Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Tuesday July 26 2016, @10:53PM   Printer-friendly
from the salty-tale dept.

The FDA is asking food makers and eating establishments to voluntarily reduce salt levels in their products to help reduce Americans' high salt intake.

The draft guidelines target these sources of salt with the goal of reducing Americans' average daily salt intake from 3,400 milligrams (mg) a day to 2,300 mg a day.

[...] Currently, 90 percent of American adults consume more salt than recommended, the FDA pointed out.

[...] The public has until the fall to comment on the FDA's voluntary salt guidelines for food manufacturers and restaurants.

The FDA claims that people can always add more salt to their food, which is true, but they ignore that salt changes how food is cooked and adding salt to the surface of food affects taste differently than when it is evenly distributed.

http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=197193

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_effects_of_salt


Original Submission

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by physicsmajor on Tuesday July 26 2016, @11:02PM

    by physicsmajor (1471) on Tuesday July 26 2016, @11:02PM (#380487)

    It's entirely possible to make great food with little of either of these. The trouble is that it either A) spoils much faster, B) must use more or different spicing/flavoring - increasing cost - or C) must be better and more flavorful in the first place.

    Then, let's say you do this. Your competitor uses more salt, their stuff tastes subjectively better, gets better reviews, and you go out of business.

    I could be wrong, but I don't think voluntary reduction is going to cut it. They're going to have to outright ban high fructose corn syrup to get it off the shelves, especially the budget shelves, and again anything short of a mandate isn't likely to change salt usage either.

    • (Score: 5, Informative) by Francis on Tuesday July 26 2016, @11:09PM

      by Francis (5544) on Tuesday July 26 2016, @11:09PM (#380490)

      There's no scientific basis for the limits that the fda is looking for. Anybody who isn't sensitive to sodium with high blood pressure shouldn't be cutting back.

      Low sodium levels are more dangerous than high ones. Listing the sodium contents is more than sufficient to deal with the health impacts of sodium.

      • (Score: 5, Informative) by physicsmajor on Tuesday July 26 2016, @11:23PM

        by physicsmajor (1471) on Tuesday July 26 2016, @11:23PM (#380497)

        I do have to disagree with you here. There's a tremendous amount of literature in nephrology (that's the kidney doctors) pointing directly at sodium for causing and exacerbating hypertension, renal disease, and related conditions. I attended the American Society of Nephrology conference once, and the one thing which stuck with me above all else was how much and how often sodium was mentioned. Maybe not all that research is perfect, but the consensus there and very much in accord.

        It's hard to design truly robust trials for sodium intake, because it's everywhere. Short of putting people in completely controlled environments, you just aren't sure how well they followed your diet. That's part of why we don't have the highest level of evidence for this stuff. However, there is retrospective stuff pointing in the direction of a long, slow degeneration. Eating right all along should be helpful, not just after you get diagnosed with hypertension.

        Both low and high sodium levels can kill you, but those are rare medical conditions which are almost never directly related to diet (save dehydration or perhaps polydipsia). Eat anything close to a regular diet and you'll get plenty of sodium, your body (kidneys mostly) will regulate the rest.

        As for simply listing the sodium contents - we've done that for decades, doesn't seem to be effective.

        • (Score: 5, Informative) by Francis on Tuesday July 26 2016, @11:44PM

          by Francis (5544) on Tuesday July 26 2016, @11:44PM (#380505)

          Did you bother to read my post? There is zero evidence to support the targets being set in the absence of elevated blood pressure. But they're handing out these irresponsible guidelines for everybody. And even in those cases you can't assume that it's excessive sodium when there's a balance that has to be kept between the electrolytes.

          What's more, intake is a shitty way of monitoring it. Some people retain more than others and some folks retain less, barring specific test results showing that a person has excessive sodium it's malpractice to suggest lowering it. I know that when I'm stressed I retain less of it than I normally do.

          People should be given the amount of sodium in their food, but unlike excessive sodium, insufficient sodium kills quickly and with little warning.

          It's both irresponsible and dangerous to make these blanket recommendations based upon questionable science.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 27 2016, @12:40AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 27 2016, @12:40AM (#380533)

            One of the biggest problems with the FDA is that they make blanket recommendations and impose blanket requirements. Or they make it prohibitively expensive to overcome their blanket requirements by requiring a prescription every time you need something or they outright ban something for everyone for no good reason.

            I recently briefly commented about it here regarding red yeast rice and Lovastatin.

            https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20160725/09460835061/internet-things-is-security-privacy-dumpster-fire-check-is-about-to-come-due.shtml#c154 [techdirt.com]

            I think it's a combination of both irresponsibility and corruption. I do not need the government managing my health for me. It's not like they can manage anything else well so why should I believe they can manage my health.

            "If people let the government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny."

            ~Thomas Jefferson

          • (Score: 1) by driven on Wednesday July 27 2016, @06:27AM

            by driven (6295) on Wednesday July 27 2016, @06:27AM (#380619)

            Fact: Too much of any one thing is bad for you. In my opinion, the risk of having too _little_ sodium in your body these days (for the average person) is small and probably means they aren't eating many modern foods. There is a lot of salt in so many things: soup, bread, prepared meat, snack foods, restaurant food, milk and cheese, to name a few.

