
Scientists can’t agree whether salt is killing us - chmaynard
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/02/17/scientists-cant-agree-whether-salt-is-killing-us-heres-why/
======
static_noise
I'm waiting for the day that nutricionists find out that there are different
kinds of people with different nutritional needs. Imposing rules on the
population on a weak scientific basis harms the people, science and the
government in the process.

Currently the best way to consume food is to avoid addictive and highly
processed food products and then trust your gut with the rest. Eat what you
like and avoid what causes problems. Use salt to taste, most likely it won't
kill you - else we would have found out already.

~~~
rsync
"Currently the best way to consume food is to avoid addictive and highly
processed food products and then trust your gut with the rest."

Allow me to suggest a further path forward that is superior to "trusting your
gut":

Establish a regular, very high output exercise regime - incorporating both
long duration aerobic/cardio and relatively intense resistance training.

Under such a regimen, you will _notice_ what food does to you because you're
pushing your physical state out to the edges. You will _need_ to eat densely
nutritious food and you will _notice_ when you don't. It's quite striking.

An analogy: nobody notices a bad tank of gas, or slightly wrong octane in
their toyota minivan. You _do_ notice a bad tank of gas, or slightly wrong
octane in a race car.

Become a racecar and you won't need to guess about food anymore.

~~~
nommm-nommm
Meh. When I was an athlete I had a horrible diet which consisted of mostly
boxed pasta and I ate junk food every day. Didn't hurt my athletic ability
noticeably.

I try hard to watch what I eat now.

~~~
stdbrouw
This was actually tested in a study last year, which found that cheeseburgers
are just as good for recovery as expensive sports drinks:
[https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-
mix/wp/2015/04/0...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-
mix/wp/2015/04/02/need-to-recover-after-a-workout-eat-a-cheeseburger/)

~~~
noam87
This bogus study keeps getting cited and misrepresented:

> Gatorade, chewable energy cubes, organic peanut butter and power bars.

All of those _are_ junk food. Drinking a large bottle of Gatorade is exactly
equivalent in sugar content to drinking a can of pop, energy and power bars
are also basically crap and sugar with some "vitamins" or "soy protein" added.

So yeah... this study found that eating one form of junk food is no different
than eating another form of (cleverly marketed) junk food.

> Eleven males completed two experimental trials in a randomized,
> counterbalanced order. Each trial included a 90-min glycogen depletion ride
> followed by a 4-hr recovery period.

Wow, such thorough and newsworthy research: _eleven_ males worked out _twice_
for 90 minutes and ate two different types of crap.

This is just another example of the sorry state of modern clickbait research.

An alarming number of studies out there are nothing but noise, especially in
the medical fields, where it does actual damage. Here's a good talk on this
issue: [https://youtu.be/GPYzY9I78CI](https://youtu.be/GPYzY9I78CI)
"Reproducible Research: True or False?"

~~~
CountSessine
_Wow, such thorough and newsworthy research: eleven males worked out twice for
90 minutes and ate two different types of crap. This is just another example
of the sorry state of modern clickbait research._

This is peer-reviewed research that appeared in the International Journal of
Sport Nutrition and Exercise Metabolism. Perhaps, as an esteemed expert in
sport nutrition yourself, you could approach the journal and offer your
services as a reviewer, given how strongly you feel about this.

~~~
noam87
I linked to an hour long lecture from a domain expert who offers a thorough,
evidence based critique of modern research practices in the health sciences. I
hope you watch it, because it raises important problems in current research
practices that many are not aware of (or not taking seriously enough).

Either way, I resent such an empty appeal to authority on your end. As
intelligent, educated adults I'd like to think we're capable of arriving at
our own conclusions. One can be critical of someone's methods without sharing
their domain-specific expertise. Science is not meant to be an old boy's club,
it's a communal activity; it belongs to everyone and it's up to everyone to
scrutinize.

That's not how science works no matter who reviewed what. It doesn't matter if
Francis Crick himself was brought back from the dead to review this paper:
until this line of research is investigated further, experiments are
reproduced, modified, and analyzed from every reasonable angle, the data is
meaningless.

Perfect example, straight from the article:

> “We found that the published literature bears little imprint of an ongoing
> controversy, but rather contains two almost distinct and disparate lines of
> scholarship.”

