
No Association Between Salt And Blood Pressure, Study Finds - brandonb
http://time.com/3313332/salt-and-blood-pressure/
======
svsaraf
I'm a medical student who actually read the paper this article refers to. I
would be very careful trying to draw conclusions from a study like this. I
don't think many people in the healthcare community would be very surprised by
it.

1) All clinically treated hypertensive patients were excluded - that means if
you have kidney or vascular disease (hypertension) and are being treated for
it, you aren't counted here. Doctors WILL care about your salt intake if you
have these conditions, as they should! It is very common to prescribe
something called the DASH diet to lower sodium intake and increase potassium
intake.

2) If you're healthy, it means your kidneys are healthy (simplifying). One of
the purposes of the kidneys is to maintain homeostatic blood pressure by
excreting a combination of salt and water. To put it simply, if you eat a huge
load of NaCl, say in a dominoes pizza, your blood pressure WILL NOT be
affected for a very long time. I'd guess 20 minutes or so after the salt
enters your bloodstream. Which means these folks can't measure that blood
pressure change by testing blood pressure yearly.

3) Either medical doctors or the press that listens to them have a nasty habit
of taking treatments that often work for very sick people - morbidly obese,
type 1 diabetics, bed-ridden centenarians - and applying it to normal healthy
folks. I will go out on a limb and say that these unilateral recommendations
are almost all BS, and should be ignored. If you're healthy: eating eggs will
not affect your cholesterol, eating cheesecake will not give you diabetes,
sitting in a chair will not misalign your spine. It would be prudent for you
to be skeptical when you hear these claims, often on daytime television or on
the internet.

~~~
sergiosgc
1) In trying to find out if, generically, there is a causal effect between
salt intake and blood pressure, it is sensible to select a healthy population.
The hypothesis being tested is "In good working condition, the human body
maintains correct NaCl levels". You do not want to test people with faulty
metabolism, because they are outside the scope.

2) See explanation in number 1.

3) I have not read the original paper, but the news article makes no mention
of such inference.

I have to say that I think the premise that the human body must be excellent
at maintaining NaCl levels perfect is sound. Sodium and chlorine are very
active chemical elements. Having them in wrong levels probably throws _every_
chemical reaction in the body out of whack. If I were to design a chemical
machine that used NaCl, keeping the correct level would be a primary control.
Evolution tends to get these things right, so our bodies probably do have
excellent control mechanisms for this balance.

~~~
svsaraf
I almost completely agree with this comment. I should have been more clear -
my gripe is not so much with the study but with its interpretation by Time.

The study may have its own problems, but draws a conclusion I agree with, that
the relationship between salt and blood pressure in healthy people may be
overstated.

As for your point 3: I disagree. I think the news article makes a case that
salt and blood pressure have _no_ relationship, which isn't true. It is only
true if, almost by definition, your salt / water regulation system is healthy.

Your point about maintaining NaCl levels is probably roughly correct, though I
don't think it has been demonstrated per se.

~~~
sergiosgc
> As for your point 3: I disagree. I think the news article makes a case that
> salt and blood pressure have no relationship, which isn't true. It is only
> true if, almost by definition, your salt / water regulation system is
> healthy.

It never states the inference directly, although as is common in mainstream
media, the title of the piece is stronger than what is then told in the text.
I think you may be getting too hung up on the title, and I understand the
reason. Mainstream media often over-generalizes scientific findings, more so
in the field of nutrition.

In the same vein you have a pet peeve with media behaviour, I have one with
M.D. behaviour. One that may paint the overly generalized title in a kinder
light:

Doctors often prescribe life-style changes: Eat less, eat better, exercise
more, don't smoke, sleep well, sleep regularly, avoid stress. They fail at
prioritizing, because they fail at recognizing that patients will never
completely change their lifestyle. Willpower is a limited resource, and should
be allocated as such.

The prioritization of lifestyle changes is important. If reducing salt intake
is competing with reducing BMI, it should be a no-brainer that BMI reduction
should come first. It is rarely the case. They are either presented as equally
important changes or, since reducing salt intake is easier than shedding 20kg,
doctors go for the easy goal.

The prioritization problem should be obvious. The closer to the root of
problems you attack, the better the result you'll get. Salt intake is way way
down the causal chain to health problems.

As such, blanket stating that you shouldn't care about salt in your diet may
be good, if it leads to freeing willpower to do other lifestyle changes.

------
lincolnq
The state of nutrition science is pathetic.

The science is conflicted over a simple question of fact -- whether or not a
trivially measurable short-term effect occurs when you eat one of the most
common food additives in the world.

If we can't even answer THIS -- it seems like it should be incredibly easy to
answer -- I don't see why people can claim anything at all about diets and
macronutrients.

Nutrition science needs a fundamental breakthrough and I don't know where it's
going to come from but I desperately hope it happens quickly. Because a lot of
people are suffering and dying of poor nutrition and we don't know basic
things about what's good and bad for us.