          • (Score: 2) by frojack on Wednesday July 27 2016, @06:11PM

            by frojack (1554) on Wednesday July 27 2016, @06:11PM (#380819) Journal

            I tend to agree, and by example I point to all the years of constant wall to wall ranting about the cholesterol content in food. Suddenly its all turned around and the cholesterol intake limits are deprecated, and such intake cholesterol was found to never reach the blood stream.

            But while cholesterol was on the FDA shitlist every doctor, health blogger, and Mom was parroting the nonsense, and it was settled science.

            Even with high blood pressure, most people are NOT sensitive to salt. There are a small minority of high blood pressure patients who are, And these are easily spotted.

            --
            No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
        • (Score: -1, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 26 2016, @11:50PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 26 2016, @11:50PM (#380507)

          too much: you are hurting yourself and might ultimately die from related causes

          too little: oops, you suddenly died

          To get quick death via too much salt is not easy. You'd have to be eating bowls of it for breakfast.

          • (Score: 0, Troll) by Ethanol-fueled on Wednesday July 27 2016, @01:09AM

            by Ethanol-fueled (2792) on Wednesday July 27 2016, @01:09AM (#380550) Homepage

            Back in the Air Force during a long march we were made to carry salt packets and mix a little bit with our water during canteen breaks. The reason why is because, before they did that, a trainee had too little sodium and ended up dying as a result of brain swelling.

            As somebody who loooooves salty food (in before cocksuckler nut swallower etc.) it is possible to achieve the same effect using herbs and spices, but as another user pointed out above, it requires a lot more cooking savvy and jacks up the food cost. Fat chicks are good cooks for obvious reasons, so it is difficult to get a low-sodium, well-seasoned meal without boning one.

            I like what V8 juice does with their low-sodium juice - instead of sodium, they use lots of potassium, and it seems people just don't get enough of that nowadays, especially drunks like me who eat more than enough sodium but piss out all their potassium.

            • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday July 27 2016, @03:21AM

              by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Wednesday July 27 2016, @03:21AM (#380595) Journal

              Hey, ordinary-sized women can cook just as well. Okay, so 6' is bigger than "ordinary" but I love to cook, and will spoil my girlfriend rotten (but healthily!) once we're finally moved in together. In fact, good home cooking is how I manage to maintain a healthy weight.

              --
              I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 27 2016, @03:54AM

              by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 27 2016, @03:54AM (#380603)

              Go to a restaurant, check whether the cook is fat, eat or don't.

              Why get the cow for free when you can buy the milk?

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 27 2016, @07:44AM

              by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 27 2016, @07:44AM (#380643)

              Fat chicks are good cooks for obvious reasons, so it is difficult to get a low-sodium, well-seasoned meal without boning one.

              I can understand deboning pork (...mmmm... bacon), but a chicken? Way too much effort.

        • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 27 2016, @12:09AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 27 2016, @12:09AM (#380515)

          As for simply listing the sodium contents - we've done that for decades, doesn't seem to be effective.

          My admittedly anecdotal observation is that it seems food manufacturers have been gradually increasing the amount of sodium in our diets over the last couple of decades. It used to be that a prepared food that had around 20% of the US RDA of sodium per serving was considered wildly excessive. Today, it is hard to find prepared foods with US RDA of sodium below 30%. Many have US RDA of sodium of 40%, or more! Add to this that, now, food manufacturers seem to be finding cute inventive ways to obfuscate how much sodium is in their prepared foods (e.g., stating that each "serving" has 25% of the US RDA of sodium but a single prepared package actually has 2 servings, etc.).

        • (Score: 3, Insightful) by sjames on Wednesday July 27 2016, @03:01AM

          by sjames (2882) on Wednesday July 27 2016, @03:01AM (#380588) Journal

          Yes, and then further research showed that all of that applies only to a small portion of the population. This 'suggestion;' is like banning lactose because some portion of the population shouldn't have it.

          Big surprise, the FDA didn't get the memo.

      • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday July 27 2016, @12:39AM

        by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday July 27 2016, @12:39AM (#380531) Journal

        Alright - so how many people suffer from the consequences of low sodium content? And - how difficult is it to remedy that situation?

        From time to time, I feel the effects of low sodium. Usually, I can grab a Gatorade, drink some of it, and those missing electrolytes are replenished pretty quickly.

        • (Score: 1) by Francis on Wednesday July 27 2016, @08:19PM

          by Francis (5544) on Wednesday July 27 2016, @08:19PM (#380864)

          The point is that there's no point in cutting down on sodium unless you specifically need to. It's definitely not hard to increase your levels once you become aware of it. The problem is that if you're skating by on the recommended amount if there's anything that causes you to sweat more or pee more, you can wind up washing the last bit out of the system without realizing it. And sodium is vitally important for thinking, so you're less likely to properly recognize the problem.

