It's About Liberty: A Conservative Forum
Topics => Science, Technology, & Medicine => Topic started by: Pandora on May 05, 2011, 02:00:12 PM
-
Findings Suggest Low-Sodium Diet May Actually Be Harmful (http://cei.org/news-releases/new-study-contradicts-government-warnings-about-salt?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+cei-featured+%28CEI.org+|+Featured+Articles%29)
Washington, D.C., May 4, 2011---The Journal of the American Medical Association has released a new study that directly challenges many government assertions about the effects of salt on the human body. Below is the reaction of CEI Research Associate Daniel Compton.
Statement of Daniel Compton
The results of this new study suggest that higher salt consumption is not correlated with higher risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD). Somewhat shockingly, the study's authors also found that lower salt consumption was actually associated with a higher risk of death by CVD.
This new evidence flies in the face of various government initiatives to restrict the salt content of processed foods. New York’s Mayor Bloomberg worked with city officials to kick off one such program in early 2010, dubbed the National Salt Reduction Initiative. The plan calls for a 20% reduction of Americans’ salt intake over five years. The New York initiative currently calls for food manufacturers to reduce the salt content of their products voluntarily, but the city’s trans fat ban also started out as a voluntary program. The FDA is also exploring the possibility of reducing Americans’ salt consumption, but through a non-voluntary regulatory mechanism.
Combined with the findings of a groundbreaking 2009 UC Davis study—which concluded that salt intake "is unlikely to be malleable by public policy initiatives" due to certain well-understood neurological mechanisms that control our appetites for salt—this new study casts still further doubt on the advisability of Bloomberg’s and the FDA’s salt-slashing plans.
The 2009 study shows that such programs would very likely fail to reduce our salt intake, and the newly released study shows that more people could die from CVD as a result of these plans if they did successfully reduce our salt intake. Add to this the consideration of whether government officials even have the right to decide what kinds of food we can buy—even if it turns out that salt is unhealthy—as well as the fact that Americans actually consume about 9% less salt than the worldwide average, and it would appear that the FDA and Bloomberg don’t have a leg to stand on.
Further Reading:
• Daniel Compton's Statement on the FDA Salt Initiative, April 20, 2010
• Daniel Compton's New York Post Op-ed, "As-salt on Science," January 13, 2010
• Sam Kazman's Cigar Magazine article, "Dining on Politics," June 1, 2010
Eggs are BAD. Oops, no, they're not. Coffee is BAD. Well, not so much. Butter is BAD. Uh, well, margarine is worse. Red meat is BAD. Except we need the Bs for brain cells. Salt is BAD.
Oopsie, wrong again.
Here's the one I love the most: animal/dietary fats are BAD; must consume unrefined carbs. ** ETA: except potatoes. (http://www.openmarket.org/2010/10/25/regulation-of-the-day-154-potatoes-in-school-lunches/) ** Except heart disease, obesity and diabetes have skyrocketed since the "experts" started pushing their version of the ideal high carb/low fat diet.
So, bullsht to all of it and to all of the "experts".
-
A close friend's mother died from CAD.
It was caused from use of heavy lard she stored in a can beneath the sink.
She was 88.
The experts are so busy postulating the are making us sick.
Also aspirin, one time over the counter horror, is now "discovered" OK.
Again there is a genetic anomaly where a small portion of the population are sensitive to aspirin.
There is a blood test for this.
-
My mom's constantly warning about salt because she has heart disease. Warned me about eggs too. I read several years ago a couple of articles that suggested that cholestrol levels aren't related to heart disease--read an article a few weeks ago that suggests that lowering the levels by meds is actually causing brain problems for some people--the brain needs it to function. After I read that I started wondering what other things do we assume are correct?
Mom has a friend her age that refuses to go on blood pressure meds like my mom takes. My mom thinks the woman is crazy. But as far as I can tell mom's friend hasn't had any more problems than mom. In fact I can't help wonder if all the meds mom's on hasn't just created more problems.
I really believe that the key is exercise and staying active--out and about. What you eat is secondary.
