
Salt not as damaging to health as previously thought, says study - open-source-ux
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/aug/09/salt-not-as-damaging-to-health-as-previously-thought-says-study
======
rossdavidh
Whenever I hear discussion of whether we should defer to the judgement of
scientists, I always want to ask, which field of science do you mean? In some,
like physics, chemistry, evolutionary biology, geology, there is still much to
be learned but what we have so far is pretty solid. You don't hear about the
basics (matter is made of atoms, species emerge from natural selection, plate
tectonics) getting overturned.

Then, there are other fields, like economics and nutrition, where the basic
fundamentals of the field are a pile of mud. It is much like medicine in the
era of balancing the four humours. In the meantime, we need to fund research,
but not listen to any of the recommendations of the experts, until they
achieve a basic level of understanding of their subject (which clearly hasn't
happened yet).

~~~
mercer
Can you elaborate on the 'pile of mud' fundamentals of economics? I've always
been inclined to agree, but then I consider my biases in this regard, but also
my own field, psychology, and pause.

If you subdivide 'science' into various fields, psychology is definitely on
much shakier grounds than has often ben assumed. But if you subdivide
'psychology', the picture isn't as clear. I'd say marketing and the broader
field of persuasion/propaganda, or something like group dynamics, has a much
firmer basis in reality than, say, psychopathology or evolutionary psychology.

I'm very curious if people who are well-versed in economics can make similar
distinctions, because I find it hard to believe it's 'all' mud.

~~~
DougMerritt
People are very prejudiced against economics because economists don't predict
well and have contradictory policy recommendations, but the _basis_ of
economics is quite solid.

(My favorite illustration: if there were no underlying laws to economics, then
dictators would just issue edicts about currency and markets which would then
just plain work rather than causing havoc -- and yet dictators very much
suffer side effects of their dictates.)

This is very similar to weather prediction, which in some geographical areas
is very untrustworthy, but not because its scientific foundation is lacking.

Psychology has subareas that are very rigorous and evidence based, but also
major foundational areas that remain essentially speculative/opinion-based
(what is mind/consciousness/free will?)

Evolutionary psychology is again firmly rooted, but is most famous for its
speculative and unproven areas.

Marketing and persuasion/propaganda have subareas that incorporate statistics
and/or psychology and/or sociology etc., but are not themselves actually
_sciences_ at all, so that's very much apples and oranges.

~~~
DougMerritt
Really, I got downvoted for something where every word was inarguably true in
the sense of objective fact not opinion, and informative about half a dozen
subjects?

This place is as bad as reddit and slashdot. I haven't returned here very
often over the years; this kind of experience makes one feel unwelcome.

~~~
dang
People often come along eventually and correct unfair downvotes.

That's one reason the site guidelines ask you not to complain about getting
downvoted; by the time most people read the complaint, it's obsolete.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)

------
JeanMarcS
During the heat wave in France this summer, messages to old persons were to
drink regularly (which sometimes they forget)

So a quarter of medical consultations related to elders and heat was for a
lack of salt [0]. From Google translate it’s call hyponatremia.

So as stated in other comments, moderation, may be, lack, bad idea.

I’m actually in Ireland. They seem to have taken the salt part very seriously,
as everything need to be resalted (for me and my family). But everything is
over sugared.

[0]
[https://www.nouvelobs.com/societe/20180806.OBS0591/canicule-...](https://www.nouvelobs.com/societe/20180806.OBS0591/canicule-
les-personnes-agees-doivent-aussi-veiller-a-ne-pas-trop-boire-d-eau.html) (in
French)

Edit : typos

~~~
NoPicklez
After doing endurance exercise 80km+ bike rides each weekend, sodium and other
forms of electrolytes are incredibly important. Without them I lose fluids and
I get crazy leg cramps.

The issue is that salt tastes good, so people load it on their food to the
point where it is unhealthy.

It's the same with sugar, there is a huge industry bashing sugar at the
moment, but sugar is essential for the human body. They are bashing sugar and
creating fear because alot of people (myself included at times) eat way too
much sugar, because its so easy to do, but it does create adverse health
effects. That doesn't mean sugar is bad, just that eating copious amounts of
highly refined sugar is bad for you.

Try exercising without a healthy blood sugar level due to lack of complex
sugars.

Now we have this keto industry where people think twice about eating fruit due
to it being high in sugar, FRUIT for god sake.

~~~
nonbel
>"sugar is essential for the human body"

Sugar is not essential to the diet, the body can make it from fat and protein.
Ie,
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gluconeogenesis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gluconeogenesis)

However, afaik, you cannot live without fat or protein in your diet.

