All of this is merely a good illustration of the harm that ill-conceived and unsupported hypotheses can do.Those hypotheses were “invented” by bad (paid) science, by the Big Pharma. Just another “milking cow”.

Salt was one of the first dietary items to be indicted by the ‘healthy eating’ faddists. We already know, of course, how nonsensical the argument against dietary fat is; in “the case against salt” there is practically no argument. Nevertheless, the current “consensus” among certain “experts” is that salt increases blood pressure and that raised blood pressure causes stroke, brain hemorrhage and heart disease.

For centuries sodium chloride (NaCl), the scientific name for salt, has been regarded as one of the most important items of diet for health. Salt was so important that people were actually paid in salt. Did you know that it is the origin of the word “salary”? Salt was also used extensively as a valuable commodity for bartering. Then, suddenly, in the 20th Century it became a killer: indicted as a cause of hypertension and, thence, of stroke and of heart disease. Thanks, Big Pharma!

This is not a sign of something unhealthy, but rather of the extreme power and effectiveness of low-carb. Now that we have discovered such a powerfully effective tool to control our overall health, it only makes sense that we may need to freshly educate ourselves on a few chemical limitations of our biology, and learn a few wise chemical ways of how to carefully manage it.

The outbreak of powerful new knowledge is not “alarming” or “concerning”, except for those in every generation who dont understand it and cannot accept meaningful change. These people are doomed to remain stuck in a dsyfunctional past.

Tom

those guys are funny, they claim they dont censor commments, but the have completely stopped posting any comment I make… and it has nothing to do with spam filters, as Gerry tried to claim (in a series of comments on this board). I emailed them, and posted again and again. Nope, the only comments they seem to allow are those that are in complete agreement with their nonsense. Tells you something about them, I think.

To the contrary even: salt is vital to the body. Low sodium diets have been shown to be extremely harmful and even causing premature deaths. The first National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES I) established baseline information during 1971-75 in a representative sample of 20,729 American adults aged twenty-five to seventy-five. Of these, 11,348 underwent medical and nutritional examination.

They were rechecked on 30 June 1992. By then there had been 3,923 deaths, of which 1,970 were due to a cardiovascular disease. Comparing salt intakes, this study found that all-cause mortality was inversely related to salt intake. In other words, those who ate the most salt had the fewest deaths – from any cause. And the same was found for cardiovascular deaths. Dr Helen Whalley writing a feature in the Lancet, talks of the continuing debate on the supposed association between salt and hypertension. She points out that an analysis of the NHANES I survey shows that ‘the heart attack fatality rate among those on low-sodium diets was 20% higher that those on normal diets.’. She goes on to report a study on the Salt Institute’s website on the impact of long-term salt reduction. It found a four-fold increase in heart attacks among those on low-salt diets.

Just an example… there is much more scientific evidence. Among the elderly, for example, high blood pressure (often diagnosed as hypertension) is completely normal and necessary.

Several researchers are extremely worried about this latest travesty, which is about as imbecilic as the lipid-heart (cholesterol) theory. A worldclass researcher wrote in The Lancet:

“We are concerned with the way in which this important is­sue is currently being handled. The idea (or likelihood) that salt in the diet has some positive value is totally ignored. The usual sci­entific stan­dards for weighing evidence and giving advice which are now well established . . . seem to have been forgotten in an evangelical crusade to present a simplistic view of the evidence which will prove attractive to the media.”

Professor Swales of Leicester University also pointed out:

“Such a citation would not even get into the bibliography of hypertension. The use of such a publication to support a major recommendation is not acceptable scientific practice. . . it is fairly apparent that an enormous superstructure is being built on extremely weak foundations.”

Do I smell PROFIT, guys?