> This finding arose from their review of ten "systematic reviews" of the
> evidence that have been conducted. In systematic reviews, scientists collect
> all of the primary research on a topic and, in effect, weight it on the
> whole. But there appears to have been widespread disagreement about what
> research papers ought to be included in a systematic review. If a research
> paper was selected for one systematic review, it was more than likely not
> selected for another, the researchers found.

Thd researchers choose a narrative and stick to it. i.e: Domain expertise _is_
the problem. If it's not up to outsiders to point this out, then who?

The current trend of careerism and domain myopia, this pressure to churn out
original research sausage factory style (again, presented in great detail in
the talk I linked to) is not science, it's actively hurtful to science, and
actively hurtful to people whose health, even lives, depends on this research.

I personally have gone through the medical system for reasons I won't go into,
and have seen first hand the very real consequences of good and bad science,
which is why I feel so passionate about these matters.

I also know a number of bright individuals who have left the world of academic
research due to their disillusionment with the system. There is a very real
brain drain going on, and God bless those who stick it out. But if more
outsiders (and disgruntled insiders and ex-insiders) don't speak out more,
people will continue to get hurt (many already have been -- it's not difficult
to find articles and books on this subject). This isn't pure maths or
theoretical physics, this is medicine; and we must hold it to the highest
levels of scrutiny.

------
hardlianotion
"the image is dominated by red and blue, a sign that scientists are more
likely to cite the research that conforms to their outlook."

Or a sign that the green lines were drawn first, and test red and blue
overlaid.

~~~
IshKebab
Was about to post the same. It's hard to continue reading the article when the
basic premise is so obviously flawed.

------
Ensorceled
I think a huge problem, is that some of the guidelines are insanely low and
difficult to hit without serious diet modifications. A couple of years ago, I
tried to stick to the Canadian RDA for salt and found it near impossible even
on a whole food diet. If you engage in strenuous exercise or in manual labour,
they are dangerously low.

A couple of recent studies are pointing to this problem with the Health Canada
Guidelines
[http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2014/08/13/salt_guidelines_a...](http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2014/08/13/salt_guidelines_are_too_low_studies_show.html)

So studies that compare people at or near the RDA with people who are over the
RDA are essentially comparing vegans, vegetarians and other people are very
closely monitoring their diet to the general population.

~~~
tetraodonpuffer
Honestly given that due to health reasons I have to stick to ~500mg of sodium
a day, and have been for years with no adverse effects, I don't consider the
1,500mg Canadian guidelines that low. I do find it funny though that, for
example, the Canadian guidelines are 1,500mg while the Italian ones are at
2,400 (and if you look at packaged foods sometimes the percentages seem to be
based on 4,000mg)

The only way for me to do it is to be completely whole foods (the only
"packaged" food I eat is canned crushed tomatoes, and only a very specific
brand with absolutely no sodium added). It is obviously annoying not to be
able to eat bread anymore, or to eat out, or to be able to do air travel
without starving (unfortunately airlines nowadays seem to not serve full fruit
meals, so I have to make do with just the little square box of salad and the
one of fruit, which on an 8 hour flight is not fun) but what can you do.

This said having to severely limit your sodium makes you realize just how much
of our industry relationships seem to be predicated on eating out, from
interviews, to work get togethers and so on, this makes me think that likely
any future job I will have will have to be fully remote because flying
somewhere for an all day interview would be quite difficult to figure out
food-wise.

~~~
liveoneggs
bread with no or very low sodium exists but usually in the freezer section.

[http://www.foodforlife.com/product/breads/ezekiel-49-low-
sod...](http://www.foodforlife.com/product/breads/ezekiel-49-low-sodium-
sprouted-whole-grain-bread)

~~~
tetraodonpuffer
thanks! I've never seen this particular one at my local stores but I'll keep
an eye out. Theoretically "Tuscan Bread" should also be made with no added
salt, but it's also not easy to find, and I wouldn't trust it anyways unless I
knew the baker personally

------
tokenadult
The article kindly submitted here is interesting. Like more and more recent
articles about science in the popular press, this article, which reports on a
large analysis of previously published papers on salt in the human diet, digs
into the process of science to look at how (or even whether) scientists learn
from one another by citing the previously published papers on the same topic.
The article's key point, just below a graphic that is criticized in several
previous comments here, is "Overall the papers they reviewed were 50 percent
more likely to cite reports that drew a similar conclusion than to cite papers
drawing a different conclusion." In other words, scientists working on the
issue of how much salt in the human diet is too much are largely talking past
one another, and not collaboratively seeking truth. The article further
reports, "Trinquart and his colleagues also turned up another factor that
might pose even more profound problems in the salt research. It appears
scientists could not even agree on what ought to be counted as evidence."