>"Try exercising without a healthy blood sugar level due to lack of complex
sugars."

You assume "healthy blood sugar level" must be related to "amount of sugar in
diet". Not true, your body can adapt to different diets.

~~~
goldenkey
Consuming only fats and proteins stresses the body quite heavily. Carbs are
the easiest calorie source to digest, there is almost no digestion required.

Plus one can overload their body's compensatory mechanisms for acid base
balance, due to the acidic ketones produced by gluconeogenesis.

Its a terrible idea to do no carbs long term.

~~~
nonbel
This isn't in conflict with what I said but ok. Possibly, what evidence are
you basing this on?

------
barking
I remember when butter was bad for you and my dad, who was great butter lover
switched to a particular type of margarine that was marketed as being good for
you. Later it turned out it had the wrong sort of fats in it. Then later again
butter became OK again.

~~~
cies
AFAIK, butter is still worse then no butter (and more calories from whole
plant foods instead).

Margarine may or may not be worse than butter (I think it is worse). It is
better to avoid/reduce all refined fats (oils), except maybe for a high DHA
omega 3 supplement.

If you want to eat for health, look into WFPB, they have a lot of science on
their side.

~~~
quakenul
Getting definitive information on nutrition always seems to be a lot harder
than it should be in 2018

~~~
tananaev
The problem with nutrition is that it's a very sensitive topic for people.
Everyone wants to hear that what they eat is healthy, so "science" delivers on
that demand.

For myself I decided to go with WFPB diet because pretty much everyone agrees
that fruits, vegetables, greens and whole grains are good for you. There's no
controversy there.

~~~
mohaine
That doesn't mean it is good for you (or bad). For many years everyone said to
avoid eggs for cholesterol. There was no controverse.

Basically without more good science on the subject, we are all just mostly
guessing.

------
clumsysmurf
And to play devil's advocate, the opposite findings from just this June

[https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/06/180622012101.h...](https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/06/180622012101.htm)

~~~
macspoofing
Nutrition Science is a huge mess even though it is a core part of human
health. As in, it is a total disaster. Here's something depressing to think
about: if the Keto people are correct, mainstream nutrition science was a key
contributor to American obesity crisis and resulted in countless premature
deaths and major suffering over the last few decades.

Anyway, recently I wanted to look into whether or not eggs are good for you
because those same Keto supporters make noise about how eggs no longer affect
(bad?) cholesterol levels and therefore won't contribute to heart disease.
You'd think it would be clear. Nope. It's about 50-50 split judging by various
links (from seemingly reputable doctors and nutritionists). Even those docs
that pay lip service to the changing attitudes towards eggs, don't know what a
safe amount is and caution about eating more than X per day or week ... though
not because of any specific studies, but just as a precaution. A simple
question like "Can I eat 3 eggs for breakfast everyday" has no consensus
answer. What the fuck.

~~~
nicoburns
> mainstream nutrition science was a key contributor to American obesity
> crisis

This seems unlikely given that mainstream nutrition science is the same in
most of the western world, but the obesity levels are far more severe in the
US. From what I hear from friends who have travelled to the US (from the UK),
standard portion sizes can be over twice as over on your side of the pond. And
it can be very difficult to travel anywhere without a car. Seems to me this
might have the bigger effect.

That said nutrition science really is a mess. Hopefully we'll work it out one
day :)

~~~
scottLobster
I think the issue stems from a holdover great depression mentality. Growing up
I was taught to "clean my plate" and disciplined when I failed to do so, as
wasting even a small amount of food was apparently some sort of cardinal sin
despite my family being quite well off. I was also taught that eating large
portions was a sign of health, an "active metabolism" (whatever the hell that
is). Whenever I said I was done people would ask me if I was sure and offer me
more.

I was educated enough to figure things out in adulthood, but you raise a
poorly educated populace on that mentality while making the least healthy food
cheap and delicious, and shocker we have an obesity epidemic. :P

~~~
robmaister
That's certainly part of it, but I also think part of it is due to the
economics of running a restaurant. Margins are getting thinner and thinner as
people don't want to pay more for the same food (despite this being how
inflation works), so one strategy is to charge more and offer larger portions.

The cost of a larger portion is minimal relative to the higher price
(especially in dishes that are made in large batches anyways). So the
restaurant is happy to be getting enough to cover all their costs (and
hopefully a little extra), and the customer leaves happy despite paying more.

The downsides in the long-term are that (1) as time goes on and currency
inflates, portion sizes get larger and (2) people get used to larger portion
sizes and the same meal has less value to the customer over time.

