Scant Evidence That Salt Raises Blood Pressure;
in 2011, the Cochrane Review published two studies finding little or no relationship with all-cause mortality and salt reduction. The Lancet criticized both the Cochrane Library and the authors, saying, “They have seriously misled the press and thereby the public.”
One of those reviews had concluded that “after more than 150 randomized controlled trials and 13 population studies without an obvious signal in favor of sodium reduction, another position could be to accept that such a signal may not exist.”
Bayer and colleagues cited several studies that could not find a link between salt intake and elevated blood pressure, including a 1967 study of the Framingham cohort, and Japanese and Scottish reports in the 1980s totalling 15,000 people that concluded the association between sodium and blood pressure is “extremely weak.”
The researchers noted that most of the evidence pointed to the weakest of correlations between salt and blood pressure. Yet, the cause to reduce salt was taken up by government agencies with special speed.
[…]
Advocates for salt reduction questioned the science behind studies that didn’t conform to their opinion, and proponents partially blamed the food industry because it was in their best interest to muddy the waters and keep the debate going.
It’s the new “scientific method”.
h/t Huck
Is there no aspect of human life activity that has not been politicized to push an agenda?
CYA
obfuscate
“refudiate” h/t s. palin
i catch hell from chef-student daughter for not ‘seasoning’ (read salt) any dish prior to serving.
I was diagnosed with high blood pressure about 15 years ago. Thanks to medications, it is well under control. At that time I asked my doctor about salt intake. She told me not to worry about it. It has no real effect on blood pressure unless you ingest pounds of it on a daily basis.If that is the case, she said I’d have more important things to concern myself with than blood pressure.
Like the newly elected president of the United States, everything our nanny-state nutritionists say seems to come with an expiry date.
The scientific studies I’ve seen all pinpoint genetics (over weight and vascular plaque) and mineral deficiency for high blood pressue. Salt is eliminated from the body within hours leaving no long term health effect. Iodized slat leaves even faster.
The only place one sees salt cited as a major cause of high blood pressure is in a profusion of industry funded junk science news releases which the AMA rubber stamps. Crass, agenda chasing politicos then use this to justify expanding the state into your grocery bag and dining room.
The following link to Gary Taubes article on salt published in the NY Times gives a factual reflection on the salt debate that supports the premise of this post.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/03/opinion/sunday/we-only-think-we-know-the-truth-about-salt.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
Finland mandated a partial replacement of dietary sodium with potassium. The result was a reduction of strokes by 60%. More than any drug has ever been demonstrated to reduce strokes.
It’s not so much the salt, it’s the sodium to potassium ratio.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=78NAZ9IaKCk
Old scientific method:
1 – Theory
2 – Experiment
3 – Check results of 2 vs. 1
– If they match, publish theory
– if they don’t match, revise theory, repeat 2, 3
New scientific method:
1 – Theory
2 – Experiment
3 – Check results of 2 vs. 1
– If they match, publish theory
– If they don’t match, cherry pick data, hide offending results, refuse to publish your methods, just your conclusions, create a media scare with help of alarmist MSM, and disparage any contrary findings as being ‘deniers’, ‘in the pockets of big (oil, pharma, food, banks, etc.)’, ‘uneducated’, ‘charlatans’.
4 – Lather, rinse, repeat
If there is a genetic link to salt intake & elevated blood pressure, do a simple test on yourself, and don’t rely on the “publish or parish” experts. Determine your average BP over a few days prior to ingesting a high dose of salt. Then repeat the BP measurements and see if there is a difference. Apply basic scientific methods (control the variables, etc.) and repeat the “experiment”. You will have your answer.
Oh science. You so stupid! Why you not smart like rightwing blog lady who paint dogs on motorcycle gas tanks?
John is off his meds again.
Always something. Coffee was bad, then coffee was good. Butter,eggs, alcohol, peanut butter, sugar, pop, meat, white bread and on and on bad. Salt is just another in a long line of evils that the health nuts want to eliminate . It’s at the point where if you enjoy it…it must be bad and every idiotic cause has its champions.
http://www.health-report.co.uk/sodium_chloride_salt_myths1.html
@Celina,
You missed my point of my little jab. This whole “sound of settle science” thing misses the point entirely. Science is constantly correcting itself. That’s what it does. It does not flip flop. This is not a weakness, but its strength.