~~~
bronbron
> we don't know basic things about what's good and bad for us.

Errr, I think we know these 'basic' things quite fine. Energy burned needs to
be >= energy taken in. It's just complicated for other reasons.

There are _a lot_ of incentives to stay unhealthy. There're the biological
incentives (eating a shitload and packing on a few pounds is good if you're in
the jungle and might not eat again for a few weeks), and the incredible
cultural pressures that prey on those biological incentives (taco bell spends
a lot of money to encourage you to make bad health decisions).

Salt, cholesterol, fat, carbs - these are distractions from being healthy.
People who eat healthy amounts of reasonable food (although even then, there's
that guy who ate twinkies for a year and managed to lose weight by keeping his
calories in check) rarely suffer from poor nutrition.

Yeah, everyone knows that guy who was a vegan and ran every day for 40 years
and keeled over at 45 from a heart problem. He's the exception.

~~~
superuser2
Except that energy burned is not by any means a 1:1 correlation with exercised
performed. We are inefficient machines, and our efficiency characteristics
vary wildly in ways we don't fully understand.

Two people consuming the same quantity of energy and exerting the same number
of joules on exercise equipment do not see identical or even necessarily
related physiological effects. There are many, many factors - other nutrients,
genetics, timing, the distribution of work over time (short intense exercise
vs. long less intense exercise, etc.) and they all matter.

There are skinny people who have never been inside a gym. There are fat people
who work harder than you. Obviously you can still influence your outcomes, but
"energy out >= energy in" is a gross oversimplification.

~~~
autokad
while that may be true, for the mast majority of people that over
simplification is fine. The high odds are that the fat person running next to
me on the tread mill is over weight because they eat too much and do not move
enough, not because of the 10 calories per hour I may burn in that work out
due to what ever factors.

if it were a small % of overweight people you might have a point, but the high
% of overweight people in US in particular is certainly because of calories
consumed >> calories burned.

i think the real tragedy is people looking for magical formulas, or giving up
because 'its genetics'. further proof of that is that just about any dieting
regiment works, the issue is that most people dont stick to them.

~~~
aytekin
Most of the population is carb intolerant. Unable to process sugar, their
kidney turns it into fat and makes them feel starved at the same time. When
they try to follow a balanced diet with lots of carbs, they get fatter and
fatter. They try to consume less calories and they starve while creating new
fat stores at the same time. For these people calorie calculation is the wrong
thing. They should stop sugar consumption, restrict carbs to a minimum and
without a diet they will slowly lose the weight.

~~~
matthewmacleod
_Unable to process sugar, their kidney turns it into fat_

Kidneys do not turn sugar into fat.

 _restrict carbs to a minimum and without a diet they will slowly lose the
weight_

That _is_ a diet. They will lose weight if they consume fewer calories than
they spend.

