If you wanted a clear example of how desperately some scientists (and I’m using the term loosely) will cling to a beloved theory, you couldn’t do much better this:

A recent meta-analysis of salt-restriction studies that was published in both The Cochrane Review and the American Journal of Hypertension found that cutting back on salt is pretty much worthless.  So naturally, the anti-salt hysterics had to jump in and torture the data to find some meaningless associations and try to save their reputations and careers.

You can read an abstract of the meta-analysis here, but for a plain-English version, I’d suggest reading an article published in the online version of Scientific American titled It’s Time to End the War on Salt.  Here are some quotes:

This week a meta-analysis of seven studies involving a total of 6,250 subjects in the American Journal of Hypertension found no strong evidence that cutting salt intake reduces the risk for heart attacks, strokes or death in people with normal or high blood pressure. In May European researchers publishing in the Journal of the American Medical Association reported that the less sodium that study subjects excreted in their urine—an excellent measure of prior consumption—the greater their risk was of dying from heart disease. These findings call into question the common wisdom that excess salt is bad for you, but the evidence linking salt to heart disease has always been tenuous.

I’d say labeling the evidence linking salt to heart disease as tenuous is being generous.  Non-existent would be the more accurate term, unless you engage in some major cherry-picking.  In real science, no consistency means no validity, and the associations between salt and heart disease or mortality aren’t even close to being consistent.  If anything, the associations are all over the place.

So what ignited the fear of salt in the first place?

Worries escalated in the 1970s when Brookhaven National Laboratory’s Lewis Dahl claimed that he had  “unequivocal” evidence that salt causes hypertension: he induced high blood pressure in rats by feeding them the human equivalent of 500 grams of sodium a day. (Today the average American consumes 3.4 grams of sodium, or 8.5 grams of salt, a day.)

Let’s see … some goofy scientist feeds rats the equivalent of 147 times as much salt as the average human consumes in a day, and the rats developed high blood pressure.  Well, my goodness, let’s toss those salt shakers right now!

Last time I checked, most health authorities were still recommending we consume eight glasses of water per day.  I wonder if it ever occurred to Dr. Dahl to force-feed rats the equivalent of 1,176 glasses of water per day and see how that affected their health.  If he ran that experiment, I’m pretty sure he’d end up declaring water a health hazard.  What kind of hopeless idiots could possibly be swayed by such a nonsense study?

In 1977 the U.S. Senate’s Select Committee on Nutrition and Human Needs released a report recommending that Americans cut their salt intake by 50 to 85 percent, based largely on Dahl’s work.

Ah yes, those idiots.  The same idiots who helped kick off the anti-fat hysteria by seeking “consensus” instead of truth.  George McGovern strikes again.

Scientific tools have become much more precise since then, but the correlation between salt intake and poor health has remained tenuous. Intersalt, a large study published in 1988, compared sodium intake with blood pressure in subjects from 52 international research centers and found no relationship between sodium intake and the prevalence of hypertension. In fact, the population that ate the most salt, about 14 grams a day, had a lower median blood pressure than the population that ate the least, about 7.2 grams a day.

Well, that’s just an observational study, so perhaps we’re not accounting for some confounding variables.  Surely if we restricted salt in a controlled clinical setting, we’d see some real health benefits, eh?

In 2004 the Cochrane Collaboration, an international, independent, not-for-profit health care research organization funded in part by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, published a review of 11 salt-reduction trials. Over the long-term, low-salt diets, compared to normal diets, decreased systolic blood pressure (the top number in the blood pressure ratio) in healthy people by 1.1 millimeters of mercury (mmHg) and diastolic blood pressure (the bottom number) by 0.6 mmHg. That is like going from 120/80 to 119/79.

You may recall that some troll who claimed to hold a PhD in science once insisted in several comments that salt is indeed bad for us, and to prove his point he sent me a link to a clinical study in which researchers produced a “significant” reduction blood pressure by drastically restricting salt.  As I explained in my Science For Smart People speech, “significant” simply means that statistically, the results weren’t likely to due to chance.  The “significant” reduction in blood pressure reported in the study that the troll sent me amounted to around three points. In other words, meaningless … all the salt-restricted dieters got out of the deal was some really bland food.

