“No Benefit Seen in Sharp Limits on Salt in Diet”

“In a report that undercuts years of public health warnings, a prestigious group convened by the government says there is no good reason based on health outcomes for many Americans to drive their sodium consumption down to the very low levels recommended in national dietary guidelines.” [Gina Kolata, New York Times, on Institute of Medicine report; CBS News; Philadelphia Inquirer]


  • Another progressive attempt to “save the most vulnerable” bites the dust.

  • If only, rxc. Hard data has next to no effect on the progressive desire to accumulate power — er, I mean, to “save ” us from ourselves. They have the best of intentions, you know. And if you disagree, the government would like to read your emails and tap your phone, just to make sure everything is on the up and up.

  • It has been said for years, a low sodium diet only lowers blood pressure in people who already have hypertension.

    High sodium diet doesn’t cause hypertension.

  • Where’s the link to the story as reported by Bloomberg News?

    Oh, . . . wait, . . . Never mind.

  • @Don: It’s not even that. It’s only those people who have a particular genetic susceptibility to have sodium increase blood pressure that have the problem. That group is considerably smaller than those affected by salt bans or restrictions.

    See: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20886000

  • This is no surprise. Junkscience covered this YEARS ago and pointed out the facts that John B and Don highlight.

    DEM and rxc get it…..

    At least a crook robs you and then flees. The power mad nanny is never done with you.

  • Don,

    “It has been said for years, a low sodium diet only lowers blood pressure in people who already have hypertension. ”

    This is not completely true. There is a small percentage of the population that is salt sensitive. These people tend to retain water, generally increasing fluid pressures in the body.

    For those with high blood pressure who are not salt sensitive a low salt diet is unlikely to have any effect.

    Basically, if your blood pressure medication includes a diuretic, you might want to limit salt in-take.

  • Wait till you see what happens with the low cholesterol diet data and the lack of effect of statins in the treatment of coronary artery disease, plus the under-reported serious side effects of cholesterol lowering drugs. It has been said that a class action suit will be filed against the American Heart Association for its posturing on diet and cholesterol advice, for any lawyers out there, it will be a slam dunk.

    One of the biggest frauds fostered on the American people has been the concept of the effect of diet on their health. There is no effect from significant diet restrictions, except calories, and that is individual and not massive mandates from the government. Cholesterol concerns will go the way of leeches and blood letting, just consider that 50 years have been wasted in promoting dietary effects as cause for disease when the real reasons have not been investigated.

  • The AMA, AHA, and the dietary associations have not done a lot to help in keeping “healthy” when they keep moving the goalposts on what is healthy and what isn’t . . . it’s more like you’re Charlie Brown and they’re Lucy, and their goals are the football Lucy is holding.

    Just as an example: My last hemoglobin A1C test (the one where you get pricked on your finger in your doctor’s office) was the same as all of the rest, save one, over the last several years at 6.0 (=7.0 is diabetic). When I looked at my test results . . . yep, it changed; now IIRC it is =5.8. How are you supposed to try to maintain health when “healthy/normal” changes every few months??

  • That should be greater than or equal to 7.0 and 5.8, respectively.

  • Moving the goalposts is a common progressive trick. The Enviros use it with a vengence. They get air quality standards set that are then accomplished and they use some bogus “analysis” to show that x-thousand “vulnerable peope with asthma” (like me) have died under the old standard. So, the standard has to be changed, and suddenly the air in many areas goes from “good” to “bad”. It keeps them funded and employed. If I believed their “analyses” I probably died a dozen times in the past 20 years.

  • The reason for moving the goal post is that those with a high cholesterol constitute only a minority of people who ultimately have a myocardial infarction. So the people that believe that cholesterol has some relevance began moving the target numbers lower until almost all people with that level of cholesterol had myocardial infarcts. That would seem reasonable except that by achieving these levels, there is zero effect on the incidence of disease.

    I promise that if a young lawyer got on this situation and the drug companies that are promoting cholesterol lowering medications, he could make a ton of money.