This nonsense is a great example of the awful ideas that people have about
dietary science, and how poorly the truth is being communicated.

~~~
aytekin
I don't know why I typed kidney. Obviously, I meant liver. There is no edit
link so I can't fix it.

Make fat feel guilty about their weight and get them to continue eating sugar
and corn syrup has only made the epidemic bigger in the last decades.

------
nazgulnarsil
I decided to go through the IOMs Sodium Intake in Populations report[1] when
the FDAs new DRIs were released. The FDA guidelines pushing for 1500mg a day
stand in contrast to the findings of the Cochrane review meta-
analysis(summary[2]). After looking over all the studies reviewed by both the
IOM and the Cochrane review I can't figure out how the FDA are justifying
their recommendations of very low intake. The only truly consistent finding
seems to be that below around 2g and above about 4g is clearly harmful in that
it definitely results in more hospital visits. In between is a lot more shaky.
The FDA basically asked the IOM to write the bottom line first and still the
IOM wasn't able to come up with any evidence that lowering sodium intake below
that range was helpful. It is important to note that the vast majority of
sodium studies additionally do not control for a very important confounder
which is potassium intake, and that those that do seem to agree strongly with
the conclusions of the Cochrane Review. IOM makes note of this shortcoming but
does not draw any conclusions from it.

MealSquares ([http://mealsquares.com](http://mealsquares.com)) will be
sticking with the Cochrane Review conclusions for now, but of course we will
update and inform our customers based on the recommendations with the
strongest evidence behind them. It's interesting to note that Soylent 1.0 went
with around 1g of salt/day and was forced to change this when people started
getting dizzy. it will be interesting to see what they change it to.

1\.
[http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=18311&page=R1](http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=18311&page=R1)

2\. [http://www.nhs.uk/news/2011/11November/Pages/cochrane-
review...](http://www.nhs.uk/news/2011/11November/Pages/cochrane-review-salt-
blood-pressure.aspx)

------
delinka
Oxygen is bad for us. It oxidizes and damages all kinds of organic chemicals
in our bodies that are required for use to live. Oxidization, however, is
exactly what provides us with the energy that supports life.

Salts are electrolytes. (Electrolytes are salts?) You need them in your body
so that your nervous system can conduct signals and keep things going - like
your heart.

We live. We grow. We hurt. We heal. We get sick. We recover. We age. We wear
out. We die.

Rather that avoiding "omg sugar" or "omg salt" or "omg fat," we should just be
eating well-rounded diets. Have some beef today. And some pork tomorrow. And
some fish after that. Have some fruit. And veggies. And a bit of dessert. And
a spoonful of honey. And some powdered sugar on that syrup'd French toast.
Just don't eat large piles of stuff for a meal. And don't eat the same thing
every day.

Life's gonna kill you. Just don't clog up your body with excessive amounts of
the same thing and you probably won't die early.

~~~
smtddr
_> >Rather that avoiding "omg sugar" or "omg salt" or "omg fat," we should
just be eating well-rounded diets._

Define well-rounded. ;) Isn't that what we're all trying to decide? We even
have some people on here claiming McDonald's can be part of a balanced healthy
diet.

~~~
delinka
"Well-rounded diet," n.; a large variety of foods from a large variety of
ingredients. --Dictionary of Delinka :-D

------
coldcode
Nutrition hasn't much since I took some nutritional chemistry classes in
college decades ago. It's still a very complex system which is almost
impossible to study because you can't easily isolate different the different
bits from each other. The only thing even less settled is how the brain
operates and stores information.

~~~
Lost_BiomedE
Yes and no, IMO. For the layman, yes, it seems like a mish-mash of failed
conclusions. But, I think there is a solid direction that can be found with
some knowledge. We punish those who push the boundaries too quickly. This bias
really needs to be thrown out and instead solid and rigorous studies should be
done and confirmed. Way too many will conclude for food studies/scientists out
there right now. If you are not one, you meet a lot of hostility unless you
are big name. Also, don't be too old as you will be labeled as jumping the
shark.

------
jpmattia
Scientific American was beating this drum a while ago:

> It's Time to End the War on Salt >
> [http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/its-time-to-end-
> th...](http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/its-time-to-end-the-war-on-
> salt/)

------
skylan_q
The orignal study that caused the salt scare didn't claim that increased salt
intake caused increased blood pressure. The claim was that a sodium intake on
the high end of regular sodium intake was closely correlated with increased
mortality rates in heart attack victims. There was no claim made about sodium
intake and blood pressure, nor was there a claim about sodium intake and heart
attack rates.