The rightwing wants simple, black and white answers to everything. They fail completely to take note that science is constantly updating itself. This is a good thing.
That said… we have significant evidence to be concerned that dumping gigatonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere year after year is probably a bad thing.
So don’t go thinking that we shouldn’t act on the information we have just because it might not be perfect.
There is a reason why 95% of scientists are liberals. It’s because they can see complexity in the world, whereas the extreme right cannot.
@Celina,
You missed my point of my little jab. This whole “sound of settle science” thing misses the point entirely. Science is constantly correcting itself. That’s what it does. It does not flip flop. This is not a weakness, but its strength.
The rightwing wants simple, black and white answers to everything. They fail completely to take note that science is constantly updating itself. This is a good thing.
That said… we have significant evidence to be concerned that dumping gigatonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere year after year is probably a bad thing.
So don’t go thinking that we shouldn’t act on the information we have just because it might not be perfect.
There is a reason why 95% of scientists are liberals. It’s because they can see complexity in the world, whereas the extreme right cannot.
John – science is constantly correcting itself but salt has never been shown to cause a significant increase in blood pressure.
The right wing wants things black and white? Not sure about that. Perhaps they prefer the truth to falsehood.
All the CO2 that we are putting into the air came out of the air. When the carbon was sequestered there is no reason to believe that the climate was especially inhospitable.
I highly doubt that 95% of the scientists in the hard sciences are liberal. I suspect their politics has more to do with sucking grants out of government and doomsday scenarios seem to suck the most.
@ John at December 6, 2012 1:03 PM
When you consider normal unbrainwashed people the “extreme” right you might have problem. You are wrong on every point but brainwashing is so very hard to undo. Bet you are a big fan of Obama too. Lastly pumping a lot more CO2 , a .038% (Creeping up to .039%) trace gas essential for life into the atmosphere is not a bad thing at all. Yes…math is hard but give it your best shot. Ignore the fact it has been much higher in the past. After all, the liberal scientists did. At least your statement that “science does not flip flop” shows you have a sense of humor.
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
I work with scientists from many companies every day, as a consultant. To the extent that I can read their politics by conversation, most lean conservative. Not surprising since science is by nature a conservative discipline. Regarding climate change research, I have spent time with firms involved in both renewables related projects, and oil and gas projects. The beliefs of the engineers and scientists involved tend to match whoever they send the invoice to.
@john if its settled its probably not science. Why don’t you produce empirical data supporting the conjecture that manmade CO2 causes the planet to warm?
This is the holly grail of climatology and after over 20 yrs of bleating the CAGW faithful still cannot produce science to support this faith. Whats up with that? IPCC has not done it, Environment Canada hasn’t done it. If Team global warming had it, it would be all over the medias.
Which brings me to my cynical point, belief is not science, opinion of a scientist has little value unless supported via the scientific method. The media and their tabloid food and drug scares are a joke.
And correlation is not causation, otherwise people like john would now be claiming that CO2 emissions cause cooling as that is the latest correlation with the Met offices estimation of global temperatures.
I notice all kinds of govt regulations that make claims of certainty well in excess of the IPCC-FAR yet they say they defer to the findings of the IPCC, when asked to produce the science upon which the policy is based. This is unheard of in a rational society.
I can only conclude that no one, who is paid to help society avoid falling prey to hysterical panic, is doing their job.(science&policy advisors)
Jim Prentise as minister of the Environment, or a minion in his name, stated that Environment canada defers to the findings of the IPCC,would not answer as to who in govt, did due diligence and checked the claims out. Then along comes climate gate and Steve McIntyre, our govt agencies are either stupid or complicit.
I repeat, your opinion of your government and its minions will never be higher than it is today.
B-I-N-G-O
Greg at December 6, 2012 2:12 PM
wins the shiny pony.
The “market”, left alone makes ‘fossil fuels’ (coal, petros, etc) efficient in $ terms.
It’s only when policy makers (Gov’t, UN, et al) skew the market with taxes/subsidies that upsets the apple cart.
