NutritionFacts.org
Browsing: Home / Videos / Salt OK if Blood Pressure is OK?

Health Topics

Browse through 1,611 different health topics
from A-Z!
  1. #
  2. A
  3. B
  4. C
  5. D
  6. E
  7. F
  8. G
  9. H
  10. I
  11. J
  12. K
  13. L
  14. M
  15. N
  16. O
  17. P
  18. Q
  19. R
  20. S
  21. T
  22. U
  23. V
  24. W
  25. X
  26. Y
  27. Z
Browse All Topics

Salt OK if Blood Pressure is OK?

If your blood pressure is normal is there any reason to avoid sodium?

December 20, 2010 |
GD Star Rating
loading...
FavoriteLoadingAdd to My Playlist

Topics

Supplementary Info

Salt OK if Blood Pressure is OK?, 5.0 out of 5 based on 1 rating

Sources Cited

K.M. Dickinson, J.B. Keogh, & P.M. Clifton. Effects of a low-salt diet on flow-mediated dilatation in humans. Am J Clin Nutr, 89(2):485-490, 2009.

M. Beck. The Fine Print: What’s Really in a Lot of ‘Healthy’ Foods. The Wall Street Journal, (May 5, 2009).

Acknowledgements

Transcript

Fact or fiction: If your blood pressure is normal, salt is OK. Or to put it another way, unless you have high blood pressure, there’s no reason to specifically avoid sodium.
Fact, or fiction?
Major fiction. Salt does all sorts of bad things to our arteries besides just raising blood pressure, contributing to the deaths of about 150,000 Americans every year. So try to keep sodium intake under about 1500mg a day, which means a single slice of bacon could take you over the top for the entire day.
Which has more sodium, though? More salt? A serving of beef, a serving of baked all-natural chicken, a large McDonald’s French fries, or a serving of salted pretzels.
It’s not the pretzels…or the fries, or the beef. Why does straight chicken have so much salt in it? It’s because the poultry industry injects the carcasses with salt water to artificially inflate the weight, and they can still label it 100% natural. Consumer Reports found some supermarket chicken so plumped with salt that it registered 840 mg per serving. That’s off the charts, like half our days sodium in half a chicken breast.

To see any graphs, charts, graphics, images, and quotes to which Dr. Greger may be referring watch the above video. This is just an approximation of the audio contributed by veganmontreal.

To help out on the site please email volunteer@nutritionfacts.org

Dr. Michael Greger

Doctor's Note

For more context, check out my associated blog post, Do Eden Beans Have Too Much Iodine?

  • http://nutritionfacts.org/members/veguyan/ Veguyan

    I dont’ know how to make food taste good without sea-salt. A bowl of soba or rice or even oatmeal just taste bland without salt. Soba with garlic and chili still needs salt to bring it to life. What to do?

    • http://nutritionfacts.org/members/mgreger/ Michael Greger M.D.

      Darned taste buds! Turns out that you can train them to accept a lower level of sodium. I know everything now tastes like cardboard without added salt, but give it 2-3 weeks. That’s all it takes to retrain you buds. It’s like magic. I know you may not believe me now, but if you actually stick through those few weeks then once your nerves reset, adding any salt at all will make you grimace because it makes things too salty. Please give it a try for a few weeks and let me know how it goes.

  • http://nutritionfacts.org/members/maybush1/ maybush1

    I have to say that it absolutely does work. Going off, or very much reducing, salt intake brings the taste buds back to life after a couple of weeks (it seemed to take me just a few days). The foods will definitely begin bursting with flavor again. You won’t believe it until it’s tried.

  • http://nutritionfacts.org/members/toxins/ Toxins

    Its true, I find salty foods un edible now.

  • http://nutritionfacts.org/members/IoanaSamartinean/ Ioana Samartinean

    i was off salt for months last year (sometimes just a bit of sea salt), and i hated it the whole time. my taste buds did not retrain. eating was lame. when i started using salt again i could actually enjoy food.
    my name is ioana and i am a salt addict.

    • http://nutritionfacts.org/members/chelsea/ Chelsea

      Ioana, I love salt too! I was actually surprised how easy it was to keep below 1500mg just by eating fruits and vegetables that taste delicious raw, and then sneaking in my salt at dinner. Give it a shot!

    • http://nutritionfacts.org/members/vallis/ Vallis

      I don’t love salt as much as salt loves me. My brain is programmed that certain things must be part of my cooking and eating olive oil and salt are two. My brain is in the drivers seat as far as these two things are concerned. So I am being sneaky and just reducing the amount of salt i ad a bit at a time. So far so good but just cutting it out would be harsh for me, and my brain would just kick back hard!

  • http://nutritionfacts.org/members/psychwoman1/ psychwoman1

    Ok this might be a stupid question, but here goes. Is there a difference between regular table salt and sea salt, as far as one being better for you-or less bad for you, than the other? I have heard both ways, so I thought I would ask you.
    Thanks!

    • http://nutritionfacts.org/members/toxins