Slashdot Mirror


Salt Linked To Autoimmune Diseases

ananyo writes "The incidence of autoimmune diseases, such as multiple sclerosis and type 1 diabetes, has spiked in developed countries in recent decades. In three studies published today, researchers describe the molecular pathways that can lead to autoimmune disease and identify one possible culprit that has been right under our noses — and on our tables — the entire time: salt. Some forms of autoimmunity have been linked to overproduction of TH17 cells, a type of helper T cell that produces an inflammatory protein called interleukin-17. Now scientists have found sodium chloride turns on the production of these cells (abstract). They also showed that in a mouse model of multiple sclerosis, a high-salt diet accelerated the disease's progression (abstract)."

308 comments

  1. Everything good is bad for you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Salt, sugar, ethanol, nicotine, any food that isn't raw and tasteless--in an ideal healthy world, we would all eat a diet of cardboard and water and walk around flagellating ourselves all day.

    Enjoyable = sinful = unhealthy

    1. Re:Everything good is bad for you by cod3r_ · · Score: 1

      Long as beer salt is still OK

    2. Re:Everything good is bad for you by Hal_Porter · · Score: 5, Funny

      I take this sort of story with a pinch of salt to be honest.

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    3. Re:Everything good is bad for you by HappyHead · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And once we are eating that diet free of salt, sugar, and all the rest of that, we'll all die of malnutrition since most of those things are (or are our primary source of) vital nutrients. The human body is a badly designed, self-destructing patchwork of bits that are perpetually one bad jolt away from a breakdown, so it's not surprising that they've discovered yet again, that excessive quantities of things we need to live will also kill us.

      Even water has an LD50 after all. Too much of it will leach away all of the electrolytes (including sodium chloride) from your body, and kill you.

    4. Re:Everything good is bad for you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Better drink Brawndo It's got electrolytes.

    5. Re:Everything good is bad for you by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      Major exception to your rule: sex. So long as you don't get an infection from it. I have yet to hear any study suggest that sex is bad for you.

    6. Re:Everything good is bad for you by Applekid · · Score: 2

      Major exception to your rule: sex. So long as you don't get an infection from it. I have yet to hear any study suggest that sex is bad for you.

      Not so. Sex can exasperate existing conditions and lead to heart attack or stroke. What a way to go, though.

      --
      More Twoson than Cupertino
    7. Re:Everything good is bad for you by denvergeek · · Score: 2

      It's got what plants crave!

    8. Re:Everything good is bad for you by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 4, Funny

      I have yet to hear any study suggest that sex is bad for you.

      You're not visiting the right churches.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    9. Re:Everything good is bad for you by cusco · · Score: 1

      Pregnancy and childbirth are still major causes of death for women around the world. Jealous husbands are a lesser cause of death for men.

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
    10. Re:Everything good is bad for you by Dantoo · · Score: 5, Funny

      It would be awful to die all alone like that though........

    11. Re:Everything good is bad for you by TheRealMindChild · · Score: 1

      A heart attack or a stroke isn't my idea of a good way to die

      --

      "When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
    12. Re:Everything good is bad for you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      excuse me, sir, but your teleology is showing...

    13. Re:Everything good is bad for you by hairyfeet · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And at the end of the day what does all this denial get you? Even Jesus didn't get out of here alive folks but let us say, just for the sake of argument they had a new "lets all eat cardboard" diet that made you live to 120....anybody spent any time with someone over 85? That is NOT a good life or a good way to be, most of your family is dead, your friends too, probably your spouse and maybe even a child or two, you're weak, your bones are easily broken, frankly death would probably be a blessing. My grandma lived to 98 and honestly those last 10 years were hell because she lost so many friends as well as her husband and oldest child...why? Why would you want that?

      I mean sure if they could give me a cyborg body so i could do everything I could at 30 at 90 that would be one thing but as it is now they just tack on years at the end, which is when it all goes to shit anyway...no thanks.,Give me an extra 10 years of being 20 or something, don't add years to the end.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    14. Re:Everything good is bad for you by PRMan · · Score: 1

      Even Jesus didn't get out of here alive folks

      I thought the whole point of his coming was that he did.

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
    15. Re:Everything good is bad for you by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      Salt, once you get past a small amount, isn't good. I hate most fast food because it tastes like nothing but salt. They load down everything with salt so you can't even taste the food. Maybe that's the point.

    16. Re:Everything good is bad for you by SilentStaid · · Score: 1

      Better drink Brawndo It's got electrolytes.

      I prefer Bright-o. Bright-o makes ol' bodies new...

    17. Re:Everything good is bad for you by pavon · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The human body is a badly designed, self-destructing patchwork of bits that are perpetually one bad jolt away from a breakdown, so it's not surprising that they've discovered yet again, that excessive quantities of things we need to live will also kill us.

      Actually I draw the opposite conclusion from this. The human body is so amazingly flexible and adaptable, that it can survive on a huge variety of diets, and can compensate for poor diets so well that it can be difficult to realize the long-term effects that these poor diets are having, given the relatively benign short-term symptoms.

    18. Re:Everything good is bad for you by c0lo · · Score: 1

      A heart attack or a stroke isn't my idea of a good way to die

      Why not? I mean, if you get a chic "Don't resuscitate" tattoo, not only you'll be handsomer but chances are you'll never get to know you died.

      --
      Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
    19. Re:Everything good is bad for you by demonlapin · · Score: 2

      Not to be Debbie Downer, but if you think those are bad ways to die you've never seen someone die of metastatic cancer or emphysema.

    20. Re:Everything good is bad for you by Alien+Being · · Score: 1

      We'll sell a million bottles!

    21. Re:Everything good is bad for you by rts008 · · Score: 2

      So, Jesus was a zombie?

      --
      Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
    22. Re:Everything good is bad for you by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      Except in most major cities the odds of finding a woman who is 100% bug free (remember there are some like genital warts that can remain dormant and still infect a partner) can be as low as a quarter flip so even that isn't safe. Man, remember when all you needed for safe sex was a padded headboard? Those were the days.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    23. Re:Everything good is bad for you by s0nicfreak · · Score: 2

      I only know one person that lived over 90, but she was happy. She didn't realize she'd lost people... she thought their younger relatives were them. Then, she forgot they even existed.

      If we figure out how to live to 120, I don't see why we couldn't figure out how to have strong bones at 85. In fact, I think we already know how to do that, there are many healthy, active 85 year olds. It's just that it takes exercise and eating in a way you may not want to, for your whole life.

    24. Re:Everything good is bad for you by xevioso · · Score: 2

      Zombie Jesus day is right around the corner, btw.

    25. Re:Everything good is bad for you by xevioso · · Score: 1, Interesting

      The solution is to use other things that tasty salty, but which are not, to flavor your food.

      I make and eat Thai food all the time. Thais use fish sauce in lots of their dishes, which is quite salty, as is soy sauce.

      The idea of using salt in my freshly made bowl of Tom Kha Gai would give me a heart attack.

    26. Re:Everything good is bad for you by Garridan · · Score: 2

      Cool thing about metastatic cancer: I got to spend an extra 11 months with my dad. No such thing if he'd had a heart attack.

    27. Re:Everything good is bad for you by Sentrion · · Score: 1

      I'm showing my nerdiness here, but that reminds me of the time when the crew of the Enterprise discovered an ancient space vessel. Bodies were found aboard, and Piccard observed that they had apparently died in their sleep, and Lt. Worf commented "what a terrible way to die!"

    28. Re:Everything good is bad for you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      There was a guy on This American Life who had one of those cleaning companies who clean up after murders, people who have been decomposing in their house for weeks, etc. He said that he wants to have the longest time possible, regardless of suffering, in order to say goodbye to friends and family. He'd obviously spent a long time thinking about it. He didn't want to go out suddenly.

    29. Re:Everything good is bad for you by Kongming · · Score: 1

      Capsaicin (the chemical that makes most hot peppers spicy), in reasonable quantities, is hypothesized to have a few mild health benefits.

      --
      (no sig)
    30. Re:Everything good is bad for you by c0lo · · Score: 1

      I'm showing my nerdiness here, but that reminds me of the time when the crew of the Enterprise discovered an ancient space vessel. Bodies were found aboard, and Piccard observed that they had apparently died in their sleep, and Lt. Worf commented "what a terrible way to die!"

      Well, are you a klingon who should die in a battle with fierce enemies or else be dishonored? If you are, I don't think calling yourself a nerd does any good to your standing reputation.

      --
      Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
    31. Re:Everything good is bad for you by lloydchristmas759 · · Score: 3, Informative

      I don't want to ruin your illusions, but if fish sauce or soy sauce taste salty, it's because there is a LOT of sodium chloride in them, so there is no benefit for health to use them instead of plain salt.
      Take a look at what's in soy sauce...

      However, some ingredients can be used as a replacement to salt and derivative to increase the taste of food, for instance lemon juice.

      --
      I'd give my right arm to be ambidextrous.
    32. Re:Everything good is bad for you by frosty_tsm · · Score: 1

      is a badly designed, self-destructing patchwork of bits that are perpetually one bad jolt away from a breakdown

      Sounds like someone's bad software application.

    33. Re:Everything good is bad for you by mpe · · Score: 4, Informative

      And once we are eating that diet free of salt, sugar, and all the rest of that, we'll all die of malnutrition since most of those things are (or are our primary source of) vital nutrients.

      It turns out that there is no such thing as an "essential sugar" in the human diet. Not even amylose or amylopectin...

    34. Re:Everything good is bad for you by lloydchristmas759 · · Score: 1

      I couldn't agree more.

      I would even extend that to sugar and fat. Too much of them just hides the flavors of the food. Or maybe they are used in excess to cover up the fact that fast food has actually no taste.

      --
      I'd give my right arm to be ambidextrous.
    35. Re:Everything good is bad for you by SternisheFan · · Score: 2

      Better drink Brawndo It's got electrolytes.

      I prefer Bright-o. Bright-o makes ol' bodies new...

      It's a floor wax... And a dessert topping!

      "Delicious, and just look at that shine!"

      (Apologies to Dan Ackroyd & Gilda Radner)

    36. Re:Everything good is bad for you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      My grandfather is 85. He's a computer geek who lives on microwave dinners. My father had the opposite lifestyle: Lots of exercise, and healthy food. He died from undiagnosed diabetes and high blood pressure at 62. Sometimes there's more to longevity than diet.

    37. Re:Everything good is bad for you by Bonobo_Unknown · · Score: 3, Informative

      You should read the article. No really. Because they mention exactly this. That it's not just a matter of eliminating salt, it is absolutely required, but that we tend to eat too much. Heck here's a copy / paste for you:

      To stay healthy, the human body relies on a careful balance: too little immune function and we succumb to infection, too much activity and the immune system begins to attack healthy tissue, a condition known as autoimmunity. Some forms of autoimmunity have been linked to overproduction of TH17 cells, a type of helper T cell that produces an inflammatory protein called interleukin-17.

      --
      We don't believe in radical loony monotheistic religions from the middle east -- we're Christians.
    38. Re:Everything good is bad for you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It would be awful to die all alone like that though........

      Fortunately for me that I'm a schizophrenic...

    39. Re:Everything good is bad for you by gosand · · Score: 2

      The human body is a badly designed, self-destructing patchwork of bits that are perpetually one bad jolt away from a breakdown, so it's not surprising that they've discovered yet again, that excessive quantities of things we need to live will also kill us.

      Actually I draw the opposite conclusion from this. The human body is so amazingly flexible and adaptable, that it can survive on a huge variety of diets, and can compensate for poor diets so well that it can be difficult to realize the long-term effects that these poor diets are having, given the relatively benign short-term symptoms.

      Look at the history of mankind and what we ate in order to evolve to this point. As is pointed out in the documentary "in search of the perfect human diet" if you started at the goal line of a football field and if that was the "dawn of man", and walked all the way to the other goal line, the span of time that we have been eating grains and sugars in large quantities would take up the last 1/2". For 2.5 million years our ancestors were meat-eating primates. The time we have been eating grains (10-20k years ago) is but a blink of an eye. Our bodies evolved eating high-fat diets, so all this low-fat high-carb stuff is literally killing us.

      --

      My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.

    40. Re:Everything good is bad for you by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      So it's only the left churches that are opposed to sex?

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    41. Re:Everything good is bad for you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And at the end of the day what does all this denial get you? Even Jesus didn't get out of here alive folks but let us say, just for the sake of argument they had a new "lets all eat cardboard" diet that made you live to 120....anybody spent any time with someone over 85?

      Speak for yourself, you young whippersnapper, because I think life is still grand. I've gone from seeing computers that filled rooms of tubes to ones that fit on a desk to ones you can carry in your hand, each more powerful than the last. Granted, you kids these days have some crazy ideas. And won't stay off my lawn. But if I could live to 120 and still have the quality of life I do now, I'd find something useful to do with all that extra time. If nothing else, books are being written faster than I can read them.

      Eat meat and don't eat sugar or much bread. Walk every day. If the walking gets tough, take a bit of whiskey and walk anyway. I figure I have at least another good decade in me, although my eyes aren't what they used to be. Certainly, it is painful to lose friends and relatives over the years, and it is especially sad to see the children of friends who then became friends die of "old age". But life is still precious, and you kids have no idea how wonderful it is.

      Plus, we old people are keeping some amazing secrets from you. Hurry up with that immortality serum and we might decide to share.