I don't have any data to back this up, but I do believe this sort of feedback
loop plays a role in obesity.

------
maxxxxx
As with almost everything else moderation is key. Some salt is good, too much
is bad. The question is where you are on that scale.

~~~
kevin_thibedeau
> too much is bad

In what way? Your kidneys dump any excess salt your body doesn't need. The
long standing 20th century salt alarmism has no basis in reality.

~~~
anoncoward111
Unless you are like me and have mild kidney failure and your kidneys cant
really dump much of anything easily! All parameters should be based on
personal experimentation

~~~
marcosdumay
As far as I remember, sodium is dumped passively. The one thing kidneys need
an effort to make is to keep it at the blood, not to dump it away.

~~~
anoncoward111
Kidney failure = your kidneys are now a clogged shower drain that also lets
protein and blood go into places it shouldnt

------
nickik
Hasn't that been known for a long time. The strong anti-Salt attitude was
scientifically challenged for a long time but the knowledge is very slow to
spread.

~~~
killjoywashere
We have known that salt is a vital part of the diet since pre-history. The
problem is the modern diet, (Western, Eastern, or other) is rich in rich
foods, and essentially all land animals evolved to favor salt, by taste
rewards, geography, or whatever other genetic conditioning. Salt was scarce.
Now it's not. And the access to salt induces direct salt consumption, which
can be lethal to a brittle hypertensive, but also encourages more food
consumption in general because it makes almost any food more delicious.

~~~
astura
The amount of salt consumed per capital has NOT increased in the last 50
years, it's stayed remarkably consistent even as packaged food has increased
in saltiness. That suggests access to salt does NOT induce a direct salt
consumption, it suggests humans regulate their salt consumption based on their
biological needs.

------
castratikron
Salt in itself may not be bad. But salt makes food taste better, which tends
to make people eat more, which causes people to gain weight. And being
overweight brings with it health issues.

It's the second order effects that you need to be aware of when asking if
something is "good" or "bad".

~~~
trukterious
Hear hear. Also I'd bet that a given quantity of salt sprinked on french fries
raises the blood pressure more than the same amount dissolved in a glass of
water accompanying unsalted fries. Wonder if anyone has tested this (or
similar)?

~~~
aetherson
How much would you bet on that?

~~~
trukterious
Figure of speech :-) Yet I know from experience that visceral pleasures
apparently make my heart beat faster, and that salt-water rinses for toothache
are fairly unpleasant.

------
Nasrudith
It is amazing how persistently common the 'oven logic' silliness is with
medicine despite the fact that laypeople should really know better by now let
alone scientists. If adequate doses of Vitamin C are good for you then
megadoses must prevent cancer! Oh wait they actually increase your risk of
cancer. Biological systems aren't that simple - otherwise we'd already see
great results from the outliers and we don't.

It brings to mind the irony of trial lawyers becoming addicted to huge
lawsuits thanks to the tobacco industry. Despite the obvious merits and
misconduct of the defendants making it justified it seems to have had a
harmful side effect of causing many lawyers to start looking for 'the next
tobacco' case with no care to the underlying merit.

------
PunchTornado
I guess just eating what you like and enjoy your life is the only sensible
advice you can get.

Don't exaggerate with anything: sugar, salt, alcohol, have them in moderation,
like exercise and you'll be fine.

Also a must: stop reading nutrition science.

~~~
antisthenes
We can certainly agree that the if the time spent reading dietary advice and
nutrition articles with clickbaity headlines was spent on exercise instead,
we'd all be better off.

------
goldenkey
Well functioning kidneys will handle moderate excess sodium with no issues.
Remember hackers, population statistics and outcome studies help with
diagnostics but do not have to tell you how to treat your specific body. It's
in one's best interest to know your unique makeup: kidney function, liver
function, IQ, testosterone levels, neurotransmitter levels, genetic
fingerprint via 123AndMe or other, etc.

Stats are only decent guides from an expected value metric if you consider
yourself equally probable in the population distribution. But you aren't, you
can find out all the above priors with some work..a pain in the ass but well
worth it considering the time that health issues can take from you in the
future. So take some time to do some mental psychometrics and physical
biometrics on yourself. It's always worth it to be better able to see which
science applies to you even when the science is results from totally uniform
population.

~~~
apo
Reminds me of an odd statement I recently read: the average person has one
testicle and one ovary.

------
jpmattia
Scientific American was pounding this drum in 2011.

[https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/its-time-to-
end-t...](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/its-time-to-end-the-war-
on-salt/)

~~~
chrisbennet
I was going to post that but you beat me to it.