Studies that have explored the direct relationship between salt and heart disease have not fared much better. Among them, a 2006 American Journal of Medicine study compared the reported daily sodium intakes of 78 million Americans to their risk of dying from heart disease over the course of 14 years. It found that the more sodium people ate, the less likely they were to die from heart disease.

And yet various government agencies around the world are telling people to restrict salt … to prevent heart disease, of course.

For every study that suggests that salt is unhealthy, another does not.

Bingo.  No consistency, no scientific validity.  Given an honest analysis of the science, we’d have to conclude that restricting salt is pointless from a public-health standpoint, except as advice given to the few people who are hyper-sensitive to salt.

Now … let’s suppose you’re the chairman of Consensus Action on Salt and Health – kind of a British version of CSPI, only focused specifically on attacking salt in the food supply.  Now let’s further suppose stamping out salt in Britain isn’t a mission quite large enough for your ego, so you’re also the chairman of World Action on Salt and Health.  (In my opinion, if you belong to more than one organization with Action on in its name, you’re probably a menace.)  Finally, let’s suppose both of the organizations you chair depend on donations from people you’ve managed to scare witless about the terrors of salt.

Are you going let a pesky little thing like scientific evidence change your mind?  Of course not.  You’re going to get ahold of that data and (as Dr. Mike Eades would say) torture it until it says what you want to hear.  Which is exactly what Dr. Graham McGregor (who I like to refer to as Action-Action Jackson since he’s the chair of two Action organizations) did after the Cochrane Collaboration issued its report.

In a response published in the Lancet, Dr. MacGregor and Dr. Feng He revealed how they concocted a brilliant method of getting around inconvenient facts like these:

As previously reported by heartwire, Taylor et al’s meta-analysis included seven randomized controlled trials of dietary salt reduction in normotensives (three studies), hypertensives (two studies), a mixed population (one study), and one trial of patients with heart failure.

At follow-up, relative risks for all-cause mortality and cardiovascular mortality for both normotensives and hypertensives were only mildly to moderately reduced, and not to a statistically significant degree. In congestive heart failure patients, salt restriction actually significantly increased all-cause death.

Those are the inconvenient facts.  Now here’s how MacGregor and Feng He tried to fung foo all over them:

He and MacGregor, in their Comment, reanalyze the same data but combined the normotensives and hypertensives. They also omitted the heart-failure trial—a group of “very ill” patients taking large doses of diuretics in whom salt restrictions would seldom be recommended, MacGregor observed. In the combined patient analysis, they find a now statistically significant 20% reduction in cardiovascular events and a nonsignificant reduction in all-cause mortality.

Lovely.  If clinical trials don’t tell you what you want to hear, mix and match the data, toss out some data if need be, and presto! – you’ve got yourself a “significant” result … well, if you’re talking about cardiovascular events, that is.  If you’re talking about actual deaths, the results aren’t “significant.”

In layman’s terms, that means “the results are utterly @#$%ing worthless.”  But not to Action-Action Jackson MacGregor:

“We’ve done this reanalysis, and we’ve got the evidence. In fact, all the evidence about salt is overwhelming. . . . It all shows that salt is a major factor bringing up our blood pressure.”

All the evidence, really?  Like the clinical trials in which salt restriction changed blood pressure by a point or two at most?   Like the big, expensive clinical study the anti-salt troll insisted I read, in which adopting a diet with almost no salt at all caused blood pressure to drop by a whopping three points? (And that trial was conducted by researchers who wanted salt restriction to work.  They even tried to talk their way around the results in their conclusions.)

The only overwhelming evidence I see here is that some scientists are freakin’ liars.

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Share/Bookmark
80 Responses to “Another A-Salt on Science”
  1. Katy says:

    Maybe this’ll work…

    http://www.backyardpoultry.com/index.php?page=artic.html

    Making sure the wife takes notes …

  2. Kimji says:

    I would not be opposed to killing my own food if I lived on a farm, but I would absolutely want to do it efficiently and humanely. If I were needing to learn the skill today I would probably find someone with skill & experience and have them mentor me through the process for awhile before I went solo.