This is why I hate the intersection of journalism, science, and the public.

~~~
nazgulnarsil
The entire salt->CVD claim has rested for years upon the assumption that the
causal pathway is salt->BP->CVD. The IOM and FDA both talk about this
extensively in their recommendations.

------
fasteo
Analyzing the effects on health of a single nutritional item - salt in this
case - in pretty useless IMHO. The more I read about nutrition, the more I
come to realize that it is the ratio of different nutrients what is key to our
health.

Take Omega3 for example: It´s much healthier to reduce the content of Omega 6
in your diet than popping a couple of Omega 3 pills a day. This is so because
our current diet has screwed up this optimal ratio [1]

Same applies to salt: The problem is not Sodium, but refined salt, that has a
mineral composition so unbalanced that makes Sodium problematic.

Just eat unprocessed food.

[1] Optimal ratio Omega6/Omega3=around 1. Typical ratio in western diets: 15/1
[http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0753332202...](http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0753332202002536)

------
zmmmmm
Did they really _prove_ there was 'no association' or did they just fail to
reject the null hypothesis that there is no association? These are
diabolically different things!

~~~
lutusp
Indeed they are, but according to the null hypothesis precept, without
persuasive contradicting evidence, there is no association. The burden is on
experimental evidence to contradict that assumption, and if positive evidence
isn't present, then the default assumption is correct.

Think about what _proving no association_ actually means. That would require
proof of a negative, which is a widely recognized logical error, an impossible
burden. To see why, imagine that I believe in Bigfoot and I will continue to
believe until someone proves he doesn't exist. But no one can prove Bigfoot
isn't hiding under some rock on a faraway planet, therefore I am justified in
my belief. My belief is supported by an impossible evidentiary burden.

This is why scientists rely on the null hypothesis -- contradicting it
requires positive evidence. Its opposite requires negative evidence.

~~~
zmmmmm
> if positive evidence isn't present, then the default assumption is correct

What you have said above is horribly wrong and is exactly the point I am
making. If it is true then I can prove anything I like just by designing a bad
enough experiment.

For example, suppose I want to prove that the moon is made of green cheese. I
can start with a null hypothesis that it IS made of green cheese. Then I can
point my telescope in the wrong direction and find no evidence that it is not
made of green cheese. Using your logic I am free to then conclude that my null
hypothesis is true.

You cannot just make any null hypothesis you want and then when you fail to
prove it untrue, claim it is true. If you want to make a positive claim about
the null hypothesis (for example, claim there is no association between salt
and blood pressure) then you have to test it directly with positive evidence
in its own right.

~~~
lutusp
>> if positive evidence isn't present, then the default assumption is correct

> What you have said above is horribly wrong and is exactly the point I am
> making. If it is true then I can prove anything I like just by designing a
> bad enough experiment.

You obviously do not understand the null hypothesis. Under the null
hypothesis, a claim is assumed to be false unless and until persuasive
evidence shows otherwise. Only psychologists think a bad experiment
contradicts the default assumption of no effect. Serious science must pass
muster with other equally serious scientists, who will call out anyone trying
to cheat.

> For example, suppose I want to prove that the moon is made of green cheese.
> I can start with a null hypothesis that it IS made of green cheese.

That is certainly not what "null hypothesis" means -- your utterly mistaken
view asserts its opposite, the alternative hypothesis. Please learn anything
at all about this topic before assuming you understand it.

> You cannot just make any null hypothesis you want and then when you fail to
> prove it untrue, claim it is true.

Honestly. Learn what it means before trying to discuss it.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_hypothesis](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_hypothesis)

Quote: "In statistical inference of observed data of a scientific experiment,
the null hypothesis refers to a general statement or default position that
there is _no relationship between two measured phenomena_. Rejecting or
disproving the null hypothesis – and thus concluding that there are grounds
for believing that there is a relationship between two phenomena or that a
potential treatment has a measurable effect – is a central task in the modern
practice of science, and gives a precise sense in which a claim is capable of
being proven false."

~~~
zmmmmm
Well, your insulting tone is not particularly conducive to ongoing discussion
... but can't you see that Wikipedia is exactly contradicting you?

Try and find anything there that backs up this statement:

>> if positive evidence isn't present, then the default assumption is correct

Quoting from the same page:

"...it should be noted that the null hypothesis is never proved or
established, but is possibly disproved, in the course of experimentation."

And again:

"We may, however, choose any null hypothesis we please, provided it is exact."

~~~
lutusp
> can't you see that Wikipedia is exactly contradicting you?

You need to learn about the null hypothesis. And science. The null hypothesis
_denies the reality of the asserted hypothesis until positive evidence
supports it_. How difficult is that? The default assumption is that there is
no effect, _no connection between a stated hypothesis and reality_.