    42. Re:Everything good is bad for you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Almost as exasperating as people who don't know the difference between exasperate and exacerbate.

    43. Re:Everything good is bad for you by demonlapin · · Score: 2

      Because obviously, his heart attack would have happened the same day as his death due to cancer.

      Just because you got to spend almost a year saying goodbye doesn't mean it's a good way to die. My wife had a maternal uncle die of pancreatic cancer and a paternal aunt die of (non-smoking-related) lung cancer. Both spent their final weeks - not days, weeks - on home hospice, moaning in pain until the time for another dose of morphine came. Then they drifted into unconsciousness for an hour or two before it all started again. In the end, he tried to kill himself (but his wife found the gun before he could), and she spent her last hours crying, moaning, and screaming for someone to make it stop.

      My father's metastatic cancer would have killed him if he hadn't developed renal failure requiring dialysis - he eventually elected to discontinue dialysis, correctly reasoning that fading away gently from uremia before the little crab crawled into every one of his organs and turned his every hour into a fresh torment of flayed nerve endings.

    44. Re:Everything good is bad for you by demonlapin · · Score: 1

      ... was the better choice. Forgot to finish the sentence.

    45. Re:Everything good is bad for you by SolitaryMan · · Score: 1

      Homo Sapiens and Neandethals diet mostly consisted of fruits, vegetables and nuts, not meat. The value of meat, as a source of protein, increases as you move further north, to colder areas.

      If anything, the problem with nowaday's diet is too much meat, not grains.

      --
      May Peace Prevail On Earth
    46. Re:Everything good is bad for you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      By the same logic, I suggest banning cars, computers, planes, horseback riding, and writing, which all go against millions of years of evolution and cannot fail to bring us to an early grave.
      There is no evidence that evolution shaped us to live to 100, so maybe we actually need to do something unnatural to reach that age, e.g. use machinery to supplant heavy manual labor, drink coffee, or take up juggling.

    47. Re:Everything good is bad for you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So all vegetables, fruits, spices, grains and dairy products taste like cardboard?

    48. Re:Everything good is bad for you by Beeftopia · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Actually, different ancient populations ate differently.

      Inuits (Eskimos) eat an extremely high protein, high fat diet. Not much farming in the far north.

      Nordic populations (Finns and Swedes for example) eat a diet different from Spaniards, who eat a diet different from sub-Saharan Africans who eat a diet different from southern Asians.

      It seems to me that there isn't a one-size-fits-all solution to diet. One needs to understand one's genetic ancestry, and then using that as a guide, figure out what's best for that person. What might be too much protein for a vegetarian south Asian farmer might not be enough for a Finn or an Inuit hunter. What might be too much fat or carbohydrate for one population might not be enough for another.

    49. Re:Everything good is bad for you by ozmanjusri · · Score: 3, Funny

      From Urban Dictionary:

      Christianity
      The belief that a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree.

      Yeah, christianity makes sense.

      http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=christianity&page=2

      --
      "I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
    50. Re:Everything good is bad for you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or any Microsoft product, for that matter.

    51. Re:Everything good is bad for you by quenda · · Score: 1

      A salt-free low-fat diet with no tobacco or alcohol may not make you live to 200, but it will feel that long.

    52. Re:Everything good is bad for you by pjbgravely · · Score: 1

      atheism
      The belief that there was nothing and then nothing magically exploded for no reason, creating everything and then a bunch of everything magically rearranged itself for no reason whatsoever into self-replicating bits which then became dinosaurs.

      Atheism, like Christianity, makes perfect sense.

      http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=atheism&defid=5923712

      --
      Star Trek, there maybe hope.
    53. Re:Everything good is bad for you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, the problem with nowaday's diet is too much grains + too much shit-quality grain-fed meat. Jesus fuck, do you think it's any wonder that the USDA guidelines suggest eating shitloads of grain, and since then, our diabetes, obesity, heart disease, and cancer rates have skyrocketed?

      Go understand how insulin (and its related hormones) work. Go understand its role in systemic inflammation. Go understand systemic inflammation's role in all of those nasty, skyrocketing conditions I just mentioned. Then tell me we should "eat more grains" as health advice.

      Folks, if you want to be healthy, here's your basic recipe:
      1) Lean meats - not the high fat, grain-fed bullshit we get, if you can avoid it: grass fed and/or wild / game meats, preferably.
      2) LOTS of fresh vegetables. Wash them well. Buy local from an organic farmer if you have the money & want to know how your food is actually grown.
      3) Fresh fruit. Not dried. Not fruit flavors. From-the-tree fruit. Nuts occasionally - no salt, no honey roasted bullshit.
      4) Lots of water.
      5) Minimal salts and other preservatives. Feel free to use herbs for seasoning and flavoring your food, though.
      6) Plenty of sleep. Turn off WoW at 11 pm, and get your ass to bed, don't stay up until 3 am grinding dailies.
      7) Interval excercise - don't kill yourself for an hour a day, get moving, but a lot of your base exercise should be fairly low intensity, with occasional high-intensity spikes - every couple days, do some sprints, or otherwise kick your own ass, but allow time for recovery.
      8) Manage your stress.
      9) Skip the grains, and most of the dairy.
      10) To lose weight, moderate your fat & oil intake, and use *healthy* oils when cooking, regardless of your intake levels. Also, learn to like olive oil.

      Adhere to that even about 80% of the time, and you'll find yourself in a pretty healthy place. You'll find that most of these guidelines are pretty much in line with most of the "healthy" cultural diets you'll hear about, and you'll be hard pressed to find much to criticize, unless you have a moral issue with meat as a vegetarian. Eat this way even 80% of the time, and you'll feel better, too.

      I dropped 80 pounds of fat, put on a fair bit of muscle, eliminated budding metabolic syndrome, high blood sugar, cholesterol & triglycerides, and have never felt better, just following this recipe. It's not even that hard, once you learn to cook efficiently.

    54. Re:Everything good is bad for you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Jesus was undead (ie. dead then no longer dead, risen), if you believe some of the gospels (there are other gospels that say he never died and rose). Thus, he was at least undead. A curious fact though, is that the hard part of death is not the dying per se, it is the *staying dead*. If you don't stay dead, you didn't really suffer the way someone who stays dead would suffer. If one knew they'd just be gone for a few days, then come back immortal, it isn't really paying any price for sins.

      Nevermind, I'm just over-analyzing a crazy story from 700 years ago.

    55. Re:Everything good is bad for you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >The human body is so amazingly flexible and adaptable

      Yeah, diabetes is adaptability. And hypertension due to salt. And cancer. And allergies.

      The body is a very flawed machine with a lot of strange bugs. If it were software, the bug database would be massive and full of strange workarounds, but every one eventually leads to failure of the program.

    56. Re:Everything good is bad for you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Don't resuscitate" tattoo"

      Most, if not all, First Responders will ignore those kinds of tattoos.

    57. Re:Everything good is bad for you by deimtee · · Score: 1

      Yes, except that the last ten thousand years has had a high selection pressure for being able to survive on an agricultural diet.
      We have evolved away from being a meat-eating ape, but we have not fully evolved into a grain eating ape. We are in the middle.
      There is no "healthiest" human diet, and the closest you can get varies from person to person depending on where they are on that spectrum.

      --
      I'm guessing that wasn't on their radar screen...
    58. Re:Everything good is bad for you by Sabriel · · Score: 1

      agnostic
      An agnostic is a person who believes that the existence of a greater power, such as a god, cannot be proven or disproved; therefore an agnostic wallows in the complexity of the existence of higher beings.

      http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=agnostic

      Though, personally, I don't wallow (except when I want to), and I don't take it as given that "cannot" is true either. :)

      Other fun stuff: you can be an agnostic and still believe (or disbelieve) in a god - you just recognise that a (dis)belief is all it is.

    59. Re:Everything good is bad for you by nadaou · · Score: 1

      to anyone reading this who's blocking /. sigs: you're really really missing out sometimes.

      --
      ~.~
      I'm a peripheral visionary.
    60. Re:Everything good is bad for you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Consider that life arose 3.5 billion years ago, and all the evolutionary pressures leading down to our hominin ancestors didn't involve agriculture. Most evolutionary estimates place us as diverging from chimpanzees about 5-7 million years ago. Evidence of agriculture really only appears in the last 10-20,000 years. Evolution doesn't change an entire species that quickly, especially a tool-making, medicine-discovering, scientific species that can keep "unfit" individuals alive well into (and *past*) their reproductive years, even if they're not that healthy. There hasn't been a "high selection pressure," because the effects of a heavily grain-based diet don't generally kill people off before their reproductive years.

      You're right that there is no "healthiest" human diet in general - individuals certainly vary. But IN GENERAL, a healthy human diet will largely resemble the diets of our pre-agricultural ancestors - and thus will NOT be a grain-heavy diet: It would be a diet heavy in forage-able fruits, nuts, berries, tubers, vegetables, and (lean) wild meats and seafood - stuff that can be hunted, and gathered. We have several billion years leading us down to our primate ancestors... and only a few thousand since we've learned to farm on a wide scale. This ship don't turn on a dime.

    61. Re:Everything good is bad for you by idunham · · Score: 1

      AC wrote:
      >> Sounds like someone's bad software application.
      > Or any Microsoft product, for that matter.

      Isn't that redundant?

    62. Re:Everything good is bad for you by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      And this guy doesn't think there is anything nuts about it.

    63. Re:Everything good is bad for you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On the contrary, he clearly is visiting the right churches.

    64. Re:Everything good is bad for you by bingoUV · · Score: 1

      I've seen 50 year olds who look like they are 75 year old. They have heavy diabetes, acute high blood pressure, stomach inflammations, failing kidneys, diabetic neuropathy, negligible peripheral vision, not much frontal vision either. They live on lots of medicines, and dosage needs to be adjusted carefully according to daily symptoms or body metrics. Sometimes hourly.

      Don't think that living unhealthy would just turn off the switch of life after a certain number of healthy years. Unhealthy lifestyle drastically reduces healthy years of life. You are lucky if you die after the relatively healthy years are spent.

      --
      Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
    65. Re:Everything good is bad for you by sjames · · Score: 1

      I'm convinced that once they get everyone eating the salt-free cardboard diet, they'll try to convince us that we need a minimum daily red hot poker up the ass for ideal health, just to see who'll do it.

    66. Re:Everything good is bad for you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      [citation needed] I hate doing this, but your post really needs it. You might be talking about hominids before the Homo genus.

    67. Re:Everything good is bad for you by Sigg3.net · · Score: 1

      Sorry, cardboard and flagellation are out as well! It's all church wafers and pinching yourself from here on.

    68. Re:Everything good is bad for you by Sigg3.net · · Score: 2

      I can vouch for this. I'm Scandinavian and nourish myself by wrapping bacon around my naked body and just let it seep in overnight.

    69. Re:Everything good is bad for you by xenobyte · · Score: 1

      Got to agree with you there - mostly. I eat grains for breakfast, rolled oatmeal to be precise, with low-fat milk. Lunch and dinner are either green salad or one serving of a regular hot meal (can be anything), i.e. one of each either for lunch or dinner - oatmeal, salad and hot meal or oatmeal, hot meal and salad.

      I've lost 55 kg (~120 pounds) over the past 14 months so it really works.

      --
      "For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong." -- H.L. Mencken (1880-1956) --
    70. Re:Everything good is bad for you by ameen.ross · · Score: 1

      How interesting to see a religious debate in the comments of an article about salt on Slashdot.

      --
      $(echo cm0gLXJmIC8= | base64 --decode)
    71. Re:Everything good is bad for you by xenobyte · · Score: 1

      Most (all?) hot peppers, especially the chili family, are overloaded with vitamin C as well, so they're good for you in several ways.

      --
      "For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong." -- H.L. Mencken (1880-1956) --
    72. Re:Everything good is bad for you by frank_adrian314159 · · Score: 1

      Well, that and Lutefisk.

      --
      That is all.
    73. Re:Everything good is bad for you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      mix of scottish, irish, french, and cherokee.

      Meat, Cheese, and fresh vegetables for me. Bread should be whole grain, and only used as a side. Pasta, noodles, and other stuff like that is for chumps. Root crops are ok, but only as a side, other wise I get high on carbs, and then feel worse an hour later.

      Asian dishes are ok as long as they are protein rich.
      Vegetarian dishes make me irritable unless they have massive amounts of beans and meat substitute in them.

      Protein please. Carbs are for chumps

    74. Re:Everything good is bad for you by Sigg3.net · · Score: 1

      Lutefisk is OPTIONAL, because only half the population can keep it down. Every Norwegian knows this.
      For the rest of us, there's smalahove.

    75. Re:Everything good is bad for you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know someone already pointed this out, but you must not cook Thai at home. Fish sauce is saturated with salt. Crystals form at the bottom of the container. It's also a good source of MSG. Fish sauce is made to increase the level of free glutamate. It's natural MSG. Soy sauce was invented as a vegetarian replacement with similar flavors. A local Thai place used to have a sign that said, "No MSG." That wasn't true. Accurately it was "No artificial MSG added."

    76. Re:Everything good is bad for you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, it's called irony...

    77. Re:Everything good is bad for you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "It seems to me that there isn't a one-size-fits-all solution to diet. One needs to understand one's genetic ancestry, and then using that as a guide"

      So you are proposing the "Racist Diet"? Sounds good... :)

    78. Re:Everything good is bad for you by Reziac · · Score: 1

      Really...