------
DINKDINK
Nutrition + human bodies are systems which are too complex to reason about
effects. From a Design-of-Experiments perspective, it's practically
untractable.

------
SimeVidas
Relevant:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4xtnH0fxDUg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4xtnH0fxDUg)

~~~
21
And then people wonder why anti-science is a thing today.

I basically stopped reading "science says that X is good/bad for your health"
articles. At most I get entertaining value from them.

------
weiming
Is there an objective and definitive list of food things that are bad for you?
These "studies" keep switching their recommendations.

------
calvinbhai
Was this study funded directly or indirectly (through a bunch of shell
research organizations / industry bodies) ?

What sustained the costs of the study?

Without knowing the funding situation, what's the point debating about this
study?

Skeptical me wonders if this was funded by industry that has been affected
badly by sodium horror stories, and subtly plugs in potassium as a healthier
alternative.

------
bgongfu
There are different qualities of salt. Some contain additives, sea salt
contains plastic particles. I eat plenty of salt, as much as I feel like; but
it's all mineral salt without additives.

------
MarkusAllen
I understand the first thing emergency people do in the hospital is to give us
a saline (salt) solution. If salt is so bad for us, why are we given a bag of
salt water?

------
grecy
Now whenever I see a result like this I have to wonder who paid for the study?

And more importantly, who paid to have the other x studies buried that found a
different result?

------
givinguflac
This has been another episode of “the effect of sodium chloride on human
health.” See you yet again next decade!

------
jaequery
just eat a bit of everything. a healthy balanced diet of fat, sugar, salt, or
whatever it is that people says is bad for you, is still way better than
someone just eating one thing every day.

------
efiecho
_Salt is what makes food taste bad when it 's not in it._

------
Numberwang
So many confident comments in this thread. Why not make yourselves aware of
the many big studies which all point in the same direction instead of just
regurgitating what little pop science you are aware of?

~~~
goostavos
The confidence is unreal! We're lucky to have so many experts in our midst. I
hear one of them even read a book on the topic and you should read it too so
that you can know the REAL correct diet that will lead to immortality.

------
blattimwind
Nutrition "science" caught again perpetuating findings based in assumption and
hitting the data until it fits, not solid research? Oh no, nobody could've
expected that... also "scientists who are on a crusade to reduce our salt
consumption to near zero". Like pope Urban II always said, no better place to
do sound research than on a crusade.

~~~
killjoywashere
Salt increases intravascular osmolarity, which increases water retention to
correct the osmolarity. This is freshman inorganic chemistry. There's plenty
of biomedical science behind renal pathophysiology and the link between salt
and blood pressure is as close to an if-then statement as there is in
medicine. We use all sorts of drugs and methods to play with this central
mechanism and can observe the effects in real time at the bedside.

It's not "science". It's science, as in, emperically demonstrated, over and
over, billions of times, every time, science.

That said, healthy people manage their osmolarity and blood pressure through
other renal mechanisms. The people who run up against this salt-blood pressure
issue are generally medically fragile, older people who have outrun all their
other compensation mechanisms. The question here is more about the cost-
benefit of pushing this particular public health message. The vast majority of
healthy people don't benefit, and the sick people get the word from their
physicians anyway.

~~~
tgsovlerkhgsel
> The vast majority of healthy people don't benefit

If there's indeed no benefit, then the message is actively harmful, because it
causes people who follow it to suffer (from bad-tasting food, in this case).

And of course, once they learn that they've essentially been lied to, they'll
learn to ignore all "X is healthy/unhealthy for you" messages, which is
probably a good thing given how many of them turn out to be wrong. (And if
salt does not cause problems for most people, telling them that they need to
eat less of it is wrong).

~~~
ChrisRackauckas
>If there's indeed no benefit, then the message is actively harmful, because
it causes people who follow it to suffer (from bad-tasting food, in this
case).

Well, the food doesn't end up tasting bad because they replace salt with
sugar...

------
shmerl
It does affect blood pressure negatively (making it too high), so avoiding
making the food too salty is a good thing.

~~~
meowface
If you read the article, you'll see that theory is questioned to a degree.

------
Swizec
Is it really _that_ surprising to anyone that salt isn't damaging? Salt makes
your nerves work. You need those to think and move.

I remember learning in a run-of-the-mill high school biology class that the
electrolyte differential in nerve cells <insert handwaving> creates the
electric pulse to make signals. I'm having trouble remembering the details,
but I remember that it was basically "If you don't have enough salt, your
nerves stop working and you die. If you have too much salt, your cells retain
too much water and you die."