If I make the claim that Bigfoot exists, and then set out to test my claim
using science, under the null hypothesis _the default assumption is that
Bigfoot does not exist_. This means you have it exactly backwards.

> ... your insulting tone is not particularly conducive to ongoing discussion

A description is not an insult. Learn this difference also.

Learn about the null hypothesis. Discover that the null hypothesis _cannot be
used to make a positive claim or assertion_ , as you did earlier with your
green cheese example. That is reserved to the alternative hypothesis, which is
how pseudoscience works, i.e. make a claim and wait for someone else to
disprove it with the impossible standard of "proof of a negative" or "absence
of evidence":

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_absence](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_absence)

------
eik3_de
Can't confirm. Whenever I use salt, my blood pressure goes up fairly quick.
That's why I use Ansible instead.

~~~
amorphid
"eik3_de is controlled by the cook's union, and is merely a puppet for the
chef industry." \--C. F. Engine

~~~
eik3_de
haha n1

------
nuh777
The results section of the paper has some possibly contradictory information:

1\. "Salt intake was positively associated with SBP in men but not in women."

2\. "Salt intake was not associated with SBP in either sex after multiple
adjustments."

Also isn't this kind of journalism and article titles unethical? There should
be some kind of regulatory board for articles in any media.

Anyone can write anything and can cause serious harm.

------
illumen
This title is more misleading than the article. Notice the question in the
headline? That almost always means No.

------
smegel
> those patients who were hypertensive consumed significantly more salt than
> those without hypertension

Doesn't that mean there is a causative effect, or are they saying it just a
correlation? People with high blood pressure tend to eat more salt? Or if it
is not statistically significant, why mention it at all?

~~~
nmjohn
> Doesn't that mean there is a causative effect, or are they saying it just a
> correlation?

Unless causality is clearly articulated, it never should be assumed. Also, it
never would be stated if there was not statistically significant data
supporting it - keeping in mind this is a Time article and not the original
source [0] so you're dependent on the writer knowing what they're talking
about as well.

[0]:
[http://ajh.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2014/09/03/ajh.h...](http://ajh.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2014/09/03/ajh.hpu164)

------
nickbauman
In recent years oncology is seeing there might be a connection between lack of
iodine and increase risk of cancer. So when people curb their salt intake for
long periods of time they may be risking cancer since it is one of the only
ways inlanders get enough of it.

------
crusso
Sadly, the unsettled or contradicted nature of the science won't stop
politicians like Bloomberg from trying to force the behavior he wants through
legislation.

~~~
base698
[http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2012/09/the_nanny_state_didnt...](http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2012/09/the_nanny_state_didnt_show_up.html)

The vast majority of the people complaining about the Big Soda ban don't buy
big sodas, and those most enraged about the Buckyballs ban either already have
them or would never want them. So the reaction has nothing to do with the
products themselves, the rage is on a theoretical level, "I don't want
government intruding in my private choices." But they already do this in a
gazillion different ways, bigger, more important intrusions. The difference is
that those are invisible. You know you can't value the risks in airplane
safety or radiation leaks so you trust them to do it, but you think you can
value the risks of a soda and hate that they try to do it for you.

I know you are thinking, "but I can resist soda; I understand the risks"\--
never mind you don't even know the ingredients of soda, the point here is you
are starting from you and multiplying by 6 billion.

When you say, "personal responsibility!" you are really saying "this is safe
enough for it to be a question of personal responsibility." But you must ask
yourself the question: how do you know Buckyballs and soda are safe enough for
them to be about personal responsibility? Because "some other omnipotent
entity" allowed them to exist. How do you know that Entity can be trusted?
Because it even tries to ban silly things like Buckyballs and soda. The system
is sound.

~~~
crusso
_vast majority of the people complaining about the Big Soda ban don 't buy big
sodas_

Isn't that a bit like saying that only African Americans are allowed to stand
up to racism?

 _the rage is on a theoretical level_

If individual liberty and personal responsibilities are only theories. I don't
happen to agree.

 _But they already do this in a gazillion different ways_

So because they get away with it in harder-to-grasp and harder-to-politically-
oppose ways, we should just submit to all of it?

 _I know you are thinking, "but I can resist soda; I understand the risks"_

You obviously have no idea what I'm thinking. I think about the bigger picture
of a society of sheep that elects wolves to make all their decisions for them
because the sheep are too busy watching the NFL and Miley Cyrus to be bothered
to make decisions for themselves and take responsibility for those decisions.
I ponder the paradox of a populace too stupid to decide whether or not to
drink a soda but smart enough to elect angels who will protect them from
themselves.

 _Because "some other omnipotent entity" allowed them to exist_

You're totally and completely wrong yet again. I'm an atheist. How does that
affect your rationalization of letting others use force to make the smallest
decisions in life for you?