      And as I'm RTFAing, I'm wondering if they have any clue of the history of salt. Before refrigeration the average person may have consumed more salt in the form of preserved meats than is typical today.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    79. Re:Everything good is bad for you by cellocgw · · Score: 1

      How interesting to see a religious debate in the comments of an article about salt on Slashdot.

      Choose one (or more) of the following:

      1) You must be new here
      2) it's "God Wins Law" (thanks to boingboing for that one: the concept that any sufficiently long thread will give rise to a theology flame war)

      --
      https://app.box.com/WitthoftResume Code: https://github.com/cellocgw
    80. Re:Everything good is bad for you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stress is underrated and hard to quantify. You can exercise a lot, eat well and still be consumed by stress.

    81. Re:Everything good is bad for you by Thanus · · Score: 1

      "That's not ironic, it's just coincidential." and later: "The use of words expressing something other than their literal intention - now that IS irony!" Courtsey of Bender Bending Rodriguez

      --
      8D CB F5 32 BE 2C 49 E9 B5 4A 75 C8 8A 59 70. It's mine, all mine!
    82. Re:Everything good is bad for you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Way to go off topic. MS and autoimmune diseases don't start up at 85. They can start making your life hell from more or less any age, mostly over 40 from what i see. So you can die at 65 which is not a long life but the last 25 years be deteriorating like crazy. Arthritis, gut problems, terrible fatigue, nerve problems, mobility issues, blindness, etc. nobody's talking about a life extension from earing less salt, just a better life generally. Or i wish that was all it took.

    83. Re:Everything good is bad for you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Its not everything its just refined salt and refined sugar. They are also as physically addicting as cocaine and heroine.
      http://www.nydailynews.com/life-style/health/sugar-addictive-cocaine-heroin-studies-suggest-article-1.356819

    84. Re:Everything good is bad for you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You need to read Ray Kurzweil because you just have ot make it to 2055 to get the cyborg body you ordered.

    85. Re:Everything good is bad for you by LienRag · · Score: 1

      It would be funny if you didn't think what you said was true (and many readers for you).

      Try eating real food for once, not pre-processed one.
      Then you can talk about what is cardboard...

    86. Re:Everything good is bad for you by LienRag · · Score: 1

      Oops... With you, not for you.

    87. Re:Everything good is bad for you by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      Atheism explicitly rejects god[s] and that's all there is to it. However, if a consistent philosophy includes atheism, it also rejects magic for the same reason it rejects god[s]. So your claim is garbage.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    88. Re:Everything good is bad for you by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      Sex can exasperate existing conditions

      Give that man a dictionary, or mod him funny.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    89. Re:Everything good is bad for you by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      Heart attacks and strokes don't always kill quickly. Many people spend weeks, months, or years crippled or mentally damaged, suffering while watching their savings and that of their families zeroed.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    90. Re:Everything good is bad for you by Garridan · · Score: 1

      It's not about what day he died. What's the difference, give or take a year? It was about the amount of warning we had. We faced reality and had time for some super important conversations. Sorry to hear about the gun incident... doctors can write prescriptions for patient-administered suicide in my state, and I hear it's peaceful, quick, and painless.

    91. Re:Everything good is bad for you by doccus · · Score: 1

      I disagree..I think you have it entirely backwards..the human body is a marvel at surviving in an environment that is, essentially, toxic, by it's very nature.. Nature isn't "safe" at all.. The only reason that "natural" foods and drugs appear less harmful is because over the centuries our biology has adapted extensive countermeasures to r ender any toxins less harmful.... Take someone out of their naturtal environment,as happened 500 years ago to the spanish/indians, or the Africans and north americans, and exposure to these unfamiliar elements in "nature" *will* certainly kill, as did indeed happen...

    92. Re:Everything good is bad for you by demonlapin · · Score: 1

      I suppose that the rather facile answer to your point is to say that if those conversations are that important, you need to have them now. The only time extra warning should matter is in getting certain financial affairs in order - there are some things that are easier while someone is still alive, but none of them should really be important in the same way.

      Incidentally, should you or anyone else find themselves in the situation of needing to end your or a loved one's life painlessly, quickly, nonviolently, and with supplies obtained easily and legally almost anywhere on earth (any welding supply shop will have the materials), a tank of nitrogen with a regulator and a bit of tubing hooked into a standard dry cleaning bag taped to your neck will do the job. The burning sensation from holding your breath arises from carbon dioxide buildup, not lack of oxygen, and the nitrogen flow will blow that away.

    93. Re:Everything good is bad for you by gosand · · Score: 1

      That sounds horrible. You are starving yourself, and your body will hate it. Although it is not just about weight loss, I've lost about 13 lbs in 3 months by eating high-quality fat, meat, nuts/seed, vegetables, and cheese. Low-carb - no grains, no sugar. Here's the thing - your body doesn't need carbs in the massive quantities people eat them in. All it does is train your body to live off of glucose as a by-product of insulin production. Not to mention that the way you are eating is not how humans have been eating for 99.99% of the time we've been around. Fat is over twice as dense as an energy source, and fat does NOT make you fat. If you cut out grains, your body will operate off of fat as an energy source. Even if you skip meals, you aren't ravenously hungry because your body can process the fat in your body and use it as energy. You can't do this now, because you are dependent on carbs.

      Don't kill yourself - read "Good Calories Bad Calories" or "Why We Get Fat" (a kind of layman's version of GCBC by Gary Taubes.
      Then read The Primal Blueprint. It will change your life.

      --

      My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.

    94. Re:Everything good is bad for you by nobodie · · Score: 1

      Live hard, die young, make a pretty corpse
      The cowboy way.

      --
      Subversion of spatial scale luxury decoration ideas.
    95. Re:Everything good is bad for you by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      Except ironically the crazy science actually has evidence to back it up, whereas the Jewish Zombie doesn't even have concrete evidence that he even drew a single breath. The Romans frankly made the Nazis look lazy when it came to record keeping, we can tell you all kinds of things about what was going on back then because of how anal retentive Romans were at keeping tabs...yet a guy that walked on water, raised no less than 2 people counting himself from the dead, even re-attached a soldiers severed ear gets NO writeup, if nothing else a "WTF is this then?" kind of write up?

      Thanks to how good the modern telescopes are getting we can actually look pretty far back into the past there are even plausible theories on how nothing exploded, IE the possibility that one of the other dimensions leaked into ours, but other than a single book, a book that has more errors and contradictions than you can shake a stick at BTW, which means that God was worse than your average fan fic writer when it comes to telling a cohesive narrative, there is frankly jack and squat to prove the Zombie Jew even lived.

      Hell even his birthplace is a fricking mis-print, there WAS NO NAZARETH, he was supposed to have been a NAZARENE which was a subset of Judaism, like being a Baptist or Catholic would be now. They can't even get the most basic details right yet we are supposed to accept this as "evidence"? Well I have just as much proof that Zeus throws lightning bolts and rules from a cloud city, in other words other than a few writings there isn't anything by way of proof with either.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    96. Re:Everything good is bad for you by iamhassi · · Score: 1
      --
      my karma will be here long after I'm gone
    97. Re:Everything good is bad for you by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      And at the time the Jewish Zombie was supposedly running around we still sacrificed people on the American continent to get good harvests...your point? Science gets better every year, if anything more and more comes out to discredit the Jewish Zombie theory every year. I can provide just as much proof in Ra or Odin as you can the Jewish Zombie, you have NO proof of ANY kind that the Jewish Zombie doesn't belong alongside the Jewish legend of the Golem or vampires in the myths section, yet with each new discovery the science gets better.

      The flaw in your thinking is that because science had mistakes in the past it somehow "proves" that the Jewish Zombie is valid when all it proves is that science works. To quote Dr Neil Tyson "If you think you know what is going on then you are not being a scientist because we are always at the cutting edge of ignorance". Meanwhile you are supporting a book that says slaves are okay, beating your wife is cool as long as you use the rule of thumb, and kids can be executed if they talk back. ironically if Christians actually followed their own damned book they would have more in common with the Taliban than they would with western society, the fact that they ignore a good 80% of their own book just shows how full of crap it is.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    98. Re:Everything good is bad for you by Lord+Byron+II · · Score: 1

      The problem with your argument is the "2.5 million years". That somewhat arbitrary timeframe allows you to make the argument that high-fat meat-based diets are ideal. However, if you consider the "diet" of all of our ancestors back to the dawn of life on Earth, roughly 4 billion years ago, you'll find that most of our ancestors over that time were simple organisms that ingested simple sugars - a diet that would kill us today.

      At the other extreme, our species has only existed for around 50k-200k years and if we've been eating grains for 10-20k of that, then we've had grains in our diet for around a quarter of the time of our existence.

      Either way, its hard to infer what we should eat based off of what our ancestors ate. They weren't us and we're not them.

    99. Re:Everything good is bad for you by Crosshair84 · · Score: 1

      Except ironically the crazy science actually has evidence to back it up, whereas the Jewish Zombie doesn't even have concrete evidence that he even drew a single breath. The Romans frankly made the Nazis look lazy when it came to record keeping, we can tell you all kinds of things about what was going on back then because of how anal retentive Romans were at keeping tabs...yet a guy that walked on water, raised no less than 2 people counting himself from the dead, even re-attached a soldiers severed ear gets NO writeup, if nothing else a "WTF is this then?" kind of write up?

      He did get several write ups. Josephus and Tacitus are two of the major ones, but there are others who mention him. You need to realize that that 85% of everything written in antiquity has been lost. We are at the mercy of whatever has survived.

      Jerusalem was completely destroyed in 70 AD. Any records there would have been destroyed. Records kept elsewhere in that area very likely would also have been destroyed in the war. Word traveled very slowly in those days and Jesus's ministry lasted only about 3 years. It did spread widely in the local area as the NT records, but there simply wasn't enough time for word about him to spread much beyond that before the crucifiction occurred, given the primitive communications of the day.

      Thanks to how good the modern telescopes are getting we can actually look pretty far back into the past there are even plausible theories on how nothing exploded, IE the possibility that one of the other dimensions leaked into ours,

      hairy, stop, just stop. You're making a complete fool out of yourself. "how nothing exploded" are you reading what you are writing?

      "IE the possibility that one of the other dimensions leaked into ours"

      1. Another universe is not "nothing"
      2. That theory of an infinite universe has been proven false by philosophy for hundreds, if not thousands of years, because it leads to logical absurdities, and proven false by science since 2003 with the Borde Guth Vilenkin Theorem.

      The philosophical problem is the problem of an infinite regress here is a 6 minute rundown of the problem. The problem applies to the multiverse theory as well

      http://www.metacafe.com/watch/3994011/william_lane_craig_the_absurdity_of_an_infinite_regress_of_things/

      ......but other than a single book, a book that has more errors and contradictions than you can shake a stick at BTW, which means that God was worse than your average fan fic writer when it comes to telling a cohesive narrative,

      Do a bit of research and you will find that these "contradictions" are simply apparent contradictions, not actual contradictions. They tend to be the result of either misunderstanding, mis translation, time compression on the part of the author, or cultural/geographical ignorance. Sometimes they are secondary details which we would expect to differ slightly in historical documents written by different authors. If all the documents were unanimous in every detail, non believers would then deride them for all saying the exact same thing.

      If you have an afternoon to spare, here is a lecture series looking at the gospels from a historians perspective. There are other lectures, but I am only going to list the ones that go over the larger supposed "contradictions" and shows how they are not.

      04a Alleged Historical Errors in the Gospels (Matthew & Mark)
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bKzSV8bWKk0

      04b Alleged Historical Errors in the Gospels (Luke & John)
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s5kJuTkUo0w

      05a Alleged Contradictions in the Gospels

    100. Re:Everything good is bad for you by airdweller · · Score: 1

      "If you could reason with the religious people, there would be no religious people." (c)

      I hope you enjoy living by your warped logic. Otherwise, there's no point in your living at all.

  2. The bottom line.... by Orleron · · Score: 2

    Don't eat or you will die.... oh wait.

  3. Thanks Jesus... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt have lost its savor, wherewith shall it be salted? it is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out and trodden under foot of men."

  4. most salt is not real salt anyway by alen · · Score: 0

    most of the salt is over processed crap with lots of chemicals

    are these same conditions present in people who eat natural unprocessed salt?

    1. Re:most salt is not real salt anyway by oodaloop · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Are you saying "processed" salt doesn't have sodium chloride? Or that natural salt doesn't?

      --
      Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
    2. Re:most salt is not real salt anyway by Narcocide · · Score: 2

      He's saying that natural salt doesn't have Bleach, Iodine, and non-binding agents.

    3. Re:most salt is not real salt anyway by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Oh no! CHEMICALS!

      Processed you say? EVEN WORSE

      Can we not just have salt as the almighty intended? Without all those PROCESSED CHEMICALS

      I swear, half the posts on /. these days read like Zippy the Pinhead (this post included)

      Processed chemicals, processed chemicals, processed chemicals!

    4. Re:most salt is not real salt anyway by cnettel · · Score: 1

      The article was about a biochemical pathway, and a mouse model. People didn't enter into the immediate evidence.