          The more sodium you have in the body, the further you are away from having to worry about deficiency. That's not to say that people should be consuming massive amounts of sodium to avoid getting low, but it is plenty of reason for people to ignore the recommendations if they don't personally have blood pressure problems and excessive levels.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 26 2016, @11:20PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 26 2016, @11:20PM (#380496)

      Physicsmajor, based on your name I suspect you are projecting the methods of physics onto health/nutrition/medical research. These are not "science" in the usual sense. What goes on here is a series of fads while nothing ever really gets figured out. I wouldn't worry too much about any chatter coming from those people.

      • (Score: 4, Insightful) by aristarchus on Tuesday July 26 2016, @11:47PM

        by aristarchus (2645) on Tuesday July 26 2016, @11:47PM (#380506) Journal

        These are not "science" in the usual sense.

        Yes, just Francis making stuff up, and some AC upset that there is no Anthropogenic Global Warming angle to this discussion. Everyone knows that physics has nothing to do with chemistry, and chemistry has nothing to do with organic chemistry, and organic chemistry has nothing to do with nutrition, and nutrition has nothing to do with health. It is all just a vast left wing conspiracy.

        Given the quality of comments on matters of science here on SoylentNews, I expect that soon we will get all our science stories from the Daily Mail, NY Post, Washington Times, Fox News, and Brietbart. Or we will learn all about the Electric universe and Rick Santorum Oil.

        • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 26 2016, @11:53PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 26 2016, @11:53PM (#380511)

          Everyone knows that physics has nothing to do with chemistry, and chemistry has nothing to do with organic chemistry, and organic chemistry has nothing to do with nutrition, and nutrition has nothing to do with health.

          These things are all related, the methods of the researchers are very dissimilar though.

          • (Score: 3, Insightful) by aristarchus on Wednesday July 27 2016, @01:01AM

            by aristarchus (2645) on Wednesday July 27 2016, @01:01AM (#380542) Journal

            Everyone knows that physics has nothing to do with chemistry, and chemistry has nothing to do with organic chemistry, and organic chemistry has nothing to do with nutrition, and nutrition has nothing to do with health.

            These things are all related, the methods of the researchers are very dissimilar though.

            Maybe, maybe not. What is your point, AC? That science is not reliable? That we don't have to listen to those science-type bureaucrats with their "studies" and "facts", because, freedom? That we can believe whatever we want, regardless of what is actually reality? Because reality has a well-known liberal bias, you know.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 27 2016, @01:11AM

              by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 27 2016, @01:11AM (#380552)

              That science is not reliable?

              No, science has proven itself reliable. As I said, the problem with some research is that it's not science (ie rarely is anything replicated, rarely is anything predicted with any kind of precision, etc), so you get fads rather than accumulation of knowledge.

              • (Score: 3, Insightful) by aristarchus on Wednesday July 27 2016, @02:21AM

                by aristarchus (2645) on Wednesday July 27 2016, @02:21AM (#380576) Journal

                As I said, the problem with some research is that it's not science (ie rarely is anything replicated, rarely is anything predicted with any kind of precision, etc), so you get fads rather than accumulation of knowledge.

                Some research? Exactly what research do you refer to? We are talking the FDA, USian Food and Drug Administration, not Paleo Diet or homeopathy. Do you think the FDA operates on the basis of fads?

                I think you need to wave your hands away from such general discounting of nutritional research, and towards some specifics, or you are just blowing smoke or trying to start a fad. Anti-science fad.

                • (Score: 2) by Whoever on Wednesday July 27 2016, @04:55AM

                  by Whoever (4524) on Wednesday July 27 2016, @04:55AM (#380608) Journal

                  I think that the problem has been a lack of science in the recommendations. How many diet recommendations have been shown to be useless when actually subjected to experimentation in the last few decades. Science is good, but it has been seriously lacking when it comes to nutrition.

                  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 27 2016, @09:31PM

                    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 27 2016, @09:31PM (#380898)

                    Science is the PROBLEM. Let the Free Market solve it! It will efficiently find the best nutrition for you and your family, in 233 delicious flavors. Order now and get a free ab rocker(TM).

                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 27 2016, @07:24AM

                  by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 27 2016, @07:24AM (#380635)

                  We are talking the FDA, USian Food and Drug Administration, not Paleo Diet or homeopathy. Do you think the FDA operates on the basis of fads?

                  Argumentum ad verecundiam, magister?

                  Are they really so infallible? (fat bad, sugar good for decades)

                  • (Score: 2) by aristarchus on Wednesday July 27 2016, @07:59AM

                    by aristarchus (2645) on Wednesday July 27 2016, @07:59AM (#380646) Journal

                    Scientific consensus changes with further research. Doesn't mean all research is "different" or that the scientific consensus is a "fad". All I am asking for is specifics, not some kind of vaxxer argument!

                    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 27 2016, @08:31AM

                      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 27 2016, @08:31AM (#380654)

                      Doesn't mean all research is "different" or that the scientific consensus is a "fad".

                      Too bad that scientific consensus of a time may end indistinguishable from as a fad, however amount of honest work is poured in that research - that's inherently linked with the human limitations, can't get around them.

                      And it's also true that some sciences are more prone to quasi-fads, especially those sciences which need to rely mainly on observations rather the experiments (astrophysics, weather, anything that relates with socials).
                      I'll let this [xkcd.com] for you as an exercise in grokking - set aside the humour and feel the reason there's a grain of truth in there

                      (epistemology - by no means a science itself, you already know that, but at least it organizes a bit the view over science).

