A fair question.
Very low lots-of-things kills people.
1 Like
Like lack of knowledge
I dunno, TāIāve made a few points you seem to have ducked. To recap:
And:
Care to comment, or going to keep bobbing-and-weaving?
1 Like
Go research the topic instead of ducking and weaving.
Tell us more about the AJM study that had an astonishing 78M subjects.
"dunno, TāIāve made a few points you seem to have ducked. "
You talked about consensus opinion. Didnāt see any facts.
If you disagree with the data go contact the people that collected it.
Itās not my fault you canāt accept the data.
Go email them and ask. Or you just trolling now? Looks like it.
What you call āfactsā are in actuality the consensus opinion of the relevant scientific community.
You think youāre arguing from data, but itās clear you donāt know the first thing about it. Instead, what youāre doing is parroting second-hand reports about studies. Donāt believe me? Then do what Iāve asked you to do repeatedlyātell us about the AJM study. Here, Iāll link it for you:
https://www.amjmed.com/article/S0002-9343(05)01046-6/abstract
2 Likes
Consensus opinion? Like the climate change movement?
Your link doesnāt work and your rant is interesting. Consensus opinion crap is not science champ.
āResearchers from the Population Health Research Institute in Canada, studied more than 130,000 people from 49 different countries on six continents.ā
āThose participants with four to five grams of sodium excretion had the lowest riskā of death or suffering a āmajor cardiovascular disease eventā, the researchers reported.ā
Another large study.
āThe 2015-2020 Dietary Guidelines for Americans recommends limiting sodium intake to 2,300 milligrams a day for healthy people. For the study, the researchers followed 2,632 men and women ages 30 to 64 years old who were part of the Framingham Offspring Study. The participants had normal blood pressure at the studyās start. However, over the next 16 years, the researchers found that the study participants who consumed less than 2,500 milligrams of sodium a day had higher blood pressure than participants who consumed higher amounts of sodium.ā
16 year study champ!
There are guidelines out there for sodium and potassium based on research.
Yes, but what are those guidelines? Sodium is required for proper hydration because it causes water retention, but too much water retention will obviously increase your blood pressure. Even Stan Efferding, who is promoting high salt intake, said that salt restriction can reduce BP by up to 5 points. Yes, that would be a short term solution and there are more effective ways of lowering blood pressure, but the fact remains that there is some relation between BP and sodium.
There are better ones, but that is an acceptable example.
Hmmā¦Works perfect for me. Anyway, hereās the relevant portion:
āMethods
Observational cohort study linking sodium, estimated by single 24-hour dietary recall and adjusted for calorie intake, in a community sample (n = 7154) representing 78.9 million non-institutionalized US adults (ages 30-74).ā [emphasis mine]
So, Mr. Nye, do you understand now how wrong you were about a study you put such unquestioning faith in?
I never said it was. Please look again, and respond to what I actually said.
No more parroting, Polly. Iāve already shown your secondary source is an unreliable arbiter of the literature. If you want to cite a study, cite the studyānot a quote about it from someone else.
See above.
1 Like
If you eat a low sodium diet chronically, you will become more sensitive to sodium, but I can tell you this. I had moderately high blood pressure (130/90) on a low sodium diet (<1500 mg/day). I currently have good blood pressure (110/70) on 4,000 mg/day. Reducing sugar and also eliminating NSAIDS got my blood pressure normal. NSAIDS have a profound effect on raising blood pressure.
The original sodium guidelines of 1,000-3,000 mg a day were actually based on a math error by the way. I think it has been identified that they used an incorrect conversion factor.
3 Likes
In my opinion, and also experience of having my wife be a cardiologist in a fairly large group, medical consensus represents research with about a 10 year lag.
I also believe that there is an agenda in nutritional research to push against animal based foods for ecological (and populational) purposes. Also an agenda to push cereal plant based āfoodā items like corn, soy and canola that can be super farmed, and provide large amounts of calories with relatively few resources. These industries dominate in lobbying dollars. Also, the peanut industry.
Doctors in their late 50s or older have a flock of patients who they have been advising for often 20-30 years. It is difficult for them to do an about-face and tell their patients that their medical advice of the last 25 years turned out to be wrong, and probably reduced their lifespans and contributed to their declining health.
This tends to slow down the change in guidelines by AMA, ACA, ADA etc. Newer doctors may be more familiar with newer research, but hesitant to make recommendations that are ahead of the āofficial consensusā, or that run counter to an older doctor who might have seen their patients in the past.
4 Likes
Which is entirely appropriate. As you know, the vast majority of research doesnāt pan outāit proves to be incorrect, or a dead end. Itās the findings that stand the test of time that eventually make it into clinical practice. Ten years sounds about right.
I have seen no evidence of such a bias affecting dietary recommendations in the mainstream medical literature.
Indeed, and there is good reason for the plodding pace at which consensus changes.
People contributing to this thread (not speaking directly to you, @mertdawg) need to recognize and avoid the tendency to both Monday-morning and armchair QB current consensus medical guidelines. Allow me to elaborate.
Re Monday-morning QBing: We all have 20/20 vision when peering through the retrospectoscope. That is, the correct course of action is obvious to everyone when they enjoy the luxury of hindsight. So no one gets brownie points for looking at past, now-discredited guidelines and saying āObviously, this clinical guideline was in error.ā
Re armchair QBing: If you have no real skin in the gameāthat is, if your opinions regarding current clinical consensus have no effect on anything but what you write on TNāthen as above, no brownie points for you for rejecting the current clinical consensus. Itās all too easy to bloviate on TN about how this or that clinical guideline is incorrect. But until you are willing to tell the elderly HTNive pt with BP 171/96 and Cr 1.5 sitting across from you that his sodium intake doesnāt matter, your rejection of the consensus isnāt worth a bucket of warm spit.
2 Likes
Still zero facts. Stick to being an Eyedentist.
Yes and there is no consensus on sodium worldwide. The US guidelines are different from Europe. Generally the medical community is 10 years behind with diet guidelines.