-
What all of these admonitions (and then, a decade or two later, reversals) come down to is a cultural resistance to acknowledging that in the old Nature vs. Nurture debate, Nature bodyslams Nurture with regularity. Genetics dictate more of your propensity to developing heart disease, cancer, and many other diseases, moreso than what you eat. This reality comes into direct conflict with the modern humanistic/PC dogma, because if your genes can exert more control over your likelihood of developing a disease than can a lifetime of dietary choices, what else might your genes control irrespective of all manner of "environmental" variables? This is a door that liberals are terrified of opening.
How many times have you heard anecdotes of somebody who lived to be over 100 years old while smoking, drinking, and eating fatty fried food every day of their lives? How many times have you heard anecdotes of fitness freaks keeling over of heart attacks in their 30s or 40s? Often enough that I am of the opinion that you should eat what you enjoy, and moderation combined with regular activity is more important than what's on the plate.
-
My mom's constantly warning about salt because she has heart disease. Warned me about eggs too. I read several years ago a couple of articles that suggested that cholestrol levels aren't related to heart disease--read an article a few weeks ago that suggests that lowering the levels by meds is actually causing brain problems for some people--the brain needs it to function. After I read that I started wondering what other things do we assume are correct?
Mom has a friend her age that refuses to go on blood pressure meds like my mom takes. My mom thinks the woman is crazy. But as far as I can tell mom's friend hasn't had any more problems than mom. In fact I can't help wonder if all the meds mom's on hasn't just created more problems.
I really believe that the key is exercise and staying active--out and about. What you eat is secondary.
Genes play a big part in this as well.
Some time ago, I began paying attention to research that speculated it was high carbohydrate diets that caused arterial inflammation; the arterial plaques are formed by cholesterol seeking to repair the damage.
A lot of the meds the docs regularly push on folks, particularly older folks, cause a lot of problems via side-effects and mixing. My Dad had an arterial stent put in a while ago and my Mom carefully weaned Dad off most of the several drugs he was on, to no ill effect.
-
...that I am of the opinion that you should eat what you enjoy, and moderation combined with regular activity is more important than what's on the plate.
::thumbsup::
-
Oh what the heck, I wasn't planning on living forever anyway... :o
-
Genes play a big part in this as well.
Absolutely.
-
So can I have salt or not? I hate it when medical researchers disprove something that they one proved years ago. I know my blood pressure was slightly elevated the last time I went to the doctor. My doctor told me to cut out some of the sodium and salt in my diet. While I think cutting down the salts can lower my blood pressure, I think it has a lot to do with what foods those salts were in. I'm sure all the processed snack foods and colas contain lots of bad carbs and preservatives and chemicals that probably aren't too good for us. Our ancestors lived off the land and didn't eat meat from cows that were injected with growth hormones and antibiotics. They let their cows and their chickens and their livestock live off the land eating the grasses and other natural foods. They gave them some feed but it was all-natural feed that came from the fields. In the fields they grew vegetables and fruits with real seeds that hadn't been bio-engineered. They didn't spray chemicals over their crops to keep the bugs off of them or to help them grow better. They also worked hard doing manual labor and not sitting at a desk all day like many of us do. I wonder how many actually had individual health insurance (http://www.goldenrule.com) and dental insurance back then?
-
They also died at 25.
-
They also died at 25.
I believe that kind of average is skewed by the many children that died because modern medicine wasn't around to save them. Once they got passed childhood they lived long lives and could even reach the required of age 35 to be President!
I've always been amused by the premise that drugs can affect our health for the better but eating appropriate foods and avoiding others doesn't matter.
(My grandfather bought his acreage in 1918 and farmed for over 50 years as did his sons.)
-
Drugs don't help the genetically fortunate.
Those without the fortune of good genetics are fortunate to have good drugs.
-
Drugs don't help the genetically fortunate.
Those without the fortune of good genetics are fortunate to have good drugs.
Yeap.
-
Drugs don't help the genetically fortunate.
Those without the fortune of good genetics are fortunate to have good drugs.
Yeap.
Hear, hear! That'd be me.
I cannot curse pharma. Won't.