    5. Re:most salt is not real salt anyway by alen · · Score: 1

      my wife mostly buys unprocessed pink salt from the Himalayas. other times its natural sea salt.

      is there an epidemic of autoimmune diseases in Tibet? These things seem to happen only in the USA and other "developed" nations

    6. Re:most salt is not real salt anyway by Looker_Device · · Score: 3, Informative

      That iodine has done a LOT of good for public health.

      --
      Your political party doesn't care about your rights and only represents corporate interests.
    7. Re:most salt is not real salt anyway by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      people have died from sodium chloride poisoning from ordinary table salt!

    8. Re:most salt is not real salt anyway by Narcocide · · Score: 1

      So has the bleach... that wasn't exactly my point though. I'd be more worried about safe consumption quantities, how clean the machinery is and the exact natures and volumes of whatever other "harmless" or "beneficial" chemicals are used in the production process.

      Keep in mind that, for example, up until recently they supposedly didn't know the lubricant they use on the machines that make aluminum soda cans can be conclusively, causally linked to obesity in lab rats...

    9. Re:most salt is not real salt anyway by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah its not the salt it is the metabolic syndrome created by excess carb. intake. The excess salt is not the 'cause' anymore than high cholesterol is the 'cause' of heart disease (which it is not).

    10. Re:most salt is not real salt anyway by kamapuaa · · Score: 1

      Right, I'm sure you're speaking from your vast knowledge of the health of Tibetan people.

      --
      Slashdot: providing anti-social weirdos a soapbox, since 1997.
    11. Re:most salt is not real salt anyway by h4rr4r · · Score: 2, Funny

      Because those folks are dying of diseases we already cured here. Stop the noble savage BS already.

    12. Re:most salt is not real salt anyway by preaction · · Score: 1

      Because the Tibetan people probably don't consume MASSIVE amounts of salt. Salt is the most commonly-used preserving agent. If we want to be an industrial society and not an agrarian society, we need food preservation (so industrial farms can manufacture at one time and preserve the food to be consumed for another time).

    13. Re:most salt is not real salt anyway by Darkness404 · · Score: 2

      Correlation != causation.

      Why is it that developed nations lead in X disease and Y disease? A lot of it has to do with the fact that we screen for and treat these diseases rather than letting them go by unnoticed as they do in most of the less-developed world. Prior to modern medicine, a lot of now easily curable or treatable illnesses were fatal. Just look through a history book and you can see that a decent amount of children died not long after birth. Because of this, you've got people who are predisposed to getting sick living relatively normal, healthy lives in the west but in less developed nations these people would have died during childhood. Because of this we get this "skewed" idea that less developed nations are "healthier" which is not correct, it just is that those who aren't healthy have already died.

      --
      Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    14. Re:most salt is not real salt anyway by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think they know if there's an epidemic of autoimmune disease in Nepal. They don't live long enough to tell.

      I have no idea what I'm talking about.

    15. Re:most salt is not real salt anyway by Rob+Riggs · · Score: 1

      Keep in mind that, for example, up until recently they supposedly didn't know the lubricant they use on the machines that make aluminum soda cans can be conclusively, causally linked to obesity in lab rats...

      Citation needed.

      --
      the growth in cynicism and rebellion has not been without cause
    16. Re:most salt is not real salt anyway by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most 'processed' foods contain a LOT of salt. It is a good preserving agent. Hell 1 can of pop usually has between 30-50mg. Frozen dinner think 500+ I have seen as high as 1200. Also consider most dinners people eat out are frozen then nuked/heated at the restaurant.

      I have cut way back on my salt intake (how I know a lot of these numbers). The only place I do not compromise is popcorn and that I eat maybe 2 or 3 times a year at most. Most people think I have 'ruined it' :)

    17. Re:most salt is not real salt anyway by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      where do you get your salt that its not just pure NaCl? most table salt we use is just that, the salts in other foods may be processed and different. Ive seen salt mining first hand its not like sugar is where we make most of it from something else.

    18. Re:most salt is not real salt anyway by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      What people continously fail to understand, is that no ingredient is responsible for health problems. Abusing them is.
      That's the big difference.

      Eating bacon is healthy. Overeating bacon is not.
      Drinking wine is healthy, abusing it is not.
      etc
      etc
      etc

    19. Re:most salt is not real salt anyway by interkin3tic · · Score: 1
      They didn't use table salt for these studies either.

      From the multiple sclerosis mouse paper's methods section:

      Mice received normal chow and tap water ad libitum (control group) or sodium-rich chow containing 4% NaCl (SSNIFF) and tap water containing 1% NaCl ad libitum (high-salt group).

      Hopefully, the normal chow and salty chow are pretty much identical except in how much NaCl SSNIFF added, though I don't know. Presumably the researchers would have thought of that.

      The cell culture work, odds aren't bad that they tried multiple sources of NaCl to make sure it wasn't trace contaminants that were changing things.

      At any rate, it's unlikely that the salt they used for their cell culture work in these two studies, and the salt they used in the mouse studies have a contaminant that is causing immune response and that you would not find in any salt you are eating.

      I'm now going to have to give up potato chips in order to make my eczema clear up. Actually, fuck it. No one wants to look at my elbow anyway, and I love pringles too much.

    20. Re:most salt is not real salt anyway by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Been an engineer for a salt company for 20 years, the processing of salt is to take out the few impurities there are, we do not really add anything at all. There is no bleach, you do not clean 316SS that way when working with salt, salt kills bacteria as well as bleach could. You can easily get non iodine salt, the only additive is a inert agent to help it keep flowing in high moisture... (think of the rice in shakers, yeah its like that). "Natural" salt and Sea Salt, which we do make, is basically less clean, kinda nasty... but the crystal size and organization is different so it gives a different taste, quite nice on some things. But it is still nasty compared to good ole processed table salt, 99.9% pure and the last 0.1 is mostly encapsulated sand and our flow agent. Salt is CHEAP, we used to joke when crackpots (sorry valued customers) sent us complaints we were "cutting" the salt with something because it tasted less salty.... we looked it up, sand is much more expensive, not sure what we could cut it with that is cheaper! Oh and while we are at it, if anyone ever throws out salt due to a best buy date I will find them and smack them, we are forec to put those on, most of the US salt is at least 10k years old, it is not gonna bad anytime soon.

    21. Re:most salt is not real salt anyway by Narcocide · · Score: 5, Informative

      You know, when you are asking for a Citation like a smart-ass, maybe you should first make sure there isn't one to be found by searching the very site you're posting on.

    22. Re:most salt is not real salt anyway by Guppy06 · · Score: 1

      most of the salt is over processed crap with lots of chemicals

      It's called iodine.

      I didn't know Jenny McCarthy had a Slashdot account...

    23. Re:most salt is not real salt anyway by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Places where the salt is already in the readymeals and takeaway crap that the populace routinely consumes are probably going to have different statistics to those where cooking a meal is the accepted way of ensuring that you eat. Even if auto-immune diseases to occur in large numbers among the yak herders, how well are they going to survive once afflicted, isn't it quite likely to be strongly selected against when compared to developed nations where auto-immune condition suffers receive treatment?

      Refined rock salt isn't the same as your geospecific sea-salt or pink himalayan unicorn droppings, sure, it's almost entirely sodium chloride, as opposed to whatever metal salts(there's supposed to be a higher ratio of potassium in seasalt, right? so it's better from a blood pressure point of view?) happen to be dissolved in the water on a given day, but it's not full of bleach and in my country you wont generally find it with added iodine, just some anti-caking agent.

    24. Re:most salt is not real salt anyway by Idbar · · Score: 1

      I came here to see this. I've seen in the US there's salt with and without, and without is cheaper, so I'm wondering if the problems is the salt or the use of cheap salt (without iodine) by many to save on costs.

    25. Re:most salt is not real salt anyway by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know that sodium chloride isn't naturally pink, right? The pink color in your overpriced salt comes from chemical impurities. The "processed" stuff you deride is of significantly higher purity.

      (also, make sure you're getting your trace iodine from somewhere; goitre isn't fun).

    26. Re:most salt is not real salt anyway by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Loved this.

    27. Re:most salt is not real salt anyway by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Left handed salt I believe

    28. Re:most salt is not real salt anyway by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Citation needed.

      If you are too lazy to form a coherent argument, why should anybody waste their time responding to you.

    29. Re:most salt is not real salt anyway by Spectre · · Score: 1

      If you live nowhere close to a coast, most of your table salt is almost pure NaCl ... trace amounts of iodine are added to it, as it is next to impossible to get that iodine from "natural sources" (almost exclusively fresh seafood - which residents of, say, Kansas don't have).

      I don't think that is what the GP is talking about, though, I think (s)he's just spouting nonsense. It would take fairly a fairly sophisticated set of tests to find anything other than NaCl in a typical store bought container of Morton Salt (even Morton Salt Iodized).

      --
      "Flame away, I wear asbestos underwear"
    30. Re:most salt is not real salt anyway by funwithBSD · · Score: 1

      Lets take a quick look at this, shall we?

      If I drink the recommended amount of water 3 liters for a male in a temperate climate, by the Mayo clinic: http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/water/NU00283

      That means I would consume 30grams of NaCl...

      and the recommended amount for an average male? 2.3g, per the Mayo clinic: http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/sodium/NU00284

      So right there I am consuming 13 times the recommended amount.

      4% in my food?

      Let's see, according to http://www.usda.gov/factbook/chapter1.htm the average american eats 4.7 lbs of food, or 2.13 KG, or another 85.2 grams of salt.

      So 115.2 grams when I should consume 2.3, or 50X what I should eat.

      Yeah, that might cause some problems, it is half the LD50 for an average male.

      --
      Never answer an anonymous letter. - Yogi Berra
    31. Re:most salt is not real salt anyway by reverseengineer · · Score: 1

      Bisphenol-A is not a lubricant, it's a compound present in the plastic liners used in aluminum cans.

      --
      "FDA staff reviewers expressed concern about the number of patients who were left out of the study because they died."
    32. Re:most salt is not real salt anyway by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Indeed, they want to find more things to blame than the actual cause, the extremely profitable industry which produces carbs.

    33. Re:most salt is not real salt anyway by QRDeNameland · · Score: 1

      Seconded...I just tried googling to see if I could find a study of that nature and came up empty.

      --
      Momentarily, the need for the construction of new light will no longer exist.
    34. Re:most salt is not real salt anyway by mpe · · Score: 1

      Are you saying "processed" salt doesn't have sodium chloride?

      There's a somewhat strange term which can appear on food labels called "salt equivalent". It's derived by multiplying the mass of sodium by 2.5. In other words assuming that the only sodium containing compound present is NaCl. Possibly even in cases where there is zero NaCl. In such cases you can't actually tell how much "salt" is present...

    35. Re:most salt is not real salt anyway by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The biggest problem I see with most of these studies is everyone is looking for a smoking gun.. the single element that will stop or halt the progress of many of these things.. when in fact I'm more inclined to believe that its the summation of our diet/environment/routine that will be the death of us.

    36. Re:most salt is not real salt anyway by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      Yeah, that might cause some problems, it is half the LD50 for an average male.

      Indeed. Thanks to these studies, we know one of them is autoimmune diseases.

      If your point was something along the lines of "This might not be specific to autoimmune diseases, they're practically killing the rats with salt, so it could cause any number of problems due to poor health," I'd remind you that the mouse models were merely bolstering the cell culture studies where they no doubt made sure they weren't killing the cells. They only did mice to show that what's true at the cellular level is true for the organism as a whole. The point was not to establish a specific dose at which your immune cells would attack you for eating too much salt (and, by the way, I'm not sure you can simply scale up from rats by weight like that when it comes to nutrition), they were merely to indicate that the effects were true of real organisms as well and not just cells in a dish.

      The authors would no doubt be the first to admit that these findings are a long way from conclusive proof that people suffering from MS MUST eliminate all salt from their diets, just that the studies should move to the next level and see if low salt diets improve outcome for some autoimmune diseases.

    37. Re:most salt is not real salt anyway by Rob+Riggs · · Score: 1

      I was not being a smart-ass. Google "aluminum lubricant obesity". Nothing of value is returned. I know about BPA. It is not used as a lubricant in "machines that make aluminum soda cans" [sic]. There is no way to for anyone to know just how confused you are and the severity of the misinformation you are spreading without some sort of citation. Now we know.

      --
      the growth in cynicism and rebellion has not been without cause
    38. Re:most salt is not real salt anyway by bdenton42 · · Score: 1

      I had to look up "ad libitum"... it sounds like it means that the mice could eat however much they wanted. I would assume the salted chow would be tastier so the mice may have eaten more of it, which would then skew the results due to obesity.

    39. Re:most salt is not real salt anyway by reverseengineer · · Score: 1

      Virtually all of what is sold as Himalayan pink salt comes from a gigantic salt mine in Pakistan. It does come from out of a mountain, in the descripitively named Salt Range, but it's as far away from the actual Himalayas as Kansas is from the Rockies. It's solely a marketing term. It's also just rock salt, and that pink color is just from iron oxide.

      --
      "FDA staff reviewers expressed concern about the number of patients who were left out of the study because they died."
    40. Re:most salt is not real salt anyway by funwithBSD · · Score: 1

      The classic example of this sort of BS is saccharine.

      for years it was labeled as cancer causing because of studies in rats, also with absolutely ridiculous dosage levels.