    Of course. My mom remembers her grandma grabbing a chicken and snapping its neck in one twist. This not only killed the chicken humanely, it convinced the kids not to mess with grandma.

  3. Irwin says:

    I can’t lay my hands on the studies now because I’m at work but there seems to be strong evidence out there (for those compelled to actually pay attention) that it’s not a sodium excess that causes hypertension, it’s a potassium insufficiency. Increasing one’s potassium intake, without changing sodium levels at all, frequently results in dramatic reductions in hypertension.

    Of course, some people hear this and start gobbling bananas, which drives their glucose levels up and brings a host of other problems…

    Dr. Richard Johnson has presented some compelling evidence that hypertension is largely a function of excess fructose consumption.

  4. jeanne says:

    Well there’s too much and there’s waaay too much…back in the day, I knew guys who always salted their food heavily, before they even tasted it. They tended to die young, BUT they also smoked and drank hard liquor almost every night. Their taste buds were shot. So did anyone control for these factors in any tests?

    It’s not likely they controlled for those factors in observational studies. And the clinical studies showed restricting salt doesn’t do much.

  5. Goober says:

    I eat less salt now that I lowcarb than when I was eating highcarb. You eat low carb and you are not eating as much processed foods. Think about how much salt is added to bread, pasta, sweets, soups, etc. 90% of my diet is unprocessed whole food. I have to add salt just to make sure I don’t have an electrolyte imbalance. LOL

  6. Galina L. says:

    Probably it sounds stupid, but I am sort of intrigued about where did Kenny M. took his strange idea about abnormal farting on a low-carb diet? Not from the real life for sure. Ask any meat-eater-not-grain-eater and that individual will tell you about great reduction if not elimination of any farting activity after switching on that diet. Is it what they do on their vegetarian sites? Fantasizing about how other people farts may smell? Did they encourage them to go and secretly smell other people behinds? Looks like their diet really affects their brain to the point of having hallucinations..Sorry, Tom, if you find my comment inappropriate. Then don’t publish it.

    Ha, no more inappropriate than Kenny’s comments.

  7. Guinea Pig says:

    Hi i was just wondering did you ever become sick/fatigued during the fathead experiment or did the meals have enough vitamins to keep your body healthy?Thank you

    I take a multi-vitamin and continued to do so while on the fast-food diet.

  8. Kevin says:

    Does anyone actually drink 8 glasses of water a day? I run daily and I would have the equivalent of say, 5 glasses. 8 is a ton.

    I think science is catching up for low-carb diets. Consumer Reports said, even though giving the Atkins diet a low ranking[based off of Surgeon General reports], that the diet could be a good choice and scientific evidence is starting to build that refined carbs are worse than saturated fat. And I’m glad Consumer Reports isn’t a magazine paid for by PETA or something, as it also gave the Ornish Diet a low ranking.

    Though it’s annoying when reports say, “All experts say that Americans consume too much animal fat and refined carbohydrates/sugar. This needs to stop.” They’re treating it like a complete, 100% fact, which gets in the way of honest debate.

    Some media reporters are in mental-disconnect mode right now. They see studies showing the benefits of low-carb, but still believe saturated fat is bad, even if they can’t quite explain why.

  9. Kenny M says:

    Galina,

    I like to point out facts. Not once did I say I fantasize about smelling Tom’s farts. It’s well known that meat and cheese will make your farts smell soupy and rancid. I mean, one of Tom’s favorite foods is Eggs. Are you trying to say eggs don’t cause putrid, literal rotten egg farts because they don’t have any carbs? You low-carbers are so indoctrinated it’s pathetic. And the thought of you low-carb plump (see pictures from the Low Carb Cruise), fatties sitting over the toilet getting Steatorrhea (fat filled poop) makes me gag. Yuck.