Human nutrition studies are notoriously difficult because it is very hard to
measure exactly what a study subject eats, especially a nutrient like salt
that occurs as a hidden ingredient in wildly varying doses in many foods. So
correct measurement of the initial study data is hard to get right in studies
about salt. But if scientists are still not in consensus about what to look at
as endpoints to tell if salt is helpful or harmful in different doses, it will
be a long time before we can individualize the research or do anything else
suggested in the comments already posted in this thread.

~~~
jarcane
I was recently prescribed beta blockers by my doctor, due to ongoing heart and
blood pressure issues brought on by severe stress anxiety.

I also have asthma. It's a mild case, and I don't need an inhaler or any
medication for it, just get pretty short on breath under heavy exercise.

Now, accumulated medical wisdom is that beta blockers are bad for asthmatics.
They supposedly shorten air intake, and can even be fatal, especially in
severe cases. NHS guidelines in the UK recommend against prescribing them to
asthmatics and other similar lung conditions.

But ... see it turns out this wisdom basically goes back to some case reviews
from back in the 70s, of patients having reactions to proplanolol, the first
beta blocker released to market.

But recent reviews of the research shows that's pretty much all there's ever
been: case studies. The only actual experimental trials done on this had
significant methodological issues (one of them didn't even have a control
group!), leaving little more than just a pile of what amounts to anecdotal
evidence, involving two conditions (heart and lung) that have significant
chance of comorbidity anyway.

On top of that, even most of that research is all based on the original
"nonselective" kind of beta blockers, while initial research with the modern
"selective" variety indicates they may even _help_. Even more fun is that the
beta-agonists sometimes prescribed as an alternative to blockers, may
themselves have a reaction with asthma ...

The end result is that in nearly 50 years of beta blockers being on market, no
one medical professional actually seems to have any idea whether they're good
or bad for asthma, but the "wisdom" gets passed down all the same ...

And meanwhile I've got a bottle of them on my desk. I'm not a doctor, or a
pharmaceutical scientist, and if they don't know if it's safe for me to take
them or not, how in fuck am I supposed to make that choice?

------
oniony
At least the we can all agree that salt is good for our passwords.

~~~
amist
Just in case they are random.

------
Mikeb85
The problem is that salt (and other minerals) is required to live. But we eat
too much of everything (including salt).

It's not the salt that's killing us, it's the shitty diet, too-large portions,
and lack of exercise. If we ate reasonable portions of well-prepared meals the
salt wouldn't be a big deal. But no, instead we eat extra large portions of
everything, way too much meat, starch, fat and salt, so all these food items
get a bad rap because we can't simply moderate ourselves...

~~~
jerf
Why do you think you know that?

Since the answer is basically either A: "no good reason" or B: "I believe I
have science on my side", this really isn't a good response to an article
about how controversial the science is. Which science do you think you have?
Why is it better than the other half of the science?

This is a generic reply to everybody jumping up to explain what the truth
really is.

~~~
narag
Would "people ate less and suffered less heart diseases time ago?" qualify as
C?