        As tested in the amounts that a human could actually consume... negative results.

      And you know damn well they are going to be scaring our parents/grandparents with this in an upcoming episode of Dr. Oz or some similar popularity contest doctor show.

      --
      Never answer an anonymous letter. - Yogi Berra
    41. Re:most salt is not real salt anyway by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      Also consider most dinners people eat out are frozen then nuked/heated at the restaurant.

      I didn't know that restaurants commonly use atomic bombs to prepare dinner. :-)

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    42. Re:most salt is not real salt anyway by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I switched to fuel injection decades ago. Tuning carburetors was just too much hassle.

    43. Re:most salt is not real salt anyway by aristotle-dude · · Score: 1

      That iodine has done a LOT of good for public health.

      I think he might be trying to suggest that perhaps processed salt might cause problems in the same way in the body as hydrogenated fats where they are basically no-reactive because they are bonded to something that prevents the body from processing it because the covalent bonds are "full".

      --
      Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
    44. Re:most salt is not real salt anyway by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But really, who doesn't want to add fireproofing (Calcium silicate and/or Aluminium hydroxide) to their food. Imagine the barbecuing potential!

    45. Re:most salt is not real salt anyway by deimtee · · Score: 2

      The major acid in your stomach is HCl. Any ionic* sodium you ingest is effectively immediately turned into salt. The "salt equivalent" measure is actually more useful than a straight NaCl measure for monitoring salt intake.

      *If you are ingesting non-ionic sodium, you should video it for medical purposes (and youtube).

      --
      I'm guessing that wasn't on their radar screen...
    46. Re:most salt is not real salt anyway by Jmc23 · · Score: 1
      Actually, it's done a lot of bad. If they didn't add iodine to salt (and make it taste like shit) then humans would be forced to get it from natural sources which come with other goodies like vitamins, nutrients, and fiber, things sorely lacking in the typical western diet.

      Another case of how the west has failed. The answer should have been education, not doping.

      --
      Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
    47. Re:most salt is not real salt anyway by Jmc23 · · Score: 1

      Learn to google so you don't spread nonsense. It is NOT hard at all to get a recommended daily intake of iodine.

      --
      Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
    48. Re:most salt is not real salt anyway by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      Of course you crooks are cutting the salt to save money. It is clearly a conspiracy with the fast food cartel for use on their french fries that are not made of real potatoes.

    49. Re:most salt is not real salt anyway by TheLink · · Score: 1

      That's why a funding for a follow up research is needed.

      You often can't conclusively find things out because there isn't enough $$$$ to do a conclusive study, so you start on a media friendly one first, get publicity etc, hopefully get more $$$$ for a followup or two.

      The problem is you end up with lots of studies that are useless on their own. And you might not even be able to easily use them properly in a meta study - since their shortcomings are in in those little details like you mentioned.

      --
    50. Re:most salt is not real salt anyway by smellotron · · Score: 1

      It's also just rock salt, and that pink color is just from iron oxide.

      The iron oxide must be imparting some flavor on it, because it does not taste the same as more pure NaCl. Also, the shape/size of rock salt makes it wonderful for beef grilling. The salt will dissolve partially, but will remain concentrated in spots. The effect is similar to an aged Parmigiano-Reggiano cheese.

    51. Re:most salt is not real salt anyway by Looker_Device · · Score: 1

      I searched for "lubricant AND obesity" and found horrible...horrible things.

      --
      Your political party doesn't care about your rights and only represents corporate interests.
    52. Re:most salt is not real salt anyway by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      The fact that rat studies were wrong once doesn't mean they're wrong again. Not to say "don't be skeptical" of course, but it sounds like you're not being skeptical, you're being simply closed minded.

      And don't confuse the researchers here with the people who will overstate the results in exchange for attention on Dr. Oz or elsewhere. Different people. Read the paper. I didn't come across anything which suggested this should influence anyone's medical treatments. The researchers aren't being irresponsible. Your problem is with the media, not the scientists.

    53. Re:most salt is not real salt anyway by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      A quick internet search suggests that sea salt is about 4% potassium chloride (that's good) and likely to contain other impurities (both good and bad.)

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    54. Re:most salt is not real salt anyway by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      So you're saying that places where a lot of people are dying are just as healthy as other places
      Riiiiiiiiiiiiight.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
  5. Bollocks by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 5, Insightful

    These finding are contradicted by the epidemiological evidence. The hazards of low salt are immediate and deadly. The hazards of high salt are hard to detect. The chances that there are other variables at work are high. Just because you have a pathway, it doesn't mean you've identified all the regulatory mechanisms.
       

    --
    I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
    1. Re:Bollocks by Pino+Grigio · · Score: 2

      I agree with this. My skeptical neurons started firing when I read the phrase "mouse model" in the synopsis.

    2. Re:Bollocks by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      Even more so in places with low iodine, or iodine deficiency, one of the reasons why it was added to table salt like Europe and Russia. My mother was born in east germany, and for the first 15 years of her life suffered through that, now she has all kinds of wonderful health problems like many people from that region.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    3. Re:Bollocks by steelfood · · Score: 1

      Pathway just indicates it's a contributing factor. To present it as the cause of a disease is like the ban DHMO campaign's bullet point that it is the leading cause of drowning.

      --
      "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
    4. Re:Bollocks by TheRealMindChild · · Score: 1, Insightful

      The hazards of high salt are hard to detect

      Except for my blood pressure

      --

      "When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
    5. Re:Bollocks by kamapuaa · · Score: 3, Insightful

      http://www.medpagetoday.com/Cardiology/Hypertension/36248

      In 2011, for example, the Journal of the American Medical Association published a study by Stolarz-Skrzypek et al. that found only a weak correlation between salt and blood pressure

      --
      Slashdot: providing anti-social weirdos a soapbox, since 1997.
    6. Re:Bollocks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also correlation does NOT equal causation!

    7. Re:Bollocks by Mashiki · · Score: 2

      So please, stop the bullshit about fanciful and widespread health problems because there was no extra iodine added to salt. The problems are quite rare.

      Really. Odd that before the 70's, this was a pandemic level problem wasn't it. Oh I guess you must have been born in the 90's for you "not to see it much of a problem..." I guess this is one of those issues that we've already solved for you. Carry on then.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    8. Re:Bollocks by reverseengineer · · Score: 2

      An issue I've seen with the use of mouse models in several places is that studies in mice (including this one) are based around a disease called EAE which can be readily induced in mice and which has many features similar to human multiple sclerosis. It's of course convenient experimentally to be able to induce what is normally a rare and unpredictable autoimmunity, but how well does that compare to human patients? Induction of EAE involves injecting mice with brain matter and pertussis toxin, in order to generate an inflammatory response to the mouse's own myelin. I wonder if the pathways for that induced imflammation are the same as for genuine autoimmunity, and whether the pathways of EAE really translate to multiple sclerosis, the causes of which are still rather mysterious.

      --
      "FDA staff reviewers expressed concern about the number of patients who were left out of the study because they died."
    9. Re:Bollocks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only if you ALREDY HAVE high blood pressure. I eat salt like nothing else. Water? Needs more salt.

      But because of genetics I have low blood pressure. If you already have high blood pressure then yes, it can help to lower it but unless you do then no there really isn't any correlation.

    10. Re:Bollocks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... but only if you have bad kidneys or don't drink enough water.

    11. Re:Bollocks by TheRealMindChild · · Score: 1

      Ok, so you are linking to an article to... what? I take in as little salt as I can and take Dyazide to remove excess levels. My blood pressure is lower for it. If/when I stop this, it goes sky high. This is fact, not an inconclusive, not-peer-reviewed study

      --

      "When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
    12. Re:Bollocks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This really just says to me that you don't have a great grasp of how the biological sciences work. Model organisms are used to study systems because the aspects of the model organisms' system under study are highly homologous to the same system in humans.

    13. Re:Bollocks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So act on your wonder, do the research, and find out if the pathways are homologous. If you don't do that, all you're doing is speculating and confusing the issue around the actual science.

    14. Re:Bollocks by Jmc23 · · Score: 1

      You know you could just exercise and sweat out excess salt. Sigh, pill poppers will be the death of us all.

      --
      Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
    15. Re:Bollocks by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

      The hazards of low salt are immediate and deadly. The hazards of high salt are hard to detect.

      The average American consumes over 50% the recommended daily intake of salt. Recommendation is 2000mg (2g) of salt. The average American is consuming over 3000mg per day.

      I believe there's a HUGE room to cut salt intake without actually running into low salt intake problems.

      The salt comes mostly from processed and prepared foods (check out the nutrition label sometime - a small bag of chips can easily be 30%, or 600mg). Nevermind if you go out for dinner - most sit down restaurants can easily have 5000+mg or more of salt in an entree, though most hover around 2500mg or so (that's more than a day's worth of salt in just one dish).

      If you ever wonder why McD's is forced to publish nutritional info, but a non-fast food place isn't (and actively resist all calls to do so, even just calorie information on the menus), that's one reason. They really don't want you to know because it really is genuinely scary. Or how a Big Mac can be "healthier".

    16. Re:Bollocks by reverseengineer · · Score: 1

      OK, I did the research, by which I mean I used Google to find out what research had already been done. Honestly, these guys just about took care of it back in 2006. The answer appears to be a qualified "yes," in that many of the basic features of experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis translate to MS, but MS is known to have more involvement from some pathways and less from others. In particular, the method of inducing EAE infection in mice led to a focus on the role of CD4+ cells (which include the TH17 cells) for years, until it was discovered that CD8+ cells also play a major role in MS. It turns out that treatments developed using EAE have had mixed results in treating human MS. For instance, there was a lot of hope in the late 1990s for a tumor necrosis factor blocker called lenercept, which was effective against EAE, but actually made MS worse. On the other hand, secukinumab, an antibody against interleukin-17 itself, has shown positive results against MS in a early proof-of-concept trial.

      As the Gold, et al. paper concludes, "Autoimmune encephalomyelitis is, thus, an excellent tool for studying basic mechanisms of brain inflammation and immune-mediated CNS tissue injury, and for obtaining proof of principle, whether a certain therapeutic strategy has the potential to block these pathways. Whether they are relevant for multiple sclerosis patients in general and, if yes, for what subpopulation of patients has to be determined in respective clinical studies."

      --
      "FDA staff reviewers expressed concern about the number of patients who were left out of the study because they died."
    17. Re:Bollocks by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 1

      What makes you think the RDA is a rationally derived value?

      --
      I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
    18. Re:Bollocks by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 1

      Mouse models are great for getting your foot in the door of yet-to-be-formed hypotheses.
      By they're being shown to be less that effective for confirming hypotheses about what happens in human disease.

      By all means use mouse models to explore the space and work out what is going on, but don't draw conclusions about humans until you've moved to experiment on humans. Jumping to conclusions about humans based on mice experiments is a common mistake and this paper makes that mistake.

      --
      I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
    19. Re:Bollocks by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      The hazards of low salt are immediate and deadly

      First of all, that's not true, it takes time to wash the existing salt out of your body.
      Second, you've missed the entire point of the article, which is about chronic high salt consumption, not emergency events.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    20. Re:Bollocks by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 1

      >First of all, that's not true, it takes time to wash the existing salt out of your body.
      But once your salt level is low, you collapse and there are all sorts of bad things that result. This happens on sports fields all the time, when people on a low salt diet sweat out whatever salt it left, then collapse.

      >Second, you've missed the entire point of the article, which is about chronic high salt consumption, not emergency events.
      If chronic high salt consumption was such a problem, it would have shown up in the epidemiological evidence, which it hasn't. What we have here is a mechanism identified in mice, that if it were the whole story, would show up in the epidemiological evidence, but it doesn't. So it's not the whole story and may or may not be none of the story.

      --
      I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
    21. Re:Bollocks by TheRealMindChild · · Score: 1

      Sure, because I don't exercise 2 hours a day (weight training), and I don't eat right? You are blaming the victim here. I do everything naturally that I can, and flat out, it isn't enough

      --

      "When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
    22. Re:Bollocks by Jmc23 · · Score: 1

      But are you sweating a lot? Doing high intensity circuit training? Or just 'traditional' weight lifting? Maybe try Insanity, most people sweat buckets on that.

      --
      Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
    23. Re:Bollocks by kamapuaa · · Score: 1

      The thinking is that salt is unrelated to blood pressure for the large majority of people, but for a very small percentage of people (primarily black people and diabetics) there is a strong correlation.

      Mostly, like the health effects of vitamins, it's a really important dietary practice that almost everybody believes in, but the studies are for shit and who knows if it really helps most people.

      --
      Slashdot: providing anti-social weirdos a soapbox, since 1997.
    24. Re:Bollocks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Insanity/P90x/high intensity circuit training is mostly a waste of time aimed at people who are new to fitness and never exercise (hence doing anything is better than before), while traditional weight lifting has obvious and well-known benefits. Quitting a useful exercise regiment to do a useless one isn't a good option.

  6. Eat well and die young by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    90 years of whole wheat is indistinguishable from death.

    1. Re:Eat well and die young by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I love AC's *glomp* <3

  7. In other news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Breathing is linked to lung cancer, just picture all the chemicals your putting into your lungs from that dirty air. TFA authors should immediately stop all salt and air consumption for a long and healthy life.