-
So can I have salt or not? I hate it when medical researchers disprove something that they one proved years ago. I know my blood pressure was slightly elevated the last time I went to the doctor. My doctor told me to cut out some of the sodium and salt in my diet. While I think cutting down the salts can lower my blood pressure, I think it has a lot to do with what foods those salts were in. I'm sure all the processed snack foods and colas contain lots of bad carbs and preservatives and chemicals that probably aren't too good for us. Our ancestors lived off the land and didn't eat meat from cows that were injected with growth hormones and antibiotics. They let their cows and their chickens and their livestock live off the land eating the grasses and other natural foods. They gave them some feed but it was all-natural feed that came from the fields. In the fields they grew vegetables and fruits with real seeds that hadn't been bio-engineered. They didn't spray chemicals over their crops to keep the bugs off of them or to help them grow better. They also worked hard doing manual labor and not sitting at a desk all day like many of us do.
The latest research has said that, except for a very rare few people, sodium intake does not affect blood pressure. Your doctor is either trying to play it safe, or is behind the times.
And don't be fooled by all the hype about hormones and pesticides, because mostly all it is, is hype.
And yes, they also didn't live very long back then. They pretty much worked themselves to death. There are pluses as well as minuses to sitting at a desk all day.
-
They also died at 25.
I believe that kind of average is skewed by the many children that died because modern medicine wasn't around to save them. Once they got passed childhood they lived long lives and could even reach the required of age 35 to be President!
I've always been amused by the premise that drugs can affect our health for the better but eating appropriate foods and avoiding others doesn't matter.
(My grandfather bought his acreage in 1918 and farmed for over 50 years as did his sons.)
Please tell me which foods are "Appropriate" and which are not. My nutrition teacher, way back when, insisted that there are no "good" or "bad" foods, but it's the diet as a whole that is healthy...or unhealthy.
Since the modern day "experts" can't seem to agree on what constitutes a healthy or unhealthy diet, I strongly believe that the answer is "everything is okay in moderation."
I have a nephew who is a health food nut. He drives us all crazy lecturing us on what we ought to eat. Then he goes and binges on stuff he tells everyone else they shouldn't eat. I asked him one time if broccoli is a healthy food. He said " yes," of course. So then asked him if it would be healthy if ate nothing but broccoli all day long.
I think you can figure out where this is going......
-
Hey Janny, good to see you. Yeah, the golden mean seems to be the best, along with some good exercise. I think some exercise is part of the mean.
I'm somewhat allergic to some of the stuff they put in processed food.
If I eat too much of it the body reacts negativity if I moderate the intake, not a problem.
-
They also died at 25.
I believe that kind of average is skewed by the many children that died because modern medicine wasn't around to save them. Once they got passed childhood they lived long lives and could even reach the required of age 35 to be President!
I've always been amused by the premise that drugs can affect our health for the better but eating appropriate foods and avoiding others doesn't matter.
(My grandfather bought his acreage in 1918 and farmed for over 50 years as did his sons.)
Please tell me which foods are "Appropriate" and which are not. My nutrition teacher, way back when, insisted that there are no "good" or "bad" foods, but it's the diet as a whole that is healthy...or unhealthy.
Since the modern day "experts" can't seem to agree on what constitutes a healthy or unhealthy diet, I strongly believe that the answer is "everything is okay in moderation."
I have a nephew who is a health food nut. He drives us all crazy lecturing us on what we ought to eat. Then he goes and binges on stuff he tells everyone else they shouldn't eat. I asked him one time if broccoli is a healthy food. He said " yes," of course. So then asked him if it would be healthy if ate nothing but broccoli all day long.
I think you can figure out where this is going......
No, I don't really.
But anyway, in our family appropriate (and I couldn't think of a better word at the time I posted) are basically the foods on what I grew up with called the food pyramid. I know it's been modified over the years -- but the basic premise is lots of vegetables, fruits, protein and grains. In our house (husband, me and minor children --the adults kids do what they want and since I homeschool I know what the little squirts are eating) we don't eat Cheetos. We don't consider those a food we should eat. However, I don't think eating them occassionally would be a bad thing. However, the people I know who eat those things often have vastly different eating styles and pantries than I do. My cousin has a pantry full of Cheetos and chips and packaged snack stuff, cans and cans of soda, a freezer full of prepared foods and nary a fresh fruit or vegetable save an occassional apple or head of lettuce. Yet when we discuss nutrition (which is rare) she's all about how moderation is the key. She doesn't exercise and is constantly telling me how she needs to lose 50 pounds.