~~~
base698
That is kind of the entire point of the article. This quote summarizes the
argument which you paraphrased after pointing out "You have no idea what you
are thinking".

The argument to spell it out in a clearer way than the author is a reductio ad
absurdum:

1) The system protects us from unsafe airline and car practices.

2) The system tries to ban toys and sodas.

3) Therefore, the system can protect us from anything that is bad.

The conclusion is clearly false, because lots of bad things still happen and
you can't engineer a perfectly safe system. The omnipotent entity he refers is
the the government, market, or whatever entity makes decisions you don't have
to. In the full article there are lots of examples, from banking to whatever
where the train of thought jumps from one type of savior to another, without
ever pinning it down on the individual.

------
pbreit
Does the headline square with "patients who were hypertensive consumed
significantly more salt than those without hypertension"?

~~~
lutusp
Yes, because correlations don't prove causation. One might want to argue that
people who are hypertensive consume more salt as an effect, not a cause. Not
to argue that that is proven either, only that it should be on the list of
possibilities that merit investigation.

~~~
pbreit
The headline used "association". Plus, the article seemed to indicate it was a
causation, just not universal.

~~~
lutusp
It's important to understand that, until a cause-effect relationship is
explained instead of being merely measured, it's not science. A more complete
explanation is here:

[http://arachnoid.com/science_of_mind/](http://arachnoid.com/science_of_mind/)

~~~
pbreit
I was making a simple observation that the headline clashed with the article.

