Salt II

Report questions benefits of salt reduction

Earlier I talked about the ‘deadly’ nature of salt (sodium chloride, the stuff that makes food so tastee) but mentioned I was far from convinced that the rather hysterical proclamations were scientifically valid. The above article talks about a report (I didn’t investigate the organization providing the report, perhaps it was commissioned by the salt industry, perhaps not) that says that rather than finding a health benefit from the extremely reduced salt intake, it actually showed a detriment (not that significant either way). Since salt is absolutely required for a healthy organism, it seems to me that if there is no clear _benefit_ then cutting back further is a mistake even if there is no clear harm. We, as a society, should not be asking our members to make dramatic alterations to their behavior unless there is clear and unequivocal benefit (to society) for doing so. Attempting to eliminate drunk driving is one instance where I feel there is use to society, for instance (though the real problem is the damn humans driving the cars; the other half of the road deaths do _not_ have any influence from drinking).

As a biochemist and as someone who sweats a lot and has problems with low electrolytes (if you are cramping a lot you have an electrolyte imbalance (but are not necessarily low on _sodium_)) I long ago disregarded the blather regarding salt intake. Unless you are hypertensive (have high blood pressure) AND have other risk factors for heart disease, I suggest you take this noise about too much salt with a large grain of salt 😉

Author: Tfoui

He who spews forth data that could be construed as information...