  8. yes, we used to die from flu ... by emilper · · Score: 3, Interesting

    yes, people used to die from flu, tooth infections and because of exhaustion when they traveled from Paris to Vienna in autumn by coach, now people live to 80+ until the system shuts down from almost anything ... soon we'll hear oxygen is linked to autoimmune diseases, diabetes and lack of interest in MSM

    it's called living, it is dangerous, and at the end, no matter what you do, you die

  9. Didn't they mean... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    So "In recent decades.... rise of auto-immune linked to salt." means to me more intake of salt = more auto-immune. But haven't we been pushing low salt in "recent decades". I really can't imaged the average person ate less salt at the turn of the century then now. Salt helped preserve food and it enhanced flavor.

    1. Re:Didn't they mean... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As much as that is true, its also true that there was different diets back then, and salt was used quite a bit differently.

    2. Re:Didn't they mean... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Salt consumption declined at the start of the 20th century with the spread of refrigeration. Then through the 20th century it rose again as consumption of processed food grew.

    3. Re:Didn't they mean... by Jmc23 · · Score: 1

      They sure as hell sweat a lot less! Life is a lot better with properly seasoned food and exercise to get rid of excess.

      --
      Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
  10. Sssshh! by JeanCroix · · Score: 3, Funny

    Nobody tell Bloomberg!

  11. Re:Hmm by v1 · · Score: 2

    another thing I love that I can't eat? they're just throwing more salt in my wound!

    --
    I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
  12. Doctors agree that healthy dietary salt intake... by QilessQi · · Score: 3, Funny

    ...is somewhere between 0 and 100kg per day. Now we just need to zero in on the exact number and we'll be all set.

  13. Whelp by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As a Finn, I'm fucked.

    1. Re:Whelp by khallow · · Score: 2

      I thought that came from being next to Sweden and Russia.

    2. Re:Whelp by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not sure those scientists are heathen, remember to only trust heathen scientists!

      If you're worried your body has too much salt you can dilute with alcohol.
      And if you're worried your body has too much alcohol you can dilute with salt.
      You'll be fine either way :D

      -- best regards from Norway :)

  14. Mother Nature needs to give us kidneys...oh, wait by Comrade+Ogilvy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The problem with these guesses about salt is our kidneys are specifically designed for actively and precisely maintaining homeostasis of certain key ions (Na, Cl, K, Ca) in the bloodstream. If it weren't we would simply die within days or sooner. Moderate salt with good hydration is probably not harmful at all -- it is probably good for you as it helps the kidneys filter other bad stuff out. Low salt could easily be bad for you.

    High salt plus low hydration might be bad. But where exactly is the line where moderate salt becomes high? Guessing based on what we eat is for witch doctors.

    So I would like to see an actual study showing how adding/subtracting a little salt changes anything measurable at all about the long term serum average, otherwise I am inclined to believe that this guess is baloney. We are not walking petri dishes.

    (There are specific diseases where controlling salts are very important, but that is a separate issue.)

  15. Ignores Homeostasis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Of course, this latest FUD piece depends on ignoring the fact that the body precisely regulates the levels of all of the accused ions. If you have too much salt, your kidneys get rid of it.

    This is why the alleged link between salt and high blood pressure never made any sense except from a 10th grade science perspective. It has certainly been thoroughly debunked, just like this conclusion will be thoroughly debunked.

    Junk science at its best.

    1. Re:Ignores Homeostasis by hedwards · · Score: 2

      Citation please. If that's really true, then why do so many people see their blood pressure improve by taken blood pressure medication that causes the excretion of sodium?

    2. Re:Ignores Homeostasis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Huh? High blood pressure is treated with diruetics, which increases the amount of water excreted.

    3. Re:Ignores Homeostasis by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      Do those people happen to have an ill kidney?

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    4. Re:Ignores Homeostasis by wiredlogic · · Score: 0

      Unfortunately the heart disease to salt connection hasn't been thoroughly debunked or we wouldn't be awash in so many low sodium products in the supermarket and populist Dr. Oz types with the air of medical authority still telling you salt is bad. The problem is that there is an entire anti-salt food industry with a vested interested in ignoring the truth. There is no way to get the messaging out about the safety of salt intake when even the mainstream medical establishment refuses to correct its ways.

      If Atkins hadn't killed himself with his high fat diet we might still be dealing with his bullshit today. Thankfully that is safely in the past.

      --
      I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
    5. Re:Ignores Homeostasis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except that, while Atkins had an unhealthy heart, he died of injuries sustained from a fall. Slipped on some ice, cracked his head quite solidly. Died of internal bleeding on the brain.

    6. Re:Ignores Homeostasis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Presumably, they have excess sodium in their system. The time I took one of those medications, I got severely ill with sodium deficiency within a few days.

    7. Re:Ignores Homeostasis by Jmc23 · · Score: 1

      How dumb can you be? Overworking your kidneys is not a good thing.

      --
      Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
    8. Re:Ignores Homeostasis by treeves · · Score: 1

      Because the excretion of sodium is a result of taking a diuretic, the main benefits of which are the excretion of water (def'n of diuretic) and the relaxing of blood vessel walls, both of which lower blood pressure. Most diuretics also cause excretion of potassium, but no one ever says "you need to cut down on the potassium - it's bad for your hypertension".

      --
      ...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
    9. Re:Ignores Homeostasis by Reziac · · Score: 1

      In fact they're more likely to say, "Eat a banana, you're shaky due to potassium deficiency".

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
  16. The bottom line... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

    ...God hates us.

    Multiple Sclerosis is a horrible disease that leaves you incapable of doing anything but sitting around waiting to die. But it is just one of many horrible diseases. And diseases are just one of many things that are constantly trying to kill us, such as predators, parasites, famines, floods, flash fires, and on and on. And these things afflict everyone, including the young and innocent.

    Anyone who thinks the Creator is a loving benevolent being is completely insane.

    1. Re:The bottom line... by DougOtto · · Score: 0

      Sin and salt.

      --
      Solving Unix problems since 1989...
    2. Re:The bottom line... by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      Well, I've always called it "entropy", but suit yourself, to each his own.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    3. Re:The bottom line... by PRMan · · Score: 1

      MOD Parent up! That's hilarious...

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
    4. Re:The bottom line... by c0lo · · Score: 2

      Multiple Sclerosis is a horrible disease that leaves you incapable of doing anything but sitting around waiting to die

      You're doing it wrong. Double the amount of salt in your diet, throw in some other pleasurable and unhealthy things in your lifestyle and I guarantee you'll never linger in this world until you get bored.

      --
      Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
    5. Re:The bottom line... by funwithBSD · · Score: 3, Funny

      Sin and salt and ruthless efficiency!

      --
      Never answer an anonymous letter. - Yogi Berra
    6. Re:The bottom line... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      God created the rules, and sin is the breaking of those rules, therefore God created sin.
      God created humans flawed and incapable of following the rules, therefore God created us TO sin.
      God created the cause-and-effect relationship that makes death and decay result from sin, therefore God created death and decay.

      It is *all God's fault* no matter how many arbitrary layers of separation you attempt to interject.

    7. Re:The bottom line... by SternisheFan · · Score: 1

      God created the rules, and sin is the breaking of those rules, therefore God created sin. God created humans flawed and incapable of following the rules, therefore God created us TO sin. God created the cause-and-effect relationship that makes death and decay result from sin, therefore God created death and decay.

      It is *all God's fault* no matter how many arbitrary layers of separation you attempt to interject.

      I once read a book.(A Mote in God's Eye, maybe) where God enrages the human race so much that He has to hide from us in a remote edge of the universe while we search for him in order to get our revenge. Sad ending since God knows eventually He will be found due to a contracting universe, it's just a matter of time...

      (P.S.: The human body is just a temporary thing. Our spirit is what matters, it will by far outlive our bodies.)

      ---

      Downmod to oblivion in 3... 2... 1....

    8. Re:The bottom line... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Absolutely false.

      God gives each of us free will to accept or reject him.

      "We have argued that Aquinas taught that God elects some to glory in order to manifest the goodness of his mercy and reprobates others to dishonour to manifest the goodness of his justice. Thus the creation better exhibits his goodness in its variety, which is the purpose of the creation."

      http://www.romancatholicism.org/fathers-will.htm

    9. Re:The bottom line... by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      That's why God invented the dark energy. It will make sure that the universe keeps expanding, and the humans cannot find Him.

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    10. Re:The bottom line... by aristotle-dude · · Score: 0

      ...God hates us.

      Multiple Sclerosis is a horrible disease that leaves you incapable of doing anything but sitting around waiting to die. But it is just one of many horrible diseases. And diseases are just one of many things that are constantly trying to kill us, such as predators, parasites, famines, floods, flash fires, and on and on. And these things afflict everyone, including the young and innocent.

      Anyone who thinks the Creator is a loving benevolent being is completely insane.

      Right, so you are saying that you have a gun to your head to eat junk food and that you are not responsible for your actions? You atheists crack me up. You don't believe in free will and blame god for everything because of that. You are responsible for your actions. You do have the free will to make healthy choices. Stop blaming the god that you claim to not believe in for you shitty decision making.

      --
      Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
    11. Re:The bottom line... by aristotle-dude · · Score: 1

      Well, I've always called it "entropy", but suit yourself, to each his own.

      Right, so you are saying that it is "entropy" if you cheat on your wife and she finds out?

      Why is it so hard for people to understand? The ten commandments are basically summed up as "Love other people as if you would want to be loved and love god." It is bloody simple. Another way to look at it would be "Be grateful for what you have, be responsible and don't be a dick.".

      That does not mean that you can be a dick as long as you don't get caught. It means that you should assume that you could get caught at any moment to treat everyone as if you would want others to treat you. Before you act like a dick, imagine putting yourself in the shoes of the other person.

      God gave you such bloody simple instructions and you still screw it up or get mad at god because you are too thick to get it.

      --
      Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
    12. Re:The bottom line... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Romans 3:23 negates your claim.

      If it is true that *all* have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, then the only possible explanation is that God created us to sin.

      If God gave us free will, but also a will that was so weak against temptation that every single one of us will fail eventually, then it is God's fault that we fail, not our own. He stacked the deck against us by creating us weak...HIS FAULT.

      Furthermore, if God gives us free will but puts us in positions of moral ambiguity, where it is clear only in retrospect that we sinned, again the sin was God's fault.

      If God had given us free will, but also strong will and moral clarity, then some people would never sin. And if some people would never sin, then God's Holy Word would not contain the patently false statement that all have sinned.

      I used to be an apologist, like you. But then I realized that *none* of my arguments held water. Not a damn one of them. The only way to preserve God's blamelessness is to reject most of what the Bible says about God, or to just go completely irrational.

    13. Re:The bottom line... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank you for that very nice illustration of the straw-man fallacy.

      The poster did not say that God, or anyone, was forcing anyone to eat junk food. Not even remotely. You just deliberately misrepresented the argument so you could then feel all superior for seeing through it.

      You religious types crack me up. Always resorting to boldfaced irrationality to try and explain why your religion is correct.

    14. Re:The bottom line... by pnutjam · · Score: 1

      Don't drag out that dumb old book...

    15. Re:The bottom line... by deimtee · · Score: 1

      This short story? "Letter from God" by Ian Watson
      http://davidlavery.net/Courses/3840/stories/watson_letter.html

      --
      I'm guessing that wasn't on their radar screen...
    16. Re:The bottom line... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What is this "God" you speak of? I hear people talking about it all the time but have never seen it myself and nobody I know and trust has seen it either. Is it like an imaginary friend or something?

    17. Re:The bottom line... by SternisheFan · · Score: 1
      The story you linked to is a fine one, though not what I was referring to. The book (short story) I read had God trying to find a way to let us know he was real and not a myth, since humankind seemed to have lost direction in their lives. He finally decides on creating two huge stone obelisks with writing in all languages on them, basically saying 'I am here', and other things helpful to the human race.

      Because of the distance between people on the planet, He simultaneously places one somewhere into the ground in Russia, and the other off the coast of Florida. And it works, people study the obelisks for insight, new inventions are created, and there's a new sense pride in us, since now we know that God is real and cares for us. That's when 'snafu' comes into play...

      Something happens that causes both giant obelisks to fall at the same time. In Russia it causes huge earthquakes that wipe out many in the population. The obelisk that's in the ocean falls and creates a massive tidal wave that kills many on all the continents of North/South America/Africa, etc. God just did not plant the obelisks deep enough, it seems. Billions die as a result, and the human race vows revenge on God.

      In order to find God to exact revenge, space exploration begins. Over the next many millions of years, we go out through the universe, colonizing planets, exploring deeper, all in the quest to finally find where God is hiding, and God is constantly having to find a new place to hide. The story ends with God placing Himself as far out in the void as possible, knowing that He won't be able to hide from his vengeful children forever, since once the universe finally contracts, we will all eventually 'come together' again.

      I read this story as a teenager, and it always stuck with me over the decades. While I've read and forgotten many books (Don't do drugs, kids!), some of them were so good (like 'A Wrinkle In Time' read by me as an 8 year old) that they always seem to reverberate. If anyone recognizes the story, I'd appreciate knowing who wrote it...

    18. Re:The bottom line... by SternisheFan · · Score: 1
      Doh! Yes, having just actually read it 'after' posting the above, that is exactly the story. The blurring of memory made me think it had to be much longer than what it really was. I ass-u-med that, and quickly made an 'ass' of 'me'. :-)

      Many thanks to you, Deimtee, 5+ Informative internets are awarded to you! (No actual cash value)

    19. Re:The bottom line... by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      Right, so you are saying that it is "entropy" if you cheat on your wife and she finds out?