                • (Score: 1) by kurenai.tsubasa on Wednesday July 27 2016, @02:12PM

                  by kurenai.tsubasa (5227) on Wednesday July 27 2016, @02:12PM (#380737) Journal

                  Do you think the FDA operates on the basis of fads?

                  On these matters, yes, absolutely, emphatically. Fads and probably the corn lobby.

                  Pretty much every diet recommendation out there from Paleo (which region's Paleo???) to Atkins to fat-causes-fat are fads. It's pretty much all cargo cult science. Remember the food pyramid? The closest thing I can find to something resembling science is the research that's gone into showing added sugar may be a big problem. (Of course the people who go on about fructose!!!eleven! corn syrup!!eleven! seem to have troubles both with orgchem. One would find it difficult to find an apple without fructose. And don't even get me started on the gluten crowd—people with celiac disease excluded.)

                  I think you're confusing the more important aspects of the FDA such as vetting drugs with its apparent tendency to want to play mommy and create One Diet to Rule Them All.

                  The FDA clamps down on fat, salt, cholesterol, whatever the “bad” thing in food is this week, and food manufacturers just keep adding sugar to compensate. Then we find out a decade later that “whoops! we goofed! it's actually good for you!” Except the low-fat, no-salt, sugar-loaded crap doesn't come off the shelves, and the FDA is even slower getting the memo.

                  I'm perfectly aware of how science gets done, and being wrong is part of that process. There's nothing wrong with being wrong when we're doing science. We need more than longitudinal studies that too often mix up correlation and causation (it's knee-jerk here for a reason) and meta-analyses before we start calling common components in food “bad.” For longitudinal studies especially, anybody with an agenda can cook up one of those to show whatever the hell they wanted to show. I'm sure I could show bacon++ having great health benefits if Soylent would like to find my research!

                  I don't even like salty foods, but my body doesn't retain sodium well, especially when it gets hot and humid enough that I can't move without being drenched in sweat. So I end up drinking Gatorade (it's got 'lectrolytes, apparently what my body craves). That's the advice they gave me when they released me from the hospital after I'd been there for 5 days with low sodium.

                  I'm sure I'd be singing a different tune if they'd told me, oh, you have $some_rare_condition, but they didn't.

                  Now I'm not (that) unreasonable. If we get single payer healthcare, I'll go back to being a good little girl and avoiding salt, as long as they're able to keep giving me a private room whenever I need a saline drip for a few days. …and put me farther away from that guy who showed up at 6 and yelled at his grandmother for 3 hours every day… could do without that. It's kind of relaxing, not having a care in the world for a few days…. If I'm paying, I'd rather go on a month-long luxury cruise for the same price.

                  Really, the best thing that the FDA could do if it wanted to promote a healthy diet would be to convince people to or help people learn how to cook their own food again. It really all starts with a well-equipped (this can be done well enough on the cheap too, nothing fancy needed), organized, and clean kitchen.

                  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 27 2016, @10:35PM

                    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 27 2016, @10:35PM (#380923)

                    I'm sure I could show bacon++ having great health benefits if Soylent would like to find my research!

                    By all means, find it already.

          • (Score: 2) by captain normal on Wednesday July 27 2016, @03:41AM

            by captain normal (2205) on Wednesday July 27 2016, @03:41AM (#380601)

            Whoosh...

            --
            When life isn't going right, go left.
        • (Score: 4, Informative) by Francis on Wednesday July 27 2016, @12:47AM

          by Francis (5544) on Wednesday July 27 2016, @12:47AM (#380538)

          Not really. I've had hyponatremia and it's a life threatening condition. I don't go out of my way to consume sodium, so during a great wave I washed and sweated what little sodium I had out of my body.

          Even physicsmajor conceded the point that the damage isn't the sodium, it's the blood pressure. As in, sodium doesn't harm people that don't have elevated blood pressure. The traditional explanation for watching sodium levels is that it causes high bloodpressure.

          And if you're not looking at your electrolyte levels you might Not have enough sodium to safely reduce. Competent doctors would check the levels as increased potassium it's sometimes the correct choice rather than decreasing sodium.

          But yes, clearly I'm making this up because the doctors have a great track record inn dietary advise.

          • (Score: 4, Touché) by aristarchus on Wednesday July 27 2016, @01:04AM

            by aristarchus (2645) on Wednesday July 27 2016, @01:04AM (#380546) Journal

            See? Not that hard to give some background, evidence, and an argument for a position. Well done, Francis.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 27 2016, @07:28AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 27 2016, @07:28AM (#380637)

            The traditional explanation for watching sodium levels is that it causes high bloodpressure.

            Great! I know! I'll stop watching sodium levels, watching them increases blood pressure.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 27 2016, @07:34PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 27 2016, @07:34PM (#380848)

            Even physicsmajor conceded the point that the damage isn't the sodium, it's the blood pressure.

            Just like falling out of an airplane without a parachute. It isn't the fall that kills you, it's the landing.

            • (Score: 1) by Francis on Wednesday July 27 2016, @08:30PM

              by Francis (5544) on Wednesday July 27 2016, @08:30PM (#380874)

              That's not even remotely analogous.