Of course this point has the same problem of lacking details. But recognizing
"modern food" as a culprit is actually less overeaching than putting the blame
on a single substance that has been used for centuries.

~~~
jerf
"Would "people ate less and suffered less heart diseases time ago?" qualify as
C?"

No; that would fall under "no good reason". Are you _sure_ people "ate less"?
Given that we (think we) know that people of the past were _also_ more active
(although history is definitely on your side for that one), and how much more
active people need to eat to sustain their activity, I would be completely
unsurprised to learn that people in the past consumed more calories than the
average American. You'd need to do quite a bit of science to nail this down.

Unless, of course, you've seen the relevant science, in which case it falls
under B.

It's hard to escape from needing to have done science to really _know_ what
the problem is, and it's also hard to escape from the fact that all the
science is really a great deal less clear than we've been led to believe by
our government and public health organizations. It's clear we have problems;
it's _way_ less clear what the cause truly is. It also is reasonable to
observe that you can "eat better" with less processed food, etc., and exercise
is reasonably well established as helping, but why, _exactly_? We may speak in
English of that as being one or two changes, but it's not; it's hundreds,
thousands, perhaps even more changes, all at once. Which of them are relevant,
and exactly how? Those questions are much less well answered. It also doesn't
necessarily matter to you personally in the end. But it does mean that
confident declarations about what is "really" the cause are poorly supported
right now on all fronts.

I've been looking at this for many years too, and just about the only
conclusions I've come to are A: less processed does seem better B: exercise
does seem to be important but it's surprising how much debate about which
types of exercise are good for what is still happening, again, despite what
we've been led to believe and C: the consensus I was taught growing up in the
1980s is dead wrong in almost (but not quite) every detail, but that doesn't
mean I know what is _right_.

There are still entire massive dimensions poorly explored by science; for
instance, go look up the science on "intermittent fasting". One of the first
things you ram into is that while there have been several studies on it, they
all use the exact same schedule, which happens to be fairly unrealistic. No
exploration of the space as a whole, just this one point, sampled over and
over again. Does the schedule of your food intake matter? What's the best one?
Science very nearly just shrugs at this question. Who knows what else we're
missing?

~~~
narag
_Unless, of course, you 've seen the relevant science, in which case it falls
under B._

My point was that, even if not exactly science, basic facts are known. Yes,
I'm sure people ate less in the past. I've seen the numbers and, to a certain
extent, I've _seen_ people changing their habits in my lifetime.

This is like a tide, while many studies are focusing in a few waves. That's
what my point anyway.

~~~
fpoling
People in China on average have been eating eat more calories than in US yet
stay definitely thinner.

~~~
narag
I do see the connection between that and the ongoing discussion, but it's
subtle and mostly caused by my careless use of terms. Let me fix it a little:
the diet of our ancestors was mostly "slow" carbs and a modest amount of
proteins, except if you have rich ancestors, that's it. Now there are cheap
proteins and a lot of refined carbs that are the equivalent to a nuke for
metabolism. So I should have said that heart diseases have raised while much
has changed in diet but salt intake has probably _decreased_ because of
medical recomendations.

Better now? :)

~~~
fpoling
Yes - modern Western diet is much closer to what pharaohs with all their
deceases have eaten, rather than what a typical person experienced, say, 100
years ago.

------
jbb555
It seems to me that in otherwise healthy people, they are able to deal with
excess salt by getting rid of it, but when people have issues they are unable
to do so as efficiently and that's when salt is bad.

~~~
jobu
There was one recent study that seemed to indicate exactly this, but I can't
find it right now. As I recall they found that salt exacerbated inflammation
related to hypertension, but found no difference in healthy individuals.

------
kazinator
If you consciously reduce your salt, it is probably good for your health. This
is not necessarily because of the salt, but because reducing your salt intake
pretty much requires preparing your own food from unprocessed ingredients,
rather than eating out or consuming processed food (whose sodium levels tend
to be high, and not controllable by you).

A high sodium intake is widely _believed_ to be unhealthy. Whether that is
actually true or not, those who prepare high sodium food basically show that
they don't give a shit about health.

------
jdnier
I think Dr Michael Greger's short video summary of salt research argues pretty
convincingly that if you reduce your salt intake to very low levels (what he
calls "normal-for-our-species salt intake"), you will not suffer from
hypertension.