    Oh and by the way Tommy boy, you can stop the whole ‘fertilizer runoff’ angle you’re trying to take when criticizing my impact on animals. It won’t work with me. I eat 100% local organic, 50-60% of which is my own food. You’re not the only one to own a farm. Although I bought mine way earlier in life because I had the money. That’ll happen when you aren’t a 3rd rate, bald and pug butt comic :)

    But Kenny-Boy, you said in an earlier comment that it’s impossible to feed the world with all-organic farming. So if you want me to show my kids how animals are killed, certainly you want your vegetarians friends who don’t grow their own food to show their kids the poisoned fish that result from growing grains and soybeans, don’t you?

    As to your other point, Kenny-Boy, perhaps you should go away now and stop spending so much time thinking about what kind of poop low-carbers produce, since the thought sickens you. The fact that you keep showing up here despite your oft-stated distaste for what I write on the blog is quite curious.

    But then I got thinking about it and realized what’s going on: You have big ol’ man-crush on me, don’t you, Kenny-Boy? I don’t know why I didn’t spot it before. You keep showing up like some kind of crazed stalker, you know enough about me to indicate that you’ve spent a lot of time on the internet looking me up, and let’s face it, Kenny-Boy, you’ve spent WAY more time thinking about my butt than any qualified therapist would consider normal or healthy. I haven’t consulted with my wife on the topic, but I’m reasonably certainly she spends less time thinking about my butt than you do.

    So I need to just come out and say this, Kenny-Boy: it’ll never happen. You’re not my type. I’m sure you’re a nice guy (in a vegan weenie sort of way), but I’m just not into guys, and certainly not into vegans. I mean, just imagine the awkwardness if we went out for a romantic dinner, I ordered a juicy steak, and you burst into tears, wailing “You’re not going to eat that innocent animal, are you? I thought you respected me!”

    I realize your attempts to belittle my accomplishments as a comedian and a filmmaker are born out of the frustration of knowing you’ll never have me. I understand, Kenny-Boy. I developed a sour-grapes attitude about some girls who were out of my league in high school. But at some point, we just have to move on and hope Cupid’s arrows strike someone appropriate for us.

    Don’t give up, Kenny-Boy. You’ll find your soulmate — complete with vegetarian poop that smells like lilacs — if you just face the fact that you’re not right for me and move on. And to help you move on, I’m finally doing the right thing and pushing you out the door. Go forth and prosper now, my strange, poop-obsessed, vegan-weenie friend.

    Warmly,
    Tom

  10. Lisa says:

    I work with several RD’s and they all buy into the low fat dogma and ye olde DASH diet. Funny though, they are all larger than I am! And yet, they think Low Carb/High Fat is insane…

    I’m afraid that’s what we’re up against.

  11. Karen says:

    Hey Tom, I apologize as this is very off topic. I was searching for a simple guide to print out for my mom and kids to understand which are the preferred foods for a healthy body. I looked on your blogroll and saw Primal Wisdom’s link. This is a sample of what I found:

    “I think the literature gives a pretty clear picture. Women eating diets low in fat and animal products, and high in whole plant foods, have lower estrogen and testosterone levels and lower incidences of hormone-related diseases, compared to women eating diets high in fat and animal products. Certain plant foods, e.g. flaxseed, legumes, whole grains, appear particularly effective at increasing elimination of excess estrogens and androgens. Clinical trials show that reducing fat and animal products and increasing plant foods rich in fibers will for many women result in reduced hormone levels. A reduction in hormone levels will generally result in reduced premenstrual discomfort and dysphoria, menstrual pain, fibrocystic changes, and risk of hormone-related cancers.”

    Has he totally lost it??? Just thought you might want to know what’s brewing in the blogroll.

    Don has changed his mind, as you noticed. He’ll be speaking at the Ancestral Health Symposium this weekend, so I’m looking forward to hearing his explanations.

  12. Larry h says:

    Hey Tom….I’m a lawyer and I work for the ACLU.

    FUCK You

    Your documentary sucks. Expect a lawsuit soon for your libelous term ‘lawyer logic’.

    I’m sorry, I didn’t attend law school and therefore lack your deep understanding of legal issues, but … was the First Amendment repealed? I would’ve expected that sort of thing to make the news.