              The point I was making is that if you haven't got elevated blood pressure or other medical conditions then there's really no upside to reducing the sodium intake as you're probably getting the correct amount. The recommendations make no allowances for the time of the year, your physical activity level, how much you piss out or sweat out and your kidneys' tendency to retain or let it through.

              As such it's an irresponsible recommendation. It also fails to account for the physical size of the person eating the salt. A 100# woman is going to require less sodium in her diet than a 250# football player would.

    • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 26 2016, @11:30PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 26 2016, @11:30PM (#380499)

      You may not be aware of this but salt is an acquired [jamanetwork.com] taste. [wikipedia.org] We develop the taste for salt by being exposed to it. You may also be surprised to learn that it can also be "unacquired". If food manufacturers were to gradually reduce the amount of salt they put into their prepared foods (e.g., cutting the amount of sodium in their prepared foods by a few percent each year over a ten year period), they could significantly cut the amount of sodium in the diet of the population at large and most would not even notice the difference. Unfortunately, most food manufacturers seem to only be interested in short term gain, so I think you are right that voluntary reduction is not going to cut it. They will probably have to forced to do this by imposing regulations. There will inevitably be a lot of wailing and screaming about "big nanny government". The cycle of rage will begin yet again. Hmmmm.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 27 2016, @01:06AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 27 2016, @01:06AM (#380549)

        We (60-ish couple) cook most of our meals from fresh ingredients. Yes it takes some time, but we enjoy the process. For ingredients like canned tomatoes or chicken stock we usually manage to find no/low added salt brands. Our food tastes great (to us) using a variety of other spicy flavors. Sometimes a little added salt is a treat, but it doesn't take much.

        Eating out, it's common to feel that the food has been over salted...often requiring several glasses of water to go with dinner.

        Why do we bother? Years ago I noticed that my blood pressure was going up. I was going through a medium bag of some salty chips every few days--cut them out and my blood pressure dropped 10+ points in a week or two. Obviously I'm one of the sensitive ones.

        • (Score: 2) by captain normal on Wednesday July 27 2016, @04:07AM

          by captain normal (2205) on Wednesday July 27 2016, @04:07AM (#380604)

          Actually you can lower your blood pressure by 20~30 points by meditating a few minutes. If you drive on a freeway to get to your doctors office, you can suddenly be pre-hypertensive.
          We do need a certain amount of salt to stay healthy. If you work or do heavy exercise on a hot day, you sweat out a lot of salt. then you need the salt pills they give you in boot camp and high school football workouts. If you sit on your arse in an office or hacking code, you don't sweat out very much salt. So if you eat a lot of prepared foods with lots of salt you get too much. And you probably wind up hypertensive.

          --
          When life isn't going right, go left.
    • (Score: 2) by jdavidb on Wednesday July 27 2016, @03:00PM

      by jdavidb (5690) on Wednesday July 27 2016, @03:00PM (#380764) Homepage Journal

      They're going to have to outright ban high fructose corn syrup to get it off the shelves

      Or, in a pinch, they could stop "protecting" the American sugar industry (at the expense of everybody else) with the sugar tariff!

      Not sure that'll achieve what you're looking for, though.

      --
      ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
  • (Score: 2) by Hartree on Tuesday July 26 2016, @11:06PM

    by Hartree (195) on Tuesday July 26 2016, @11:06PM (#380489)

    In those people whose genetic makeup means they are blood pressure sensitive to salt or who have other health problems linked to sodium it makes sense to control it.

    I'm not convinced that it's that well correlated with better health in the general population. But we go through fads where substance X needs to be massively reduced to make us all healthy only to find out it's not that big a deal. Tropical oils in the 1980s is one example.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 27 2016, @12:15AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 27 2016, @12:15AM (#380520)

      As long as you have enough corresponding water with the salt the water will just wash the salt out of your body. It's basic physics (concentration gradients).

      I like to drink deionized water. It tastes better and it does a better job extracting toxins and waste materials out of the body (again, physics). The food I eat (and a touch of multivitamins) provides my body with the nutrients (reactants) it needs. My body knows how to selectively extract, store, and use what it needs. Deionized water most strongly pulls waste material (products) out of my body (again, physics) that my body no longer needs and wishes to keep.

  • (Score: 5, Informative) by takyon on Tuesday July 26 2016, @11:14PM

    by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Tuesday July 26 2016, @11:14PM (#380491) Journal
    • (Score: 2) by linkdude64 on Wednesday July 27 2016, @02:53AM

      by linkdude64 (5482) on Wednesday July 27 2016, @02:53AM (#380585)

      The real question here is:

      Do food companies, or the parent companies of major food companies, pay for advertisements on those websites?

      • (Score: 2) by bzipitidoo on Wednesday July 27 2016, @05:55AM

        by bzipitidoo (4388) on Wednesday July 27 2016, @05:55AM (#380614) Journal

        Oh, someone somewhere is profiting. Western medicine is very good, but you have to take it with huge grains of salt (fell into that pun, :p). Their first priority is profit, not public health.

