https://www.sciencedaily.com/releas...70914210621.htm



Four times as likely sounds like a strong correlation, good enough that causation is likely. But I once saw a study showing omega 6 fatty acids correlated with six times as much glaucoma, but only after correcting for a number of things, without the corrections, there was very little correlation. Also if there's a very high correlation of salt with something else, say a generally poor diet, the correlation to salt can be non-random without being causative. For years I never salted my food, all that means is that homemade food can't compete with commercial food.

This from the epidemiological study:



and this:



The statement from the last quote in bold, that's a lot of salt! The AHA's current recommendation is 2.3g of sodium equivalent to 1 teaspoon of salt per day. Results from a questionnaire from a study of rigorously applied categories that are based on fact??? Information like this is irresponsibly reported until we can apply RCTs that remove the inaccuracies upon which this study is based. That would be an expensive RCT, which is why we need to find a creative way to get to a salt consumption recommendation that makes sense.

The elephant in the room that is never addressed in epidemiological studies is the following: what else was consumed with the sodium that may possibly have had an equal or greater influence on developing diabetes than sodium?

I salt my food. To what degree am I putting my health at risk? (rhetorical question)

Sounds high, but the difference between groups is pretty small, 1.9 grams more salt a day is supposed to be giving people diabetes?

There are old post-WWII studies looking at salt intake in some parts of Japan and India, where it was as high as 24 or 25 grams per day! I usually don't use exclamation points, makes me feel a little manic. People have worked on blaming stomach cancer and stroke rates in Japan on salt intake, somehow they missed the type II diabetes epidemic back then, most likely because it didn't actually happen.

I don't believe a word of it. Salt is essential. Deficiency is real. The only possible way to avoid a deficiency is to eat too much salt. First Law: Can't create out of thin air. Therefore, too much is the only way to make sure there's enough. Physiology obeys First Law in all kinds of ways. The blood contains more than needed. Storage organs contain more than needed. We eat more than we need at every meal. The idea that consuming too much of something essential causes disease is absurd when that's precisely how disease is avoided in the first place.

Maybe we're talking about a toxic dose of salt, but I doubt it. It's very hard to eat a toxic dose of salt, whether intentionally or not. So we're talking about a couple grams of salt over a couple decades. But in fact we're talking about a couple grams of salt in one day. 2 grams. And it's not 2 grams versus 0, it's 6 grams versus 7.9 grams. There's already 6 grams being metabolized, how is 2 more grams gonna make any difference? If we can handle 6 grams just fine, and if we have to eat more to obey First Law, physiology can certainly handle that extra 2 grams.

On the other hand, what about carbs? This ain't grams, it's hundreds of grams. And carbs ain't essential. I'm just throwing this out there. What if salt is needed to deal with all the carbs? The more carbs, the more salt. We'd be more hungry for salt if we ate more carbs. Salted stuff would taste much better, we'd go for it when offered, we'd look for it when shopping, we'd eat it at breakfast lunch and dinner and snacks and when we wake up at night hungry.

Here's the thing with carbs. Absolute daily requirement is 0, yet we are told to eat at least 300 grams per day for a lifetime. This ain't 6 vs 7.9, it's 0 vs 300.

Here's the other thing with carbs. Even if we could handle 300g/day, there's the insulin, we can't handle too much of that no way no how. Insulin is the central regulator of pretty much everything. Carbs disrupt insulin, therefore carbs disrupt everything. Can't blame salt for that.

I see it as another instance of the near-constant "red meat is death" stories, when you drill down they don't mean beef, they mean processed sandwich meats, and what always goes with that is, obviously, bread... but they never claim bread will kill you.

Though it can.

Ho hum. Another day, another culprit to blame on very flimsy evidence.

People seem to be scrounging all over the place to find something to blame the rise in diabetes/obesity on (salt, red meat, dietary fat that humans ate plenty of before the rise) while the white elephant in the room of sugar and carbs just quietly sits there feeling ignored.

Yeah, no one who values their career standing or credibility will touch that sacred cow fed-up on "healthy grains"

I couldn't help but notice how there are now 3 threads in quick succession on here about what is currently being accused of causing diabetes:

Red Meat linked to Diabetes
Salt accused of causing diabetes
artificial sweeteners may promote diabetes

What next?! I can see the nightmare news stories now...

Very appropriate and true . . .

Exactly! Guess what kinds of salty foods people eat that causes diabetes? Carby ones! Chips, fries, and some are even sweet and salty like kettle corn.

OMG, this is fabulous, you just made my day...pass it on, ttyl

dihydrogen monoxide is lookin' mighty suspect too ...

That's exactly where my thoughts went.

Nooooo!!! I just drank several cups of that today!!!