      Wait, does that qualify as death, decay, or disease? Because that was what I was responding to, in case you didn't bother to read.

      That does not mean that you can be a dick as long as you don't get caught.

      You're barking at the wrong tree.

      God gave you such bloody simple instructions and you still screw it up or get mad at god because you are too thick to get it.

      I'm an atheist, I can't be mad at any god.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    20. Re:The bottom line... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "God" is a conceptual device by which people attain absolute authority over others. Whenever they want someone to do something, they just claim that God wants them to do it.

      It works pretty well. Not too long ago the world trade center was destroyed by people responding to such manipulation.

    21. Re:The bottom line... by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      God gives each of us free will to accept or reject him.

      This notion of "free will" is flawed from the beginning. Our will is shaped by the evolutionary development of our brains. There are many things you cannot choose from, you just do them, because your brain works that way. As far as those things are concerned where you feel that you *do* have a choice, I'd be extremely wary of making any assumptions. The idea of self-influence smells of circular logic to me. There are no meta-levels in the brain.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    22. Re:The bottom line... by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      Why is it so hard for people to understand? The ten commandments are basically summed up as "Love other people as if you would want to be loved and love god." It is bloody simple. Another way to look at it would be "Be grateful for what you have, be responsible and don't be a dick.".

      Would you like to explain how that agrees with "don't make statues" (2nd commandment) and "don't work on Sunday, and prevent everybody else from working then, also" (4th commandment)?

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    23. Re:The bottom line... by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      If there were no such thing as free will, it would be logically inconsistent to insist on punishment for any behavior, no matter how heinous. Argumentum ad baculum is valid in this instance. Or, to state it a third way, if there is no free will, you cannot have any objection if I punch you in the face.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    24. Re:The bottom line... by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      If there were no such thing as free will, it would be logically inconsistent to insist on punishment for any behavior, no matter how heinous.

      No, it wouldn't. A logical absence of free will does not mean that living organisms and sentient beings don't adjust to the feedback from their environment. They do. That's precisely the purpose of all social regulation mechanisms, not just legal measures, but also, e.g., shaming of inappropriately behaving people etc. You don't need free will for these mechanisms to work. And even if it did, it still does not negate the contradictory nature of the notion of free will. There is no meta level here.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
  17. Haha by P-niiice · · Score: 1

    I love it how the conclusions from a mouse study automatically equals 'the man' trying to force use to eat a salt-free diet.

  18. Don't believe everything you read. by TeknoHog · · Score: 4, Funny

    You should always take news like this with 64.79891 mg of NaCl.

    --
    Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
  19. Too much salt by miltonw · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It isn't salt, it's too much salt. No one needs the huge levels of sodium chloride that is now added to most processed foods. It is there because it "tastes good" while making you want to eat more and more.

    I had to give up salt completely some years ago and it took months before I regained my ability to taste unsalted food. Now, food without salt actually tastes much better that the over-salted crap served to us everywhere.

    Yes, the body requires some sodium chloride but the amount is very small. What most people ingest is far, far beyond that. As with just about anything, too much will harm you.

    1. Re:Too much salt by DerekLyons · · Score: 1, Interesting

      I had to give up salt completely some years ago

      So, you're a zombie then? Because if you don't have salt in your diet, you're dead.

    2. Re:Too much salt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He still drinks his own urine to prevent the otherwise inevitable electrolyte losses.

    3. Re:Too much salt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Logic usually goes that too much of one thing can be too much.

      Someone above said too much sex would lead to a heart attack or stroke.. Which means they are either doing something right or way, way wrong.

    4. Re:Too much salt by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 1, Funny

      Zombies get their salt from the human flesh tartare they consume. Humans taste salty. Just ask any dog that is trying to lick your face, or a coyote that is gnawing on your leg.

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    5. Re:Too much salt by miltonw · · Score: 2

      *sigh*

      There is far, far, far enough naturally occurring salt in food to supply all the salt that a body needs without having to add any. Perhaps, to be clearer for those who take things too literally, I needed to avoid all foods with any salt added to whatever naturally was there to start with.

    6. Re:Too much salt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, you're a zombie then? Because if you don't have salt in your diet, you're dead.

      You're sadly mistaken. It's not about having salt in your diet, but -at least when it comes to blood pressure- about getting the correct balance between sodium and potassium. Many foods naturally contain potassium (potatoes, tomatoes, melons, banana, dairy, etc). Likewise, many foods naturally contain sodium. Recommended dietary intake of salt is to stay below 6000 milligrams (the equivalent of 2400 milligrams of sodium) - but you won't get a sodium deficiency until you drop to under a tenth of that. I suggest some label-reading: If you've ever tried to eat salt-free, you'll have found that in modern society with all its processed foods, not getting enough of the stuff is the least of your worries.

    7. Re:Too much salt by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      *sigh* Don't make your inability to write simple English my fault. You either effed up, or are lazy - either way, man up and take responsibility for your own actions.

      And no, there isn't enough salt in 'food' (which covers a wide variety of things - more ignorance on your part) to supply all the salt a body needs. That's why mankind has sought supplemental sources throughout history.

    8. Re:Too much salt by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      LOL! Good one!

    9. Re:Too much salt by miltonw · · Score: 1

      And no, there isn't enough salt in 'food' (which covers a wide variety of things - more ignorance on your part) to supply all the salt a body needs. That's why mankind has sought supplemental sources throughout history.

      Stop pretending knowledge when you are clueless. It doesn't work.

    10. Re:Too much salt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I started eating low salt potato chips and wow! they are so delicious because I can actually taste the potato taste. A small amount of salt makes things taste much better, but too much salt, which is normal in modern processed foods, just covers up and masks the flavors of the food. After that experience I cut way down on the amount of salt in foods that I cook, mostly soup from scratch and stir fried oriental style dishes. The variety of flavours is much more intense than hidden under salt. And the same thing goes for sweet food. Go to Russia and try the locally made cakes, pastries, wafer cookies, chocolates. All with way less sugar than the norm in the western world, and the flavors of the ingredients are much clearer. Try making some peppermint tea but just add half a cube of sugar.

      The potato chips I mentioned are Old Dutch low salt ripple chips which are only available in Western Canada. If you want to check out the effect of salt on potatoes just try making some home fries (potatoes and oil in a frying pan) and experiment with different amounts of salt.

    11. Re:Too much salt by smellotron · · Score: 1

      Humans taste salty. Just ask any dog that is trying to lick your face,

      I used to have a cat who would lick my hair and strip out quite a bit of oil. Add that to my salty skin and I'm practically a chicharone!

    12. Re:Too much salt by smellotron · · Score: 1

      *sigh* Don't make your inability to write simple English my fault.

      It is simple English. Your confusion was probably caused by a failure to identify an implied context. Given the variety of foods which contain naturally-occurring salts, it is unreasonable to believe that the OP was actually able to achieve a 100% salt-free diet. Thus, the most reasonable interpretation of "giving up salt completely" is "giving up [added] salt completely". With your zombie comment, it's clear that you knew that your chosen interpretation was a non-sequitor.

    13. Re:Too much salt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Questions:

      Do you drink a lot of water? How much in standard cup units?
      Do you drink alcohol? How much roughly?
      What sort of food do you eat? Fresh Raw? Fresh Prepared? Processed clean foods? A mix?
      What types of each of those do you eat, if any apply? Are you a robot?

      The main culprit of damage is eating things that are too clean.
      The human, hell, NO body, has ever evolved to eat things that were clean. Ever.
      Processed foods are bad for you because they are clean. Clean food is the worst thing we have ever invented, far worse than even nukes.
      Antibiotics and probiotics being some of the worst side-components of that.
      Both of those wreck gut flora, which can cause an insane number of autoimmune complications. (I know from personal experiments and experience)
      In fact, large doses of antibiotics are even being researched for treatments in colon-autoimmune by deliberately killing all bacteria in the gut, or as close to it. It will mean dietary changes are heavily required, and medication to help with stools. But fixing the gut is probably far harder, the flora there are in insanely complex arrangements that we are only beginning to understand.
      Salt is hilariously low on terms of what it can do compared to eating clean foods.
      Even your sink cleaning products are terrible for you if you don't actually clean that crap off your plates before eating off them.
      Bleach and boiling hot water is enough to kill anything off plates that aren't extremophiles, and they can't live there in the first place because they evolved in extreme environments and trying to remove most of them kills them, and those that survive never evolved anywhere else anyway.
      Hell, buy a green laser and make a mirror cube and kill things the awesome way. Kill infection vectors, WITH SCIENCE!

      As a side note, I eat quite a bit of salt and my autoimmune is hilariously weak compared to people who go on all these silly diets.
      Not only that, the entire east asian area would question this entire study.
      Fish out the ass, not even remotely a problem.
      Salt isn't the problem. At all.
      Salt just helps complete the equation quicker. Salt lowering can only help so far, but it isn't the root cause.

    14. Re:Too much salt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Salt is slow poison in the quantities most humans consume.
      Most people don't sweat enough of it out so that it doesn't accumulate over time.

    15. Re:Too much salt by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      The salt on your skin that a dog licks is salt that has already been excreted as a part of sweat, the water portion of which has evaporated.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    16. Re:Too much salt by airdweller · · Score: 1

      "Given the variety of foods which contain naturally-occurring salts..."

      Which are...?

  20. Re:Skeptical. by DragonWriter · · Score: 2

    Everyone has been eating low fat and low sodium for twenty years now, and look where we're at.

    Well, experts have been advising it. Everyone actually been eating that way? If they were, the entire fast-food industry would have collapsed.

  21. One story to rule them all by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    This reminds me of everyone who tried to put crohn's disease or H Pylori infection into the autoimmune bracket, which we now know isn't true.

    Auroimmune means a reaction to a self-antigen, and whilte Th cells are part of the adaptive regulatory response, they are not an explanation of why the body would attack epithelial cells. In fact, that Th17 actually upregulates inflammation every time has been questioned, since for example in crohn's disease, something which I'm familiar with, they find increased Th17 in people with quiescent disease versus active disease, the Th17 response calms the inflammation in the mucosa.

    The expression "worth their salt" is a very old expression, salt use is not new, I really don't think that the increase in salt is responsible for the sudden increase in autoimmune diseases in the West, the body has a lot of protective barriers in place to prevent a self-directed immune response, the adaptive immune system is tightly controller and I don't believe any diet has enough of an impact to make this go wrong. I think a lot of diseases related to the immune system are simply not understood and are all thrown under this autoimmune bracket without a good understanding of their mechanics.

  22. Let's see now.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    So far:

    Caffeine can kill you
    Tobacco can kill you
    Drugs can kill you
    Salt can kill you
    Sugar can kill you
    Meat can kill you
    Sex can kill you
    The very air you breathe can kill you

    Ya know what, from the time you're born - you are being killed by something or another (of course, until you're told it's not).

    My philosophy? Don't sweat it and don't live in fear - enjoy your life and do what you will. Our time here is short - live it.

  23. Osmosis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Salt is required for Osmosis. Without salt, you will dehydrate, regardless of how much water you drink. Is there the possibility that some people, who depend too much on junk food, might be getting too much salt in their diet?, yes. Just because they are, doesn't mean the rest of us need to stop eating it. It's like Oxygen. In high enough concentrations, Oxygen is toxic. This is one of the reasons divers use Helium, (the other is nitrogen narcosis).

  24. Re:Doctors agree that healthy dietary salt intake. by hedwards · · Score: 2

    The problem with salt is that it can be too low or too high. And, despite what doctors might say, it's not that hard to run low.

    Bottom line, is that it's how much you have in your brain and blood stream that ultimately matters more than your consumption does. If you're eating 2x the recommended amount, but sweating 3x as much as a normal person would, you will get sick eventually.

  25. Re:Mother Nature needs to give us kidneys...oh, wa by hedwards · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Moderate salt intake is mandatory, if you're not consuming any you'll eventually run low and wind up dead or brain damaged. And, that's not as hard as people think, all it takes is a few days of unseasonable weather if you've been low balling your consumption to get seriously ill. As in wind up in the ICU of the local hospital with life threatening brain damage.

    Yes, that's rather unlikely as most people consume so much salt that it would take weeks or more to run low, but it can and does happen.

  26. Mouse Model? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wasn't there an article referenced on /. that said the study of mice in experiments whose data is translated to humans is flawed.

  27. Re:Skeptical. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oddly enough, many people do. You can blame everything on fast food. You can blame things on twenty-year-old advice eventually turning out to be incorrect, as it's slowly appearing.

  28. Re:Mother Nature needs to give us kidneys...oh, wa by Bitsy+Boffin · · Score: 1

    "The problem with these guesses about salt is our kidneys have specifically *EVOLVED TO* actively and precisely maintain homeostasis of certain key ions"

    Fixed.

    --
    NZ Electronics Enthusiasts: Check out my Trade Me Listings
  29. Hmm by Frankie70 · · Score: 4, Informative

    Taubes on Salt - http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/03/opinion/sunday/we-only-think-we-know-the-truth-about-salt.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

    While, back then, the evidence merely failed to demonstrate that salt was harmful, the evidence from studies published over the past two years actually suggests that restricting how much salt we eat can increase our likelihood of dying prematurely. Put simply, the possibility has been raised that if we were to eat as little salt as the U.S.D.A. and the C.D.C. recommend, weâ(TM)d be harming rather than helping ourselves.

