Another day another study

[Urbane]

I have no reason to be on a low sodium diet but if I were I'd be having second thoughts about it:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamilton/ ... -1.3595743

It just seems like every day another study comes out re something that contradicts what we've been led to believe is true. Of course maybe it was true and the new study is flawed. Moderation is the key or as Oscar Wilde said, "Everything in moderation, including moderation." True enough.

[Bsuds]

LOL, I was just going to post this too. It's good to know that and just makes sense to eat a healthy diet in the first place.

[Donald G]

The word "could" makes any conclusion possible and the study all but useless.

As in you "could" die tomorrow.

If the body doesn't get enough of it, a variety of health problems could result, including an increased risk of heart attack and stroke.

[Urbane]

The headlines from these studies often don't accurately match the results of the study. You might read that eating X three times a week doubles your risk of Y. But then you find out that it raises your risk from one in a million to two in a million. Look at it this way: If you buy two 649 tickets instead of one ticket you're doubling your chances of winning the big prize. However . . .

[flamingfingers]

For some decades I virtually eliminated added salt in my diet - even when I was in the ME and had to drink copious amounts of water to keep hydrated (water dilutes salt from your body) and when I came back to Canada and had some blood tests done by my GP he told me in no uncertain terms to quit drinking so much water because my serum sodium was so very low (124 as opposed to 'normal' of around 135). I did, with no real improvement in my blood tests. The Internal Medicine specialist a few years later said that as my hypertension was well controlled, perhaps I could use a 'bit' of added salt to my diet. I have used a sprinkle of salt here and there and my serum sodium has improved , but it is still below 'normal'. So much for the 'no added salt' advocated for so many people for so long....

[HP]

The word "could" makes any conclusion possible and the study all but useless

I'm not sure I agree. If a person is looking for absolutes, then I suppose that you'll be disappointed but I think researchers have learned a little bit about PR in the past number of decades and news media have generally learned not to try to speak in absolutes especially wen it comes to health headlines. The alternative messaging is too hard to digest because it's saddled with caveats (all available in the study, but not easily summarized).

The study reads, to me, as though sodium level is only an influencer ... not an indicator ... and there's a BIG difference between the two. An indicator is a light switch - on or off. Either you're dead or you're not kind of thing. An influencer is something that needs to be taken in consideration with the whole health picture which explains the use of the words "could" and "can" and "may"... because the context for the message is, "in concert with other health considerations".

[Lady tehMa]

Moderation is key.

The pendulum effect rather drives me nuts.

eg:

Eggs are good
Eggs are bad
Eggs are good
Eggs are bad
Eggs are good
Eggs are bad

Substitute anything in there: Butter, coffee, wine . . .

[Donald G]

Recent studies show that eggs are the sole cause of the perpetuation of chickens across the world. Except for cloning which is a modern innovation. I wonder if one can clone an egg?