[http://nutritionfacts.org/video/high-blood-pressure-may-
be-a...](http://nutritionfacts.org/video/high-blood-pressure-may-be-a-choice)

Another salt video looking at conflicts of interest:

[http://nutritionfacts.org/video/sodium-skeptics-try-to-
shake...](http://nutritionfacts.org/video/sodium-skeptics-try-to-shake-up-the-
salt-debate/)

~~~
jsprogrammer
In case someone doesnt want to watch the videos: the amount of sodium
discussed in the first video as "normal" is <1g/day.

------
Trumpitron
I think the core issue is that biology doesn't know as much as the media likes
to claim it does. I mean read this:
[http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2015-06/uovh-
mlf05291...](http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2015-06/uovh-
mlf052915.php#.VWzrrUM7T6Y.mailto). If true, this effectively invalidates
nearly all previous research regarding the safety of anything we inject into
our blood stream because they may in fact impact the brain.

Many people have a choice to make. Although the scientific community may make
a consistently supported claim about something does not mean that something
will turn out to be true. Creating a near-perfect predictive model of the
human body for doctors to use is about as complex a task as reverse
engineering a UFO (actually reverse engineering an alien space craft is still
probably more simple). They are going to make mistakes along the way.

So you are faced with a choice. Either take a risk with incomplete knowledge
that something man made will not be harmful in the long term or keep doing
most of the same stuff that we've been doing for centuries that has a known,
if imperfect, outcome. Yes there are a lot of things can will probably kill
you first, but does that mean you should continue to assume more risk on the
claim that a predictive model that the scientific community generally endorses
is correct enough to avoid harm?

Then again "organic" can mean a lot of things and the lack of regulation and
quality control can and has made things worse on the other end. Just because
it has the label "USDA Organic" doesn't mean that the USDA or FDA has done the
job you think it does. There is risk and uncertainty either way.

------
Kwastie
Why does a respectable news outlet/paper like the Washington Post lower itself
to clickbait titles.. I don't get it.

~~~
Profan
Titles like "Scientists can't decide" always grate on me. Almost as bad as
"Science has found out x!".

~~~
static_noise
They should hold a global meeting and call in a vote to determine the
definitive reality of the matter.

------
logfromblammo
In lieu of any conclusive evidence that has percolated down to the mainstream
news media, I'm just going to operate under the entirely baseless hypothesis
that the human body can tolerate any amount of sodium above its absolute
minimum required for basic functioning, provided that it is consumed within a
certain range of proportions with potassium, calcium, magnesium, and water.

I suspect that the mineral content of seawater diluted to 1.5% salinity (from
3.5%) would have a bit too much sodium, and not enough potassium, but would
otherwise be safe to consume in any quantity.

Needless to say, testing this hypothesis on humans might raise a few ethical
concerns. Finding enough people who already drink nothing but diluted seawater
to claim significance might also prove difficult.

------
jostmey
I think this speaks more about a broken research system than it does about the
challenges in determining how bad excess salt is on our health.

------
browseatwork
I wonder to what extent this can be explained by varying individual responses
to salt. Maybe none- definitely possible. The recent study showing blood sugar
response varied widely amongst individuals to the same foods, I wonder if
scientists will arrive at that conclusion for salt.

[http://www.weizmann-usa.org/media/2015/11/19/blood-sugar-
lev...](http://www.weizmann-usa.org/media/2015/11/19/blood-sugar-levels-in-
response-to-foods-are-highly-individual)

------
Shivetya
Being an avid cook I have a hard time with believing that salt is the evil
some claim it is. It has always been with us, it is in so many recipes and
many don't work without it. It is the basis for brine solutions which produce
make even some of the worst cuts of meat palatable and take good pieces and
makes them better.

I am more of the idea that the sedentary lifestyle of many and lack of water
as the go to drink for a lot of people combined with the excess of salt in
snacks as a triple whammy that exaggerates salt's place on some people's lists
of it being bad.

~~~
itchyouch
One thing to consider is pre-made processed food has tons of sodium in them to
bring out taste due to the absorption of salt.

When I cook for myself, I use a fraction of the salt that a pre-made
equivalent normally ships with.

I recall reading a blurb about how when processed foods don't do well in
taste-testing research panels, they are instructed to dump in the sodium, with
the result of positive results to follow up panels.

------
denzil_correa
WaPo titles are sounding more like Buzzfeed or Quartz.

------
vzip
Remove the sugar and starches from your diet, and be physically active. You'll
need ample salt, maybe even more than you'd expect.

~~~
kazinator
I eat low sodium, cycle 70 miles a week, run 30, and sweat buckets. I'm fine.

When I go traveling, I end up eating out a lot due to circumstances. The
sodium intake bloats up the skin, yowzers! My wedding band gets stuck on my
finger, when normally it slides off easily, and I lose a bit of definition. I
hate how that looks and feels.