        Big Pharma likes selling blood pressure meds to everyone over the age of 50, and would like to "grow" that to everyone over 40. They aren't above subtly encouraging excessive salt consumption if that sells more blood pressure meds.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 26 2016, @11:18PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 26 2016, @11:18PM (#380495)

    We got gob loads of Asians, Latinos, Carribeans, Italians, Greeks, Turks, Levantines, Ethiopians, Spaniards who season and spice the food so that we don't have to salt the crap out of them.

    Don't tell them to use less salt. Tell them to make it more tasty.

    NOTE: Ok, I give. I've been to China and Italy, and their food is just as, if not more, salty, as American's. Go figure.

    • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 27 2016, @07:34AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 27 2016, @07:34AM (#380639)

      NOTE: Ok, I give. I've been to China and Italy, and their food is just as, if not more, salty, as American's. Go figure.

      I, cunt, like, figure. To many comas, buddy.

    • (Score: 2) by Kromagv0 on Wednesday July 27 2016, @12:31PM

      by Kromagv0 (1825) on Wednesday July 27 2016, @12:31PM (#380707) Homepage

      As I explained it to my 7 year old one day when he was salting his food:
        You shouldn't be able to taste the salt. Salt when used properly enhances and brings out the flavor in food and it doesn't take much to accomplish that.

      --
      T-Shirts and bumper stickers [zazzle.com] to offend someone
  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Snotnose on Tuesday July 26 2016, @11:33PM

    by Snotnose (1623) on Tuesday July 26 2016, @11:33PM (#380501)

    I can't eat things like canned soup or TV dinners because they're way too salty. Some restaurants that get rave reviews I find too salty.

    I watch the dump and stir shows on Food network (and Cook TV reruns), when they say "now add some salt" they show about 3x what I add.

    I also tend to omit sugar, or at least cut it way down when I follow a recipe.

    IMHO, Americans have gotten used to way too much salt and sugar (and probably fat). If we went back to cooking for ourselves our health would be better within 10 years.

    Fun fact: Mom died 3 years ago. She was heavy all her life. Picking out photos for the funeral I noticed for all of her life she was thinner than the average woman I see walking down the street today.

    --
    Why shouldn't we judge a book by it's cover? It's got the author, title, and a summary of what the book's about.
    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday July 27 2016, @12:03AM

      by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday July 27 2016, @12:03AM (#380513) Journal

      "If we went back to cooking for ourselves our health would be better within 10 years."

      More like, within a few months. If a 50% reduction in salt were mandated, nationwide, in all food service industries, I suspect that the medical profession would see an impact within 6 months. Those people who already have serious blood pressure problems would be having their dosage reduced. Fewer people would be diagnosed with high blood pressure.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 27 2016, @12:41AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 27 2016, @12:41AM (#380534)

        sugar = fat
        salt = water retention

        Look I love me some salt. My family jokes I can eat a salt shaker and not blink. My blood pressure is typically low. Mostly political junk gets it going. :)

        Now given that. It is terribly easy to go overboard with salt. Some things actually need salt to cook correctly. If you use chocolate in anything there better be a bit of salt in there or it just will not setup correctly and probably more than you would think is needed. Butter is another one that is terribly maligned. Even though I love salt I buy non-salted butter. Why? Because the salt actually changes the butter into holding more water and blanches out the taste of the butter. I only learned this recently and think that is what is ruining some of the things I have been trying to cook.

        The one that ticks me off is sugar. That sucker has 20 different names to 'hide' from consumers. There is a reason for that. The biggest ones they like to use sugar is either apple or pear juice. It can then be called 'natural'. As it is pretty sweet has a nice flavor and blends in nicely with just about anything else. It is amazing how many things out there have sugar in it.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 27 2016, @12:43PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 27 2016, @12:43PM (#380712)

          The one that ticks me off is sugar. That sucker has 20 different names to 'hide' from consumers.

          Partly as sugar is a family of molecules: sucrose, glucose, fructose, dextrose, etc.

        • (Score: 2) by butthurt on Thursday July 28 2016, @05:01AM

          by butthurt (6141) on Thursday July 28 2016, @05:01AM (#381053) Journal

          Salt added to butter acts as a preservative, and when the butter does spoil, salt may hide the off taste.

  • (Score: 2) by Snotnose on Tuesday July 26 2016, @11:43PM

    by Snotnose (1623) on Tuesday July 26 2016, @11:43PM (#380504)

    Herbs and spices. Cumin, cardamom, allspice, oregano, basil, cayenne, etc. Learn to use them. Salt, fat, and sugar excite your taste buds. Spices can do the same thing without the salt, fat, and sugar.

    Wanted to add this to my post about my mom but I can't edit submitted posts.

    My weaknesses now are pasta and bread. And sitting on my ass with a keyboard or PS3 controller in my hand for 15 of my 16 waking hours per day.

    --
    Why shouldn't we judge a book by it's cover? It's got the author, title, and a summary of what the book's about.
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 27 2016, @08:35AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 27 2016, @08:35AM (#380656)

      to lower salt, fat, and sugar

      You forgot the proteins, you git! Must lower them too!!