------
sparkzilla
The latest health scare is that sitting causes all kinds of trouble. Expect
articles in 10 years saying it was all a lie.

~~~
snogglethorpe
Hmm, aren't those warnings about sitting talking about a sort of ridiculous
extreme though, sitting in one position for most of the day? You maybe get
that on long-distance airplane flights (and even then, you take bathroom trips
etc), but even people with desk jobs almost never really sit all day like
that....

[And in the of long-distance airplane flights, the whole deep-vein-thrombosis
thing does actually seem to be a documented problem, if a pretty rare one...]

------
graycat
To me, it sounds like poor, little, old, suffering 'Time' magazine is trying
to get eyeballs.

The article sounds like a total yawn to me, that is, just old and obvious. So,
I long understood: If eat some food with some table salt, that is, NaCl, then
within an hour or so likely the salt concentration in blood will increase and
then blood pressure will increase. But, the body has a system that regulates
salt concentration; so, if the salt concentration is too high, then the body
will lower the salt concentration, and the usual way is to flush out the extra
salt in urine. So, net, likely within a few hours, the salt concentration will
be back to where the body wants it. Typically, for reasonably healthy people,
no biggie.

Somewhat separately there is a disease called _hypertension_ which means high
blood pressure, and such blood pressure can be dangerous, e.g., cause blood
vessels to break and leak, say, in the brain -- not good. If a person has this
disease, then extra salt that further increases blood pressure, even just for
a few hours, can be not good. So, for such a person, a standard recommendation
is to reduce input of salt: So, e.g., don't sit around eating salted peanuts,
potato chips, etc.

But does eating salt _cause_ the disease hypertension? Nope.

Then, bingo, presto, wonder of wonders, the mass media, always eager for
getting eyeballs, often by grabbing people, by the heart, the gut, below the
belt, always below the shoulders, never between the ears, comes out screaming
about salt suggesting that salt, exploiting really simplistic thinking, is
somehow _bad_. Or, since people are sensitive to suggestions or symptoms of
danger, suggesting that salt is _bad_ can get eyeballs.

Then companies that manufacture and want to sell food products, say, bread,
may see a selling opportunity, lower the amount of salt in their products, and
then scream on their product labels that their products are _healthy_ because
they are _low salt_.

We can see how the mass media and their food product advertising customers
have a common interest: The media raises fears about salt, and the food
companies scream that their products are healthy because they are low in salt.
It's deliberate confusion and deception, that is, in a word, a scam, all in an
attempt to get money from ordinary people.

This scam has been going on for decades. E.g., back in the 1980s I was in the
house of some friends; they were in their 20s and in perfect health, with
perfect weight, etc. The husband was a good athlete, and his wife was drop
dead gorgeous. But the wife was cooking with _low salt_ based on the scam,
i.e., that salt would cause hypertension, which of course it would not.

Or, as in the title here, "No Association Between Salt And Blood Pressure", of
course not. There never was any such _association_. Salt does not cause
hypertension; there's never been any competent claim that salt did cause
hypertension.

So, now Time gets another way to grab eyeballs -- debunk the scam that for at
least three decades has had way too many people thinking the total nonsense
that salt causes hypertension.

For the media, there's a pattern here: To get eyeballs, create a scam. Then,
later, maybe decades later, to get more eyeballs, debunk the scam. Then
continue with more scams -- there are many possible scams.

So, net, salt does not cause the disease hypertension, and the media likes to
use scams to get eyeballs. Virginia, if you didn't already know this, then
listen up and learn. I mean, by now, we expected something else?

------
elchief
Or is there? Nutrition "Science" is fucking Phrenelogy

------
seesomesense
Low Sodium Intake — Cardiovascular Health Benefit or Risk? Suzanne Oparil,
M.D. N Engl J Med 2014; 371:677-679 August 14, 2014DOI: 10.1056/NEJMe1407695

"In response to controversy about the health effects of low sodium intake, the
Institute of Medicine convened an expert committee to evaluate the evidence
for a relation between sodium and health outcomes.4,5 The committee concluded
that most evidence supports a positive relation between high sodium intake and
risk of cardiovascular disease but that results from studies with health
outcomes were insufficient to conclude whether low sodium intake (<2.3 g per
day or <1.5 g per day, as recommended in current dietary guidelines6,7) is
associated with an increased or reduced risk of cardiovascular disease in the
general population. The committee found limited evidence that low salt intake
may be associated with adverse health effects in some subgroups, including
some patients with heart failure or other forms of cardiovascular disease,
diabetes, or chronic kidney disease. Results from three studies, reported in
this issue of the Journal, bear on this matter. The Prospective Urban Rural
Epidemiology (PURE) study provides new evidence about the association between
sodium and potassium intake, estimated from morning urine specimens, and blood
pressure, death, and major cardiovascular events.8,9 The procedure for
estimating electrolyte excretion was validated elsewhere.10 The PURE study
included more than 100,000 adults sampled from the general population of 17
countries that varied in their economic development and acculturation to an
urban lifestyle. Approximately 90% of the participants had either a high
(>5.99 g per day) or moderate (3.00 to 5.99 g per day) level of sodium
excretion; approximately 10% excreted less than 3.00 g per day, and only 4%
had sodium excretion in the range associated with current U.S. guidelines for
sodium intake (2.3 or 1.5 g per day).

Across this broad range of populations, the relation between sodium excretion