    You will of course be able to explain in your lawsuit how the term “lawyer logic” caused damage to some individual lawyers? I’m pretty sure you can’t libel an occupation … and even if I stood in front of a courthouse, pointing to actual lawyers and yelling “Lawyers are worthless @#$%ing sue-happy scumbags!” a hundred times (assuming anyone could hear me over the wild applause that would begin somewhere around the fifth or six repetition), you still couldn’t prove I harmed the reputation of any lawyers, since most reasonably prudent people already believe that anyway. If anything, I’d expect to be sued by the word “logic” for associating it with lawyers.

    But I guess the fact you that you threw a little temper-tantrum and expressed it as a weak-assed threat with no actual legal basis speaks volumes about the quality of the lawyers hired by the ACLU … if indeed you are a lawyer. If so, better get out those books and brush up on libel laws. You apparently slept through a few lectures.

  13. Dana says:

    Larry h may be a troll trying to make the ACLU look bad. They defend the KKK and Adult Literature. I don’t think they care if you joke about lawyer logic.

    (Let’s not argue about Adult Literature. I have mixed feelings about it myself, though as long as Larry Flynt is among That Which Is Defended, the ACLU’s got no standing on lawyer jokes as far as I’m concerned.)

    I’ve been reading a *lot* of random stuff about there being a strong link between hypertension and hyperinsulinism. To the point that I found some medical website talking about how African-Americans have higher insulin levels on average than white people do, to the point that you are far more likely to find a black kid than a white kid with metabolic syndrome. We already know black folks are more likely to have high blood pressure. I’m just about positive the two are connected.

    It’s funny too, the whole insulin-high BP thing, because Dana Carpender and I and a bunch of other people were talking on Facebook a week or so ago about low-carbing and salt, and it seems a lot of times when you’re in induction and you’re getting leg cramps, salt will cure it. We realized we’d heard things about kidneys not holding on to salt anymore when average insulin levels drop–sure enough, a couple times lately I’ve had leg cramps with exertion (moving furniture and heavy boxes around to rearrange a few rooms), and I went and ate some salt out of the shaker and was fine afterward.

    I think people forget sodium is *required* in the human diet. Oftentimes we met that requirement with seafood, back when you had to catch it yourself and it was still salty when you ate it, not washed up and sanitized and pre-frozen.

    Oh, and Kenny? I promise you my farts are way worse on grains than they ever are on meat or eggs. Learn how to boil eggs correctly and you won’t have the sulphurous farts. You have GOT to be a vegan–I never see anyone else under the age of, I dunno, seventy? Being that obsessed with bowel movements, their own or anyone else’s. With the possible exception of new moms still getting used to the idea of changing diapers. You’re not a new mom with a masculine name, are you? If you are, sorry about that. Give it another six months til you’re getting enough sleep–you’ll feel better and cheer up some, I promise.

    I doubt Larry h actually works for the ACLU. If so, they need to fire him immediately. Their stated mission is to protect our freedoms, including the freedom to express opinions. If Larry h does work there, it’s a sad statement about the state of the ACLU.

  14. Dana says:

    oh and Karen? Don’s full of it. It was increasing animal foods, especially animal fats, AND the fat-soluble vitamins that *helped* some reproductive health problems I was having. If you go around eating mostly plants then you pretty much have to consume soy to counteract the poor effects on your girlybits, or at least that was my experience. Not enough vitamin A, in particular, = the plumbing not working right. The Weston A. Price Foundation has info on this but again, I have my own n=1 experience to fall back on. I cannot convert beta carotene well enough to rely on it. I don’t know why that is and I am not interested in knowing–since I found that out about BC, I have since learned that we’re also poor converters of D2 and K1. If we intend to continue having children, we can’t afford to listen to people like Don Matesz. He can keep babbling, we just don’t have to listen.

    Sorry if that sounds disrespectful but he really ticked me off. It was like he got mad at someone calling him on something-or-other (before announcing he was giving up on Paleo, he’d written some ridiculous post about saturated fats, which he subsequently removed after several Paleo bloggers argued with him) and decided he’d just pick up his toys and go home. That’s not cool. I don’t care if someone’s ego gets hurt, I want to know the facts. If you don’t know the facts, tell me that it is what you are aware of to the best of your knowledge. But don’t tell me something I KNOW isn’t true just to score points.