John – I’m a scientist who is in the hard sciences and also very conservative politically. I disagree with you and would actually say that liberals look at everyone and thing as black and white. As to ouc climate, CO2 levels are actually quite low compared to almost all periods in our earth’s history such as the Cambrian etc. There is also no correlation between the levels of CO2 and atmospheric temperature. Most of these theories come out of the anti-human movement, David Suzuki was one of the leaders who believe that we are parasites on this planet and as such less of us is needed. I am actually in the field that he studied a long time ago. As to salt, if you have ever studied animals such as hares, cattle etc. they are constantly looking for sources of salt. You will see them eating gravel etc. to acquire these minerals for the many tranport systems in our cells that use sodium and in some cases potassium to function.
“Why don’t you produce empirical data supporting the conjecture that manmade CO2 causes the planet to warm?”
Yeah, sure. Lemme just grab that.
Dude. Every single major scientific body concurs that climate change is happening, and humans are a major factor in causing it. Full stop. This is not open for debate.
Are they right? Probably. Right enough to say “hey goof, turn out the gawdamn lights and don’t burn as much gas”. And: “hey governments… get your poop together in terms of policy and stop listening to the people who will defend the rights of their businesses to polute even if it means poisoning their own kids.”
Yup…totally brainwashed.
At least john is in good company.
http://www.lowerwolfjaw.com/agw/quotes.htm
http://quixoteslaststand.com/2012/03/16/some-lighthearted-reading-for-the-weekend-earth-day-predictions-of-1970-2/
Whenever someone addresses someone as “Dude”, I stop reading the crap that will surely follow.
I suspect that John is one of those opinionated authorities….”who fears the fire that lives in ther walls….” and cannot wire a lamp….
You need to go here, John. Read a bit and look at the pretty pictures: http://www.jpattitude.com/IceCore/graph1.htm
From another scientist.
I’ve always been suspicious of the salt/hypertension link and in my current practice I find that salt deficiency is far more common than salt-sensitive conditions.
One place where salt limitation has a place is in congestive heart failure. For the person with a normal heart and kidneys, salt excess is of little consequence.
Every summer I find myself dealing with elderly patients who are tired, feel dizzy on standing and sure enough when I check their blood pressure it’s far lower than usual. When I ask them if they’ve upped their salt intake to keep up with their sweat induced salt loss, I usually get the answer: “Doc, I’ve been told that salt is bad for you”. Interesting how a mass propaganda campaign can take an essential mineral and vilify it.
Back in the pre-scientific days a few thousand years ago, people were quite aware of the essential nature of salt and “salary” comes from “salerium” which was sea salt used to pay people for their work. If you don’t have enough sodium in your body, you die.
European populations have another quirk, 5% of the population has a defective chloride channel that makes for greatly increased sweat salt loss. People with two copies of the gene coding for this chloride channel have cystic fibrosis. Heterozygotic individuals need far more salt in a hot environment that people who don’t have this gene. Studies of NFL players exercising in the SE US during the summer have shown absolutely massive salt losses in some players during an intense 2 hour workout in the heat and humidity. Some players need 30 gm of salt/day to replace those losses and sweat analysis on players has been done to provide individualized mineral replacement solutions.
That said, I find most processed food to be far too salty during the winter. In the summer I develop extreme salt cravings after a hard workout. I suspect that the medical consequences of vilifying salt are far worse than just letting people consume salt ad-libitum. There’s nothing benign about an 80 year old falling and breaking a hip because to salt deficiency induced hypotension. That’s one of the consequences of the anti-salt propaganda campaign.
As long as I can remember, I craved salt and disliked sugar. I would wet my finger and dip it in salt, then lick it off. I’m 52 now, and have below average blood pressure. And, no kidding, I’m eating saltine crackers as I write this.
Salt is one of the few things these days that really isn’t bad for you, and for most people it’s their only source of iodine. No iodine = bad stuff. My mother was born in post-WWII east germany with little to no iodine intake, as people can already guess she has a bunch of medical problems relating to that.
I don’t believe any “studies” that come out now. I truly believe that they are all funded by the World Health Organization which is an arm of the UN. All science from that organization has a political agenda. The agenda is, they want every human on th eplanet to be able to survive on a bowl of rice and beans. Anything outside of that is to be considered bad – meat, fat, grains, corn, sugar, coffee, tea and alcohol.