  30. Re:Doctors agree that healthy dietary salt intake. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    If only there were a homeostatic mechanism by which the body might increase salt consumption, like a craving...

  31. Re:Doctors agree that healthy dietary salt intake. by QilessQi · · Score: 2

    I do agree. Electrolytes are vital to a healthy body, and all it takes to put you in the "too low" category is a 24-hour GI bug accompanied by a half-dozen bouts of screaming into the porcelain microphone.

    And did you ever notice that sports drinks with electrolytes (like Gatorade) taste great when you're sweating and salt-deprived, and positively horrible when you're not?

  32. in Other news. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In other news..dying has been linked to living...

  33. Re:Skeptical. by nitehawk214 · · Score: 1

    Oddly enough, many people do. You can blame everything on fast food. You can blame things on twenty-year-old advice eventually turning out to be incorrect, as it's slowly appearing.

    Huh? If someone claims they are on a low fat and low sodium diet and also eats fast food regularly, they are full of shit.

    But, if you wish to believe that trying to eat low fat and low sodium is what's making you fat; feel free to eat at McDonald's five times a week.

    --
    I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
  34. Re:sea salt. by onkelonkel · · Score: 1

    Isn't all salt originally sea salt? Some of it is collected by evaporating sea water, some of it is mined from underground deposits left behind by ancient oceans.

    --
    None of them can see the clouds; The polished wings don't care.
  35. Re:Doctors agree that healthy dietary salt intake. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Even more problematic for the legislature, human bodies use sodium and potassium salts for different purposes. Sodium salts are among the blood thickening agents, while potassium salts play a similar role within cells. So a proper salt intake is one within the general safety range that also maintains a proper balance of sodium in the blood and potassium within the cells.

    I suspect that a bit more variety on both sides of the ions may be beneficial, but I don't know if anyone has done a study of health effects of different salt compositions.

  36. Very tasty foods that are prefectly healthy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bananas. Apples. Fruits of every variety.
    Potatos too. Grains of every variety, for that matter.

    mmmmm.......

  37. Just average everything!?! by benmk · · Score: 1

    The rule of thumb is to simply avoid lack or excess of any thing! Maybe an ideal life is based on average...

  38. THAT is not the citation he was looking for... by denzacar · · Score: 1

    lubricant they use on the machines that make aluminum soda cans can be conclusively, causally linked to obesity in lab rats...

    BPA is not a lubricant.
    It is a "key monomer in production of epoxy resins and in the most common form of polycarbonate plastic."

    Also, he was asking for causation, not correlation.
    Finding in your urine more of the chemical that you ingest while drinking sugary drinks, does not prove that it's the chemical and not the sugar that's making you obese.
    All it proves is that the said chemical has apparently leached into your sugary drink - perhaps from its packaging and perhaps from the cups you use.

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
  39. Actually, they DO consume MASSIVE amounts of salt. by denzacar · · Score: 3, Informative

    Also, butter. They make tea from it.

    They tend to eat or drink on average more than 20 grams of salt per day.
    They also tend to live 4900 meters above sea level. On average.

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
  40. Sorry... there is no nutritional value in sugar... by gosand · · Score: 2

    I've been doing a lot of reading on dietary topics, and it is quite amazing how many opinions about our dietary needs are based on nothing but opinion or the opinions of other people. Even the scientific results can be mis-interpreted or looked at in so many ways that you can seemingly show whatever you want from these studies.
    There's a ton of stuff out there, like the book "Good Calories Bad Calories" that covers it in depth, but watch this video by Dr Peter Attia. I think it sums it up pretty well. The limits of scientific evidence and the ethics of dietary guidelines -- 60 years of ambiguity

    I've been following the Primal Blueprint lifestyle for a few months, and the effects have been pretty amazing.

    --

    My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.

  41. Whew knew? by ilsaloving · · Score: 1

    I guess Dr. Raymond Cocteau was right after all! (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0106697/)

  42. Re:Doctors agree that healthy dietary salt intake. by Frank+T.+Lofaro+Jr. · · Score: 1

    Drinking only water for a day can do it. I drank a gallon of water to try to detox, and nothing else.

    When I did that one time, I started to feel REALLY wrong, I then ate a salt packet and felt 50% better in minutes, almost 100% better in an hour or so.

    --
    Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
  43. Re:Doctors agree that healthy dietary salt intake. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "screaming into the porcelain microphone"

    *laughs* You just made my day with that one.

  44. Re:Doctors agree that healthy dietary salt intake. by hedwards · · Score: 1

    Not really, the kidneys can only hold onto sodium that's potentially going to pass through them, the do precisely zip for sodium that gets secreted by the sweat glands or if there's a sudden over hydration that occurs.

    Craving itself is based upon different needs from a different time, your body doesn't know that getting the appropriate level of salt isn't as hard as it used to be.

  45. Re: So, Jesus was a zombie? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, Jesus was a leprechaun.

    R.I.P., miss you at xmas Phil...

  46. Re:Hmm by quantaman · · Score: 1

    I wouldn't put too much on Taubes' analysis of the data, his main claim to fame that insulin responses cause obesity is BS. He might be right about excess salt not being a health issue (I honestly don't know what the long term issues are supposed to be) but be warned that Taubes is more interested in generating a novel result than a right one.

    --
    I stole this Sig
  47. Re:Sorry... there is no nutritional value in sugar by Belial6 · · Score: 1

    The biggest problem is that even in the face of absolute proof to the contrary, our medical, government, and insurance industries are absolutely convinced that the only people who have different dietary needs are Eskimos.

  48. Similar to Omega-3/6/9, it's also the type of salt by jago25_98 · · Score: 1

    My own weak anecedotal evidence leads me to believe that it's not just the amount of salt but the type and balance between those types of salt.

    Salt is the sea is:
    Cl 55%, Na+ 30.6%, SO2
    4 7.7%, Mg2+ 3.7%, Ca2+ 1.2%, K+ 1.1%, Other 0.7%.

    We are decended from fish and the fat distribution in our bodies is still marine mammalian...
      so to me it makes sense that we need to stop thinking in terms of "salt" and start thinking about different ions in the body; a thing I coin electrolytic (im)balance.

    It would be nice to see a study looking at this to either give this some scientific acceptance or rule it out.

  49. Re:Science anymore is a big joke. by staalmannen · · Score: 1

    I can quite confidently say that you never have had any real experience with science..... and probably never even taken any basic classes in statistics. I can agree with you that science journalism is a big joke, and unfortunately that is often the only contact normal laymen get with science. Luckily in this TFA there is a link to the paper showing a mechanistic link between sodium chloride and the up-regulation of a protein that promotes T-cells to differentiate into Th17 cells. There are several Th17-driven diseases that could be influenced by this. On the flip side, there are also diseases (mostly people with susceptibility to fungal infections) that have a too low Th17 response. It would be interesting to see if those people would be helped by a higher salt diet...

  50. Re:sea salt. by smellotron · · Score: 1

    Isn't all salt originally sea salt? Some of it is collected by evaporating sea water, some of it is mined from underground deposits left behind by ancient oceans.

    I don't want to support the AC's viewpoint about "processed crap" vs. "sea salt", but I would like to answer your question: Most industrially-produced salts are very pure: the processing done is a refinement which eliminates non-salty things. Salt harvested in "traditional" or "artisinal" methods will have more impurities present. Take sel gris, for example: it is pinkish or gray because some clay gets raked up along with the salt crystals. There are more minerals in there! My memory is hazy and I don't have a reference around, but some of the notable extra components are Iodine, Magnesium, and either Phosphorus or Potassium. Having more of these trace minerals around might be a good thing overall, but whenever I see the health benefits of "sea salt" I smell snake oil: the copy writers are just looking for a sale.

  51. The salt in our tables by ruir · · Score: 0

    Is *not* real salt. As usual. Use marine salt and avoid it.

    1. Re:The salt in our tables by ruir · · Score: 0

      Let me clarify. The salt is our tables is not real salt. A bleached mix of sugar, and salt and several chemicals. Anti-caking agents. And plus, in northern countries, they mix iodine with it, as a form of thyroid prevention.

  52. More scientific fraud by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    'Mouse model of multiple sclerosis'.

    Mice don't get multiple sclerosis, this is just another example of fraudulent 'research', jobs for life for 'scientists' who get paid to FAIL at finding cures.

  53. Naturalistic fallacy. Sigh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Refined salt is highly pure salt. Na-Cl up to better part than 99.9%. The rest being stuff which is inert in your body, sand mostly. Some firm might add a very small quantity of inert agent to enable an easier flow, but those are well known.

    Natural sea salt on the other hand is motly left to dry and very few processing beside some very very absic purification process before drying to catch the bigest impurity, and then left to dry in the air and can be polluted by the nearby road, as long as it is not excessive and do not go above the regulatory percentage you can find all sort of shit in it.

    So yeah, natural sea salt of whatever is actually much more impure than mined ground salt.

  54. Re:sea salt. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It sure is, but most table salt is brined (dissolved) by injecting water into a deep pocket well, where all the impurities settle or float out, then you take the clear brine up and boil it to recrystallize the salt. So we are actually reforming it a few days old, but it starts as ancient sea bed deposits. Along the Gulf where I work now we have salt domes, but they are really just mini salt volcano's, a deeper flat bed of salt gets hot, semi liquefies under pressure and blows up into a dome shape like magma would. They also make a long vertical break in the layers of sediment so a lot of oil can be accessed on the edges....... so salt and oil mix in a way :)

  55. Re:Skeptical. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You're a retard.

  56. Re:Doctors agree that healthy dietary salt intake. by QilessQi · · Score: 1
  57. Re:Skeptical. by DragonWriter · · Score: 1

    Oddly enough, many people do.

    GGP claimed "everyone". "Many" is very much not the same as "everyone".

    You can blame everything on fast food.

    Maybe I can (or maybe you mean "can't"), but I didn't, so its irrelevant either way.

    I pointed to it's continued existence as a major industry as evidence of that the claim "everyone has been eating low fat and low sodium for twenty years now" is false. No blame involved.

    You can blame things on twenty-year-old advice eventually turning out to be incorrect

    You could, but if you want to do so credibly, you'll also produce evidence.

  58. There's no one single diet for every single person by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Your recommendations are fine for a white guy, of mostly western European descent, past puberty but not yet elderly, with no major genetic disabilities.

    But they are extremely inappropriate for an African-Hispanic pregnant woman with a genetic predisposition to phenylketonuria. If she even survived your diet at all, her child could be born brain-damaged.

    The best thing for people who want to live a long time to do is look at your own ancestors and try to figure out which ones lived longest, and why. Asians and Africans will favor different diets than Finns, women will get different results from men, environment and occupation will have effects.

    But don't bother with paleo-schmaleo or whatever the latest fad is, work from actual data that's actually pertinent to your own genome and then validate your hypotheses using your own body. Otherwise you're just another sucker who gets medical advice from strangers with an agenda.

  59. "Salt" is too vague... by ToddInSF · · Score: 1

    The salt that's added to processed foods and that you buy to put on your table isn't much like the "salt" found in nature, which isn't just NaCl; it's a complex of minerals.

    The "salt" added to processed foods has been heated-up several hundred degrees, refined, and fucked with/denatured. Big surprise, it's not good for you and is the cause of disease.

    Yeah, yeah, all sorts of assholes are going to say "it's not the "salt", it's "too much 'salt' "

    And to that I say, bullshit. You put this fake "salt" IN almost EVERYTHING, and then say "ohhh, it's not the salt it's too much salt". Truly idiotic. That's like saying It's not the arsenic, it's TOO MUCH arsenic.

    An adulterated food supply is an adulterated food supply. The sooner we lay the blame where it belongs the sooner we can get back to eating food that is primarily nourishing, as opposed to eating shit that's primarily designed to make a big profit for some bullshit corporation that's appealing to the lowest common denominator.

  60. Eat healthy, exercise, stay fit, die anyway. by ebvwfbw · · Score: 1

    It's inevitable. Now pass me some more cheese twists, potato chips, ice cream and a triple martini!

  61. Re:Mother Nature needs to give us kidneys...oh, wa by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    IM an ATHEIST and I must MENTION THIS at every POSSIBLE opportunity NO MATTER HOW irrelevant.

    BECAUSE IM AN atheist

  62. 2010: time to end the war on salt? by doom · · Score: 1

    But Kuchroo and other researchers say that evidence so far cannot predict the effect of salt on human autoimmunity. âoeAs a physician, Iâ(TM)m very cautious,â Hafler says. âoeShould patients go on a low-salt diet? Yes,â he says, adding that âoepeople should probably already be on a low-salt dietâ for general health concerns.

    Myself I would like to see physicians who are a little more cautious about making health recommendations.

    There's a lot of evidence that salt has been getting a bad rap, e.g. a Scientific American article from 2010 suggests it's time to end the war on salt.

    That's based on attempting to find evidence that reducing salt intake will help avoid heart disease, hypertension, etc. I expect it'll be awhile before we know if this new cellular-level research has any application on the level of human populations.

    But myself I don't see why I should "already" be avoiding salt.