and blood pressure was positive but nonuniform: it was strong in participants
with high sodium excretion, modest in those in the moderate range, and
nonsignificant in those with low sodium excretion. The authors concluded from
the findings that a very small proportion of the worldwide population consumes
a low-sodium diet and that sodium intake is not related to blood pressure in
these persons, calling into question the feasibility and usefulness of
reducing dietary sodium as a population-based strategy for reducing blood
pressure. There was also an interaction between sodium excretion and potassium
excretion: high sodium excretion was more strongly associated with increased
blood pressure in persons with lower potassium excretion. The authors
suggested that the alternative approach of recommending high-quality diets
rich in potassium might achieve greater health benefits, including blood-
pressure reduction, than aggressive sodium reduction alone. After a mean of
3.7 years of follow-up, the composite outcome of death and cardiovascular
events occurred in 3317 participants (3.3%). As compared with those who had a
moderate level of sodium excretion, those with a higher or lower level of
sodium excretion had an increased risk of cardiovascular-disease outcomes.

The authors attempted to rule out residual confounding or reverse causation as
explanations for their findings by showing that participants with a low level
of sodium excretion had a similar mean INTERHEART Modifiable Risk Score and
higher intake of fruit and vegetables, as compared with those with a moderate
level of sodium excretion, and that more than 90% of the cohort was free of
antecedent cardiovascular disease. The findings were not altered by the
exclusion of participants with prior cardiovascular disease, cancer, or use of
blood-pressure medication, by the exclusion of outcome events occurring in the
first 2 years of observation, or by adjustment for all identifiable
confounders.

The major weaknesses of the PURE study, inherent in its study design and
scope, include the absence of direct measurement of 24-hour urinary excretion
on multiple occasions, which is the accepted model for assessing electrolyte
intake, and the lack of an intervention component to assess the direct effects
of altering sodium and potassium intake on blood pressure and cardiovascular-
disease outcomes, thus making it impossible to establish causality.
Nevertheless, this large study does provide evidence that both high and low
levels of sodium excretion may be associated with an increased risk of death
and cardiovascular-disease outcomes and that increasing the urinary potassium
excretion counterbalances the adverse effect of high sodium excretion. These
provocative findings beg for a randomized, controlled outcome trial to compare
reduced sodium intake with usual diet. In the absence of such a trial, the
results argue against reduction of dietary sodium as an isolated public health
recommendation.

The authors of the third article, from the Global Burden of Diseases Nutrition
and Chronic Diseases Expert Group (NutriCode),11 used modeling techniques to
estimate global sodium consumption and its effect on cardiovascular
mortality.12 The investigators quantified global sodium intake on the basis of
published surveys from 66 countries and used a hierarchical Bayesian model to
estimate global sodium consumption. They then estimated the effects of sodium
on blood pressure in a meta-analysis of 107 published trials and estimated the
effects of systolic blood pressure on cardiovascular mortality by combining
the results of two large international pooling projects that included
individual-level data. They found a strong linear relationship between sodium
intake and cardiovascular events and estimated that 1.65 million
cardiovascular deaths in 2010 were attributable to excess sodium consumption.
The NutriCode investigators should be applauded for a herculean effort in
synthesizing a large body of data regarding the potential harm of excess salt
consumption. However, given the numerous assumptions necessitated by the lack
of high-quality data, caution should be taken in interpreting the findings of
the study. Taken together, these three articles highlight the need to collect
high-quality evidence on both the risks and benefits of low-sodium diets."

------
nakedrobot2
ALL NUTRITION SCIENCE IS A BUNCH OF GODDAM LIES.

EAT FOOD THAT TASTES GOOD. STAY AWAY FROM PROCESSED FOOD. GET OFF YOUR ASS AS
MUCH AS POSSIBLE. THAT IS ALL!

/rant

------
calvinbhai
This article is BS. I mean, its a FUD advertorial.

I say that based on my personal experience:

A nurse in the clinic checked my BP (as a routine) when I went to get checked
for some eye infection. And she was shocked that it was 170/100 (normal is
120/80).

It was shocking for her (and of course me) because: I was 25 I looked healthy
and lean (not too thin). I showed/experienced no signs of hyper tension.

My eating habits, was to go on a Frozen Prepared Food diet (for lunch and
dinner) because that was the cheapest tasty food I could afford along with
cereals for breakfast, for about 3 months before my BP was checked.

I dropped this diet since that day, reduced salt intake considerably. And it
took about 9 months for my BP to come down to normal levels, without any
medication, and with a little extra exercising.

I'd have taken this article with a pinch of salt. But, I have cut down on salt
intake. So I prefer to not take it :)

~~~
jasallen
Which is why for so long people believed that salt was the cause. But in your
situation salt is also a proxy for a lot of other things that were wrong with
your diet. Gobs of processes carbs, no 'good' cholesterol, a lack of protein,
just to get started.

Since anything that cuts processed salt considerably almost assuredly improves
those other metrics, I'm not sure why you believe your anecdotal evidence is
so convincing.

~~~
calvinbhai
"Anecdotal evidence" is acceptable if everyone said salt is healthy and I
claimed otherwise.

btw, my diet, even though had a lot of frozen food, wasn't loaded with carbs,
and was sufficient in protein.

Back to the point: When doctors I trust say that I'm better off cutting salt
and sodium intake, I'll cut down on it. And because its the trusted doctors
that say so, I consider it as non Anecdotal Evidence