One of my kids when she was a toddler went through a phrase where she only wanted to eat broccoli and mashed potatoes. Needless to say, though both are considered healthy in our house I didn't let her just eat that for every meal though she would have if I'd let her. She goes over to my cousin's house she eats whatever they have. I don't consider that something to worry about.
My daughter was rushed to the ER last weekend as part of her follow up with her doctor later in the week she had blood work done. She discovered she's very defficient in a number of vitamins and minerals. He put her on high doses of the ones she needed. (Not related to why she went to the ER). Until last week this was her typical diet--Starbucks for breakfast, fast food lunch, and granola bar/candy/soda for a snack and for dinner I don't know what she ate since she came in from work after we'd already had dinner and she'd find something. She doesn't want to be dependent on the vit/min forever so she's suddenly discovered an interest in eating healthy.
I believe how our bodies react and process food and exercise is way more complex than is currently understood--partly related to genes and partly related to environment and the food itself. I don't eat donuts and chips and stuff like that--when I did I gained weight. My mom blames our family genes. And that may be true but if i don't eat it I don't gain the weight--so genes or not I have exercised some control over that outcome.
I personally don't care what other people choose to eat. I know people who cover the whole spectrum from vegan to junk food addicts. I know what works for our family (and now my daughter is learning it too lol).
I do have a question for everyone. It's something I've been thinking about. What is the true conservative POV on mega corporations controlling farming, people's access to food, people's desires as to how food is created for them, the disappearance of family farms, the government's finger in farming? I'm not sure I'm asking that question right--whenever I've tried people get stuck on discussing what they eat.
-
What is the true conservative POV on mega corporations controlling farming, people's access to food, people's desires as to how food is created for them, the disappearance of family farms, the government's finger in farming? I'm not sure I'm asking that question right--whenever I've tried people get stuck on discussing what they eat.
I can't speak for anyone but myself on this question, speaking for a true conservative POV is like herding cats, and I'm sure I'm not as current on the issue as I ought to be.
I don't have a problem with mega corporation farming per se; I'm not comfortable with them having such widespread control. I do know farm subsidies are either a curse or a blessing, depending on who one speaks to, but I believe the government needs to get out of the "farming" business; that right there is probably the major factor in the size and ownership of farms. It certainly has everything to do with how much we pay for sugar.
The FDA needs to be stuffed back into its little box (I don't believe we'll be able to defund and abolish it). This nonsense about the FDA persecuting people for wanting to consume raw milk, and its opinion that people are not at liberty to eat such "unapproved" items without permission, is an outrage, as is its adoption of the UN's Codex Alimentarius, a long list of rules, regulations and restrictions on what dietary supplements may be consumed and in what quantity.
-
The other major factor in the size and ownership of farms is inheritance. A rancher may own 2,000 acres that he raises cattle and maybe some grass for hay. On the books he is a millionaire even though he nets about 30K a year. There is no way for his family to pay the inheritance tax. They will need to subdivide the ranch in order to pay the taxes. I would imagine the same holds true for farmers.
The FDA needs to be stuffed back into its little box (I don't believe we'll be able to defund and abolish it).
Part of President RunAmuk's plan of destruction is using Federal agencies to destroy the areas over which they have oversight.
-
All foods are on the food pyramid. The proportions are not agreed upon by the "experts." that was my point. Many experts maintain that our obesity problems are related to "too much sugar." Others say we consume too much fat and calories. Still others claim it's "portion sizes." Diet fads come and go, and people lose weight, only to put it back on again. My sister has lost the same 25-30 lbs. About 50 times in the last 35 years. Losing the weight and keeping it off requires lifestyle changes she simply isn't willing to make, but she keeps looking for that magical diet that will work for her.
The point about the broccoli is that nothing but broccoli all day long, every day, is not healthy as a diet, because you are not getting all the nutrition you need by eating only that. Even though it's widely considered to be a "healthy" food. "Lots of fruits and vegetables" is a good concept, as long as it's balanced with fat and protein.
Nutrition, diet and weight maintenance are indeed very complex. And unfortunately they are not very well understood. Add into that mix, the people who want to get research funding, who set out to deliberately demonize certain things, and you get mass confusion. The problem with these studies is that they demonize certain things and then people are afraid to consume them, even in moderation.
