like if I sweat a LOT and dump lots of salt out through my sweat, it's a pretty good bet I'm going to have a higher need for it than I otherwise would. Their mentality is one size fits all.

    Nice of you to dismiss the professor as "regarding salt as a toxin", care to actually name the study that he was discussing and the names of his American colleagues and what the study actually was. And yes, he regards "salt as used by the food industry" as toxic levels.

    As for the BBC, you seem to miss the point of "Inside Medicine", it is a science programme where at least people of similar intellect discuss the science. As for the BBC being a media company and having to make a living, that is not the case and they are reviewed by Parliament and the People and are not allowed to sensationalise. You view this as a "suspect" report, it was not a report it was a discussion of a major long-term study into salt. By all accounts the most factual.

    As for your other points, yes - it is not one size fits all. But that is liek arguing that alcohol and cigarettes only badly effect certain people and other people can drink and smoke and it not be detrimental to their health.

    It would be fair to assuem that people taking part in ultramarathons are the people who woudl most understand their bodies and have a vested interest in peak performance but they of any notable group are the ones who end up with hyponatremia because of high hydration and low salt. So, one size fits all - no. Food industries taking the absolute piss with their backhanded processing and reporting of salt usage - yes salt is being inserted into diets at toxic levels and you should tell people who have appaling processed diets the facts.

    Salt bad, not per se.
    Too much salt and not enough hydration - bad
    Too much hydration and not enough salt - very bad
    Way too much salt and you may as well smoke and do drugs as well. Stroke, embolism, MGM to name only a few

    Perhaps it woul dbe easier to understand the process of salt and water and how they actually aid red and white cells in the body. Go to the molecular level. Easier to understand then the importance of balance.
  • tisha_rae
    tisha_rae Posts: 216 Member
    Options
    I'm sure there are a million reasons its unhealthy - but for me - I limit it for 2 reasons.

    To help my high blood pressure & to keep me from retaining water and feeling fat. :)
  • notthatthis
    Options
    Here's information on why salt is essential and what happens if you don't have enough salt:

    http://lpi.oregonstate.edu/infocenter/minerals/sodium/

    Very good. Had not spotted this post.
  • Espressocycle
    Espressocycle Posts: 2,245 Member
    Options
    Unless you have high blood pressure or a specific genetic disposition for same, don't worry about it. And if you get a good sweat going at the gym, you might even need more!

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jacob-teitelbaum-md/salt-health_b_903673.html
  • LiftAllThePizzas
    LiftAllThePizzas Posts: 17,857 Member
    Options
    As for your other points, yes - it is not one size fits all. But that is liek arguing that alcohol and cigarettes only badly effect certain people and other people can drink and smoke and it not be detrimental to their health.
    Plenty of people drink alcohol in moderation without it having bad effects on their health.

    As for smoking, the vast majority of people who do it, do it many hundreds of thousands of times, not 'in moderation.' But there still are outliers... :tongue:
    220px-George_Burns_Allan_Warren.jpg
  • notthatthis
    Options
    As for your other points, yes - it is not one size fits all. But that is liek arguing that alcohol and cigarettes only badly effect certain people and other people can drink and smoke and it not be detrimental to their health.
    Plenty of people drink alcohol in moderation without it having bad effects on their health.

    As for smoking, the vast majority of people who do it, do it many hundreds of thousands of times, not 'in moderation.' But there still are outliers... :tongue:
    220px-George_Burns_Allan_Warren.jpg

    "arguing that alcohol and cigarettes only badly effect certain people and other people can drink and smoke and it not be detrimental to their health. " - I put that line in in an attempt that the whole "I know someone who smoked and drank and they died when they were 96" - good for them, that is not what happens to the majority. And define "drink alcohol in moderation without having bad effects on their health" - because any alcohol taken is a "toxin" so can taking toxins in moderation not have bad effects in health. Screws digestion up as the very quick starting point to dispelling your assumption.
  • slkehl
    slkehl Posts: 3,801 Member
    Options
    Not everyone is sensitive to sodium. There's a good portion of the population that can safely consume far beyond the recommended levels. However, there's no way to distinguish whether or not you're sensitive, and the potential risks associated with elevated sodium consumption are too high not to cut back to be on the safe side,
  • taso42
    taso42 Posts: 8,980 Member
    Options
    If you're working out intensely, make sure you get ample sodium.
    Or another way to go about it is, barring any medical conditions where you are advised to limit sodium, don't worry about sodium. It usually sorts itself out quite fine. People spend needless energy trying to restrict sodium. Spend that energy on hitting your calories and macros and doing great workouts.
  • lornaloo3
    lornaloo3 Posts: 102
    Options
    i don't want to be a jerk ... but ...

    http://lmgtfy.com/?q=risks+of+high+sodium+diet

    Ummm that was AMAZING. I'm going to use that on someone I know...
  • LiftAllThePizzas
    LiftAllThePizzas Posts: 17,857 Member
    Options
    "arguing that alcohol and cigarettes only badly effect certain people and other people can drink and smoke and it not be detrimental to their health. " - I put that line in in an attempt that the whole "I know someone who smoked and drank and they died when they were 96" - good for them, that is not what happens to the majority. And define "drink alcohol in moderation without having bad effects on their health" - because any alcohol taken is a "toxin" so can taking toxins in moderation not have bad effects in health. Screws digestion up as the very quick starting point to dispelling your assumption.
    I can define moderation, but you cannot define "toxin" without resorting to arbitrary terms like "natural" and "minimum dosage." Otherwise please provide a definition that includes ethanol but not fructose, because my body handles both in very similar ways, and ingesting a small amount of either does no permanent damage to my body.

    Ten Newtons doesn't sound like a lot, and in moderation it isn't. But not in moderation, it can be deadly. If you were to be hit in the chest by a 10 gram marble going at 1000 meters per second, that would impart 10 Newtons, and it would rip through your heart/lungs and kill you. If a 10 gram marble hit your chest at 10 meters per second once a day for 100 days that would also impart 10 Newtons of force on you, but you would suffer no real or permanent damage. Even if you did get a little bruise from each one, your body would still repair itself.

    That is moderation. It is doing something at a level below your body's ability to bounce back or repair itself. Alcohol in small doses doesn't cause permanent damage. Cigarette smoke isn't as magically horrible as people make it out to be either. It's just combustion of plant material, and any plant would contain a bunch of similar "bad for you" byproducts. If someone smokes once in a while, their lungs and body can get rid of tar, regrow any lost cilia etc, and return to normal without permanent damage. If you were to breathe as much campfire smoke as smokers do cigarette smoke, it would be just as bad for you. But nobody gets emphysema or lung cancer from sitting around a campfire because they don't inhale massive overdoses of the smoke as an hourly habit. That's why there is no Surgeon General's warning about campfires.