The tone of http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/23/science/23tier.html?hpw suggests that conventional wisdom is shifting: in the last paragraph the author almost takes it for granted that the low-fat campaign has failed.
But when you contemplate the potential costs of another public health debacle like the anti-fat campaign, a clinical trial can start to look cheap.
Is that awareness reaching the population at large?
Taubes would be amused.
Indeed. Tierney has discussed Taubes's work in previous columns. And Taubes took on the issue of Salt back in 1998.
Wow, good catch with that quote.
I saw something recently about a low carb study and the response from the low fat crowd was very defensive. I believe it was the American Heart Association. Rather than pushing the usual line that fat is bad for you, they were essentially arguing from the standpoint that a low fat diet can be as good as a high fat/low carb diet in terms of lipid panel improvements. Can't seem to find the link now but it was an eye opener to me that things are slowly coming around.
The AHA has been gradually bumping up recommended fat intake. They're up to 30% now from I believe 20% just a few years ago. These groups and 'experts' have been pushing the low fat thing for so long that they're just trying to figure out how to save face now that the science has come in largely against that point of view.
Im concerned with the attack on salt causing disastrous effects on human health similar to the disastrous affects that the recommended low fat high sugar diet has already done to america.
My only concern with salt is that it increases the need for potassium, which is hard to get enough of as it is.
The more I read about nutrition science and disease the more it seems to come down to imbalances. So sodium/potassium, magnesium/calcium, n3/n6, vitamin A/D etc.
People need to be educated about salt. A lot of people are adding salt to their own meals, it's not just in packaged food or in food that people get from restaurants.
There is the iodine issue, a lot of salt is iodized (although the salt in packaged food may or may not be), but it's not like salt naturally comes with iodine. I think it would be better to supplement for iodine in some other way. Iodine is included in most multivitamins......
Too little sodium can be an issue, but that's rare given how much it is consumed today. but it does happen to some people who get very little sodium AND exercise a lot.
I only use unrefined "sea salt" or "kosher salt". I stay strictly with these "unrefined" options. You will not find any added iodine in either. In my opinion,there is absolutely no place for "processed table salt" in the diet. If you cook real food, you should be using a quality, natural, unrefined salt to help flavor your dishes. Now if we could only get the restaurant and industrial food industry to follow suit!
I came across an interesting article/web site that promotes treating advanced Lyme disease with a daily regiment of nothing more than salt and vitamin C.
Proponents of this approach point out that salt is a natural anti-microbial and it was not long ago that humans consumed a lot of salt because salt was one of the primary forms of pre-refridgeration preservation. They hypothesize that the lack of salt in the modern diet is one of the causes of outbreaks of various diseases and conditions. This level of salt intake is probably not paleo; but it might be a good thing in an industrialized society where we are constantly exposed to germs and toxins that our paleo ancestors never knew.
The line of reasoning is very similar to that of saturated fats -- the gummint has been warning us to eliminate them because they're dangerous, when in fact they are not only NOT dangerous, but good for us, in fact essential.
I am not at all a conspiracy theorist, but I think the government and its bodies are giving advice which is exactly opposed to promoting good health.
crossfit paleo and protien? 0 Answers
Grassfed beef tallow 6 Answers
Potatoes and feeling good? 2 Answers