  15. Michael Cohen says:

    One of my favorite H.L. Mencken quotes; “Never argue with someone whose job depends on him being right” Including the subjects of Fat, Salt, Cholesterol and Heart disease

    Mencken was a wise man.

  16. Chris says:

    I have send an email to the NZ Heart Foundation, politely asking them when they will rescind their recommendations to lower salt intakes, given the recent developments in science.
    I’m not hopeful for a reply from them. After all, it’s unlikely for such an organisation to use actual scientific evidence. But if they do, I will certainly argue the case.

    Also, this study recommends chicken: http://isotropic.org/papers/chicken.pdf

    I don’t expect any of these organizations to change their advice for at least a generation — after the people who first promoted that advice are dead and gone.

  17. Pat says:

    Hi Tom
    I finally had to stop restraining myself and point something out to Kenny M. Sorry this is so long. I tried to keep it simple for Kenny.

    Hey KennyM – not all of us live in wonderful climates with great growing conditions. Here in the eastern half of the Great White North (more commonly known as Canada) we have a short growing season (that is why we are “White”, we get a fair bit of snow in winter and we are talking months here) and little top soil. Most of our top soil is in the central US, courtesy of the last glacier plowing it south. What little we have was made since the most recent glacier melted, which is why most good farmland here is on the sediment from the Champlain Sea. In Quebec, for example, 6% of the land is arable land. When we look at the 6%, it breaks down into 3% of the Province is classes 1-3 (that means you can plow it and grow crops) and the other 3% is classes 4-6 (that means you can grow hay and pasture animals, the bedrock is too close to the surface to plow). So yes, we have a big dairy industry.

    This is not unusual. Historically, domestic animals in all parts of the world used land that was not suitable for farming, and ate plant material that was not suitable for human consumption. Given the poor amino acid content of most plants (See Frances Moore Lappé’s “Diet for a Small Planet”) it is very hard to be properly nourished without some animal material.

    Also, please note that short chain fatty acids are a major part of a ruminant’s diet, thanks to the fermentation of cellulose by bacteria in the rumen. In fact,we can validly say that cows and other ruminants eat a very high fat diet. And of course they do get a bit of animal material in the insects that are in and on the plants. And yes, insects count as eating animals. They are very nutritious.

    Given your concern about methane and other gaseous by-products of fermentation, I am sure you have already researched the fact that the two big methane-producing groups on the planet are ruminants and termites, both of which use anaerobic bacteria in their guts to break down cellulose, which cannot be digested by any multi-celled animal. The same thing happens in our hind gut (large intestine) and is totally dependent on the amount of indigestible plant material available to our gut flora. In other words, the more plant fibre a person eats (including legumes), the more gas they produce.

    Hope this clarified matters for you.

    Nothing is going to clarify the issue for Kenny. Logic has no effect on illogical people.

  18. Galina L says:

    To Kenny M.

    I wan you to know the fact – eggs do not produce any flatulence. I know it from my personal experience. I eat at least 2 eggs a day. The same about meat. That is why I am still intrigued about your source of information. “Everybody knows” is not the source. I put my mother on a low-carb diet – she also had greatly decreased flatulence. Flatulence is the product of gut bacteria that live in a colon and suppose to digest whatever is left undigested in intestine. Eggs are easily digested . That is why beans cause gas for people. I remember taking special enzyme-containing pills when I used to eat a vegetarian chilly. The fact that beans induce flatulence is so well-established that the pharm industry offers the solution – enzymes in a box. Did anybody hear about any aid for an egg digestion? The egg consumption is on the rise.Since when the pharm industry forgets about profits? You really look silly while trying to offend people with the fact that they know quite well doesn’t exist.

  19. Firebird says:

    Galina, I am with you. I could eat a dozen eggs a day. I have not problems with gas. Now that bowl of oatmeal I use to eat…

  20. Firebird says:

    I have a feeling that when Kenny is not trolling this blog, he is on YouTube watching One-cup for vegans.