~~~
undersuit
Body builders will maintain high sodium levels until just before a
competition, whereupon they stop consuming sodium and their water retention
decreases granting them extra temporary muscle definition.

------
darkerside
In the image showing how polarized research has become, does the yellow or
green category include "Inconclusive citing supportive and/or contradictory"?
I would suspect as much, otherwise the image ends up being quite misleading,
but I didn't see any confirmation in the article.

------
malsun
I think it's better to enjoy life than worry about nutritional guidelines,
which might extend our time in some retirement home. Especially something
that's been in our diet for a long time. Just don't overdo it.

~~~
Ensorceled
My in-laws, who have always regularly exercised and eat healthy are 10 years
older but have a much higher quality of life than my parents who have done
neither.

It's about staying out of the retirement home for as long as possible not how
long you're there before you die.

------
drumttocs8
Salt and other nutrients are bad if you're sedentary...

------
known
UL is 3600 mg
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dietary_Reference_Intake](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dietary_Reference_Intake)

------
kozukumi
Does it taste nice? That means it probably causes cancer.

I jest but it does seem like everything _nice_ either causes heart disease
and/or cancer.

~~~
dEnigma
Even vitamins cause cancer[1]. My personal guess is that it is far more
harmful to you to worry too much about what you eat, than eating a little bit
too much of something "bad", see Nocebo-effect[2] and other psychosomatic
factors.

[1] [https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/vitamins-and-cancer-
ris...](https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/vitamins-and-cancer-risk/) [2]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nocebo](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nocebo)

------
shiftoutbox
The fact that you can eat a lot of salt, with out instant harm , always makes
people think twice on reports like this . Same is true with sugar reports and
fat as well . So what is this a vegan conspiracy to make us all go veg !
Unlikely , but consumers should Recognize that consumption not in moderation
will lead to unwelcomed results . Try This rule as an example , many people
like olive oil , many people say eating lots of olive oil is good for you . No
one equates this as drinking a pint of olive oil as a good idea , nor eating
1/7 of that a day for a week . The bigger issue with this study is how
pervasive doctored food has become . Yesterday Bloomberg news had a story how
Parmesan and other grated hard Italian cheeses have become regularly doctored
with wood pulp as a filler . Once wools pulp tastes like well , wood , one
would expect salt to be added t this product to cover the wood content . A
similar analogy can be made with regards to olive oils . Many providers filter
and treat lower quality oil to make it appear as a higher quality product .
It's not as bad as Chinese "Gutter Oil" but the fact that we have food health
studies with out super strict food quality enforcement, in my humble opinion
leads the biased reports or studies with flawed data .

~~~
JumpCrisscross
> consumption not in moderation will lead to unwelcomed results

The whole point of these studies is to define the line between "too much", "in
moderation", and "not enough". Saying "everything in moderation" is the
equivalent of answering "when should I start worrying about my radiation dose"
with "when it's too much". Technically correct, practically useless.

~~~
shiftoutbox
So say the question is alcohol consumption. Science knows the ld50 for alcohol
. Science could say 1 drink a week is too much for you . However much of that
logic deals with the "average man" not "you" . Your level of moderation could
be calculated by direct observation of you, but I doubt anyone would stand for
that sort of nonsense in today's science . So how much salt , sugar , or fat
is to much ? It depends on many factors , much like how much alcohol you can
consume before you "feel intoxicated" . There is a legal standard, in many
countries,for how much alcohol you can have in your system before you are a
burden on the state . Ie are you so dunk you will crash your car and cause
harm to your self and to others or property... Back to my point you may not
fit the legal parameters for being "too drunk to drive" because you can drink
10 beers before "you" feel drunk or the inverse one beer and you need a nap .
Again this is based on averages as well as a social standard of acceptability
on what we as a community governing the law feels is acceptable . So how does
this relate to salt,fat, or sugar . It's quite simple it's too much salt in
your diet does not make you potential harm your self or others in the short
term like alcohol would . The same could be said about sugar , and fat . To be
honest I should say something like I eat 2 lbs of sugar coated bacon each day
with a fifth of bourbon and I am well over 85 . But in any case you will vote
be down either way .