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 27 2016, @10:15AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 27 2016, @10:15AM (#380677)

        High protein foods actually reduce your feeling of hunger and help reduce overconsumption.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 27 2016, @12:38AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 27 2016, @12:38AM (#380530)

    Because I'll just continue to pour salt on all my food anyway. I've even put salt in my beer, it takes the bitterness out.

    • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 27 2016, @12:42AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 27 2016, @12:42AM (#380535)

      And I'll continue to pour my little white tadpole friends directly into your raw hole. Together, we may well be able to make the legendary, the fabled, the elusive, feces soup!

  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Wednesday July 27 2016, @01:02AM

    by MichaelDavidCrawford (2339) Subscriber Badge <mdcrawford@gmail.com> on Wednesday July 27 2016, @01:02AM (#380544) Homepage Journal

    Grandpa Crawford really had a hard time when he got the doctor's orders to adopt a no-sodium diet.

    I was in high school then, I figured I'd be better off kicking salt when I was young rather than on death's door in my golden years.

    It's true that food is really unappealing at first. But the reason we salt our food is that we salt our food. That is, if you don't salt your food at all, after a month or so it mostly tastes the same as if you salted it.

    I no longer have a no-salt diet, but I never salt my food at the table. There are very few foods that I salt during cooking. What salt I consume is mostly from hot sauce.

    --
    Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 27 2016, @07:39AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 27 2016, @07:39AM (#380640)

      What salt I consume is mostly from hot sauce.

      It's the other way around with me.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 27 2016, @03:16PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 27 2016, @03:16PM (#380770)

        What hot sauce you consume is mostly from salt???????

  • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 27 2016, @01:23AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 27 2016, @01:23AM (#380557)

    I like salt. It is good for me.

    If I don't have it, then in my regular day (manual labour) I tend to suffer cramps, dizziness or outright faint.

    Anyone telling me to reduce salt (my blood pressure is fine, thanks) had better come up with positively stellar evidence for that recommendation, and not just a blanket recommendation for all the people in the world.

    • (Score: 2) by jcross on Wednesday July 27 2016, @06:48PM

      by jcross (4009) on Wednesday July 27 2016, @06:48PM (#380830)

      Absolutely. I've long noticed that my taste for salt increases the more I've been sweating. Beware of dietary advice calibrated for people who get very little physical activity and spend most of their time in climate-controlled environments. It's absolutely ridiculous to assume one diet would be appropriate to all people in all conditions, but this is a tacit assumption of the vast majority of today's health and diet research.

      For example, the traditional Japanese diet includes a huge amount of salt, and although people who've eaten it all their lives are on average comparatively long-lived and healthy, you rarely see this mentioned. Inuit people used to eat almost entirely meat and fat and were quite healthy, and lest you think it's genetics several non-Inuit researchers have tried it for months with good results. Supposedly carbs will make you fat and kill you, but huge numbers of pasta-eating Italians are (or at least were) skinny and healthy. Looking at the effects of food as represented by official nutrition stats and ingredient list is narrow-minded. At the very least we need to be including genetics, the microbiome, lifestyle, mental health, and contaminants in the equation. Sure, it makes the science way harder, but that's the price of finding the truth!

  • (Score: 3, Informative) by meustrus on Wednesday July 27 2016, @12:36PM

    by meustrus (4961) on Wednesday July 27 2016, @12:36PM (#380708)

    adding salt to the surface of food affects taste differently than when it is evenly distributed.

    Yeah. It tastes better when it's on the surface. Salt is a good flavor and I hate it when something has tons of it that you can't taste because it is "evenly distributed". If you took 1/8 of the salt that goes into most foods now and put it all on the surface, leaving maybe another 1/8 in the rest as a preservative, it would be healthier AND taste more pleasantly salty.

    --
    If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 27 2016, @03:23PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 27 2016, @03:23PM (#380774)

      Taste is up to personal preference and salt is often used to enhance other flavors, reduce bitterness, retain moisture, alter cooking properties (of protein) and it does these things best when it is evenly distributed. Certain food act very differently if you don't just salt the outside such as making bread, cakes, and pastries, brining turkey, making chocolate desserts, cooking fresh pasta, etc.

      I don't have a reference, but Christopher Kimball from America's Test Kitchen and Cooks Illustrated often mentions a study that demonstrated that people add a larger total amount of salt when they salt food at the end of cooking vs. cooking with the salt.

      • (Score: 2) by meustrus on Thursday July 28 2016, @09:29PM

        by meustrus (4961) on Thursday July 28 2016, @09:29PM (#381337)

        That's about cooking with salt though, not about pre-processed foods. Most healthy eating recommendations simply don't apply if you're actually cooking your own food. This applies to restaurants too; think franchise restaurants like McDonald's, Olive Garden, and others that almost always just heat up (via microwave, baking, or frying) pre-packaged meals shipped from the parent company's distribution system.

        --
        If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 29 2016, @08:22PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 29 2016, @08:22PM (#381709)

          You're probably right about non-franchise restaurants not using as much salt in most cases (obviously, it would be dish and restaurant specific).

          The main point that I was making was that the FDA is a safety organization and does not prioritize the culinary aspect of their recommendations (although I'm happy they lowered their recommended pork-cooking temperatures).

  • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday July 27 2016, @04:47PM

    by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Wednesday July 27 2016, @04:47PM (#380795) Journal

    There's no one "magic bullet" in diet, and most of the faddish diets I've seen reflect peoples' naive and somewhat lazy insistence that there is one, if only they could find it.

    Sodium, potassium, calcium, and magnesium are all engaged in a complex dance with one another, not to mention hundreds and hundreds of individual systems in the body; magnesium, for example, i'm told is important in several hundred enzymatic processes alone. Sodium and potassium in balance are necessary for nerve function ("sodium-potassium pump") which is why hypo{kalaemia,natraemia} is so damn dangerous. Calcium itself is only part of the bone health story; without proper magnesium to "gate guard" it, vitamin D to release it, and vitamin K to keep it in the bones where it belongs, all calcium supplementation does is silt up your arteries that much faster, one reason Warfarin is so damn dangerous.

    The American diet is massively deficient in potassium and magnesium; personally, having solved problems in a couple of weeks with Mg citrate tabs that a decade of actual doctor drugs couldn't fix, I suspect the RDA for Mg is three or four times too low. The soil seems to be depleted too; something seems "hollow" about the veg and fruits we're eating. K supplements, for some reason, are about 3% of the RDA each; it's cheaper to eat bananas, sweet potatoes, or especially spinach. Then there's zinc, which has *also* been helpful for me despite it being seen as more of a man's nutrient than a woman's.

    So at this point all I can think is that the soil is too depleted to deliver most minerals properly, and that a smart consumer will get citrates or lactates of alkaline-earth and alkali metals if diet isn't doing it.

    --
    I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 27 2016, @05:54PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 27 2016, @05:54PM (#380813)

      Calcium itself is only part of the bone health story

      That is not the only function of calcium in human cells.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calcium_signaling [wikipedia.org]

      • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday July 27 2016, @06:10PM

        by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Wednesday July 27 2016, @06:10PM (#380817) Journal

        Maybe I should have phrased that as "when it comes to bone health calcium is only part of the story." I realize that phrasing is ambiguous now. Isn't English a wonderful language? Xp

        --
        I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
    • (Score: 1) by Francis on Wednesday July 27 2016, @08:35PM

      by Francis (5544) on Wednesday July 27 2016, @08:35PM (#380877)

      This is why they should be doing labs prior to prescribing blood pressure medication. Giving somebody a pill that causes them to excrete sodium can be fatal if they're already in the low range and giving somebody a pill to increase potassium levels could result in serious problems if their kidneys aren't working well.

      Ultimately, they should stop issuing recommendations other than to keep everything in moderation except in instances where they have at least a proposed mechanism that they're addressing.

      • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday July 27 2016, @08:48PM

        by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Wednesday July 27 2016, @08:48PM (#380883) Journal

        Ye gods, yes. Giving people with hypertension a diuretic, especially one that doesn't spare potassium, is madness...especially if supplements for Mg and K aren't given at the same time. Electrolyte imbalance does damage to the nerves and vessel walls; lack of Mg exacerbates atherosclerosis due to its moderating effect on Ca, and throwing the Na/K balance out of whack is asking for an early death.

        The particular combination of statins, diuretics, angiotensin-conversion inhibitors, and and beta blockers is one of the worst cocktails I have ever seen. Beta blockers are no good as a first-line defense for high blood pressure, the diuretics make you piss your electrolytes out, statins deplete ubiquinol (CoQ10) and are rumored to cause muscle damage including cardiac, and on and on and on.

        As it is, "decrease plasma volume" and "block beta-adrenergic receptors" are textbook cases of treating the symptoms, not the problem. They should be done, but only as part of a serious therapeutic regimen aimed at fixing the underlying issues. The cynical part of me (i.e., all of me) suspects the pharmaceutical companies would rather have customers for life than actually cure the underlying pathology :(

        --
        I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 28 2016, @03:09AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 28 2016, @03:09AM (#381025)

          pharmaceutical companies would rather have customers for life than actually cure the underlying pathology :(

          You're wrong.

          Pharma cares about money and any company that could produce a cure for hypertension would become so fucking rich that they wouldn't even know what to do with the money. They would own the market and have a very steady supply of patients.

          • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday July 28 2016, @03:23AM

            by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Thursday July 28 2016, @03:23AM (#381030) Journal

            I see people say this a lot, but I don't think reality would bear it out. Sure, they'd be rich...for a few quarters. Then no one would need their wonder drug any longer. What then, ese?

            --
            I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 28 2016, @11:06AM

              by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 28 2016, @11:06AM (#381129)

              Sure, they'd be rich...for a few quarters.

              You expect that a company would sit on a cure so that they could continue making a small fraction of the profit while competing with many other companies?

              This would require the company to be 100% sure no other company would beat them to market, hide the results of their clinical trial data, convince all of their employees that their family members and friends do not need the drug, and not value short-term profit and fame.

              Heart disease is the leading cause of death in the world (and, importantly, that is also true for rich countries), so it is the largest market and new people are being made all the time.

              The most likely course would start like the HCV cure: charge as much as the market will bear and negotiate generic licenses so people don't take over your manufacturing facilities or violate IP laws.

              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sofosbuvir [wikipedia.org]