One in Time and one in Scientific American (which is referenced in the Time article). Basically . . . it's very hard to show a conclusive link between sodium intake and health, and even harder to link reducing sodium intake to health improvements.
Everything we learned - very possibly literally - in the 80s and early 90s about health is wrong. Trans fats are not good for you. Saturated fats are not bad for you. Fat in general is vital. Fat doesn't make you fat. Carbs are not guilt-free foods that have no negative impact on your health. Eggs don't raise your cholesterol. And so on, and so on. Remember all of that?
Now it's salt. There is a strong case being made here, between the lines, that we need to make sure we get more potassium. The sodium-to-potassium ratio seems to be important. This is why I keep and use a potassium-based salt substitute - not to reduce sodium but rather to increase my potassium intake.
Also it's amusing that once again the government is behind the curve. New York City is on a big anti-salt kick, which is probably harmless in and of itself. But it's amusing as the difficulty of linking sodium to actual health issues is revealed, and the difficulty of showing a link between reduced sodium and improved health, it's becoming a real regulatory issue.
No comments:
Post a Comment