  21. gallier2 says:

    Hey, Pat, just a little correction (yes, I know, I’m an insufferable nitpicker for irrelevant trivia), there is one multi-cellular animal that can digest cellulose directly in its gut, it’s a specific kind of silverfish and some rare worms (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellulase#cite_note-0).

  22. reduceCrapohydrates says:

    On the don matesz issue i think it’s fine for him to change his mind if he feels high fat no longer works for him.Some people are just different and in a free society we can eat what we want once we don’t go around as zealots forcing doctrine down the throats of people who aren’t interested.Anyway once he avoids high-fructose corn syrup and heavily refined grains it should be ok.

    BTW Sheep are often reared in mountains and poor quality land which could never be used to grow crops such as grains.

  23. tracker says:

    It’s 103 degrees on our front porch. If I cut my salt intake I’d probably die of dehydration.

    “Clinical trials show that reducing fat and animal products and increasing plant foods rich in fibers will for many women result in reduced hormone levels.”

    And the problem with animal foods vs. plant foods, is that I’ve not seen a single study (ever.) that looked at people who ate primarily animal products and not other typical American food at the same time. Their “high fat” diets in the studies always include crisco and crap-in-a-bag (especially if it’s rats) and, in the case of human studies, other things that paleolithic people would not have eaten. So, I don’t understand how anyone can reach a consensus on whether one is better than the other since there’s never been a study to well, study it.

    Hmm… back to squirrel hunting I go. The little buggers have over-run the place in this drought and are eating (or hiding) everything we put out for the deer and birds. I need more salt! Or I’ll get dehydrated out there :P

  24. Peggy Cinocki says:

    Tom, I think you hit the nail on the head–Kenny M has a major man crush on you! Love your answer!

  25. SallyMyles says:

    I know when I’ve gone off-message and eaten too many carbs as I get really foul wind. The sort than can clear a room. On HFLC my s**t literally doesn’t stink!

  26. Luke says:

    I was very happy as I listened to a science friday where they talked about bad science. I liked how they stated that thousands of people have been negatively affected by bad science. This is a very positive development.

    Another article stated that centarians didn’t have any better health habits than people who lived to their eighties (they smoked the same, and they ate the same diet). Of course the people talking about this stated that it was genetic, and they were investigating drugs (no surprise) that would turn on the same gene.

    There was one strange coincidence, very few people believed that it was because of god, around 5%. Hmm…

    One thing that they did say was that the subjects had very high HDL (around 100), and had larger LDL.

    I think that the study proves that Low Carb diets can help you live to 100.

  27. Vanessa says:

    I’m pretty sure all these vegetrollians (MeatISmurder, masonmaser, Kenny M, ect) are all one person. I’m at least certain Kenny M and masonmaser are the same person, since they both left the signature smelly butt comment

    @reduceCrapohydrates
    I love that. I’m calling them crapohydrates from now on.

  28. Vanessa says:

    @Larry h

    I don’t care if you’re a lawyer or not, stop swearing! We understand you’re upset, you don’t need to resort to foul, vulgar language to get your point across. That’s why we have exclamation points. In the future please stop resorting to a horrible word that means something much different than what you intended, and tell your buddies you want to stop playing truth or dare because their childish dares are getting you a lot of hate comments.

  29. kortikosteroid says:

    it’s always been a mystery to me why low-sodium diets are described as healthy in general. as far as i know, only people with kidney insuffiency or high blood pressure have been shown to benefit from restricting their sodium intake.

    i once read an article in a life style magazine about sodium intake and health, and the dietician who was interviewed defended the overall “decrease your sodium intake”-policy. she admitted that there wasn’t really any research to suggest that otherwhise healthy people should cut back on table salt, but said that people should be encouraged to avoid sodium rich foods anyway, as people usually find salty foods tasty and therefore tend to overeat them… geez.

  30. Walter B says:

    Isn’t high salt consumption a marker for high consumption of packaged “foods”. IIUC, the anti salt brigade actually stipulates that the high salt is from the manufactured foodlike substance industry.

    That being the case it seems investigating the idea that salt may be protective seems warranted as we know that the packaged foods are grossly deficient.

  31.  
Leave a Reply