-
In terms of saturated fat concerns, a very large 2010 study from the Harvard School of Public Health found “there is no significant evidence for concluding that dietary saturated fat is associated with an increased risk of Coronary Heart Disease or Cardiovascular Disease.
http://www.meatmythcrushers.com/myths/myth-americans-eat-too-much-meat.html (http://www.meatmythcrushers.com/myths/myth-americans-eat-too-much-meat.html)
Home link. (http://www.meatmythcrushers.com/)
Rats. Forgot the H/T to EW1(SG)
-
I guess my point is that modern research often cause more problems than it solves. For instance, the cholesterol myth. They promoted for years that cholesterol in the diet was horrible, horrible, horrible! What they failed to do was inform people of the other factors for heart disease, as well as clarifying that cholesterol is not a bad thing! Not only is it not a bad thing, it's an essential substance that our body produces for a specific purpose. I guess we are all too stupid to be given ALL the information so we can decide for ourselves what is best for us.
Another good example of research run amok is the skin cancer scare. They have gotten people afraid to go out in the sun for five minutes without globbing a bunch of chemicals on your skin that are worse for you than a moderate amount of sun exposure. So, now we have people developing vitamin D deficiencies because of their great "advice."
Then, there is the opposite side of the coin, where a little of something is deemed to be good for you, and people consume massive amounts of it thinking a lot is even better! Case in point: dietary fiber. A certain amount is very good, but once you pass a certain level, the nutrients in your food get bound up in the fiber and excreted, instead of being absorbed as they are supposed to be.
Generally speaking, if you are consuming a lot of one thing, on a daily basis, chances are you are going to end up being deficient in something else. A balanced diet, with a variety of foods is the healthiest way to go. and what works for you might not work for someone else!
Sadly, one of these days, there is going to be a legitimate "study" done that might save lives, and people won't pay any attention to it because they are tired of seeing one "scare" after another debunked by subsequent studies!
-
In terms of saturated fat concerns, a very large 2010 study from the Harvard School of Public Health found “there is no significant evidence for concluding that dietary saturated fat is associated with an increased risk of Coronary Heart Disease or Cardiovascular Disease.
http://www.meatmythcrushers.com/myths/myth-americans-eat-too-much-meat.html (http://www.meatmythcrushers.com/myths/myth-americans-eat-too-much-meat.html)
Home link. (http://www.meatmythcrushers.com/)
Rats. Forgot the H/T to EW1(SG)
They have KNOWN this for YEARS, and it is just starting to become common knowledge, now. This study just confirms it!
-
In terms of saturated fat concerns, a very large 2010 study from the Harvard School of Public Health found “there is no significant evidence for concluding that dietary saturated fat is associated with an increased risk of Coronary Heart Disease or Cardiovascular Disease.
http://www.meatmythcrushers.com/myths/myth-americans-eat-too-much-meat.html (http://www.meatmythcrushers.com/myths/myth-americans-eat-too-much-meat.html)
Home link. (http://www.meatmythcrushers.com/)
Rats. Forgot the H/T to EW1(SG)
They have KNOWN this for YEARS, and it is just starting to become common knowledge, now. This study just confirms it!
I just recently twigged to this myself - the last year or so. I'm waiting and hoping for a more widespread and definitive debunking of the "dietary/saturated fat" misinformation, but I'm not counting on it. The funders and the fundees are too invested in the status quo.
Both you and Lady Virginia have cogent and sensible points on this issue as regards generality and individuality with respect to dietary practices.
-
Both you and Lady Virginia have cogent and sensible points on this issue as regards generality and individuality with respect to dietary practices.
Thanks. I find it a fascinating topic. There are obviously dietary causes for some of our health problems in this country. We have diseases here that other countries don't experience but when those folks come here their rates of those diseases increase. So there is a connection but I don't think it has has been adequately explored. Everyone from the scientists to the eater wants one magic answer. And so "we" latch on to the latest study when it's way more complex and requires more attention than anyone wants to give it. If it was as simple as don't eat such and such or eat more of this we wouldn't have these ongoing health problems.
Now off to make pizza! ::cool::
-
As I understand it, CAD is associated with high LDL and low HDL. They are of the opinion fat contains or induces the body to produce LDL. They don't have a clue about HDL, the anti-LDL, creation. When it is better understood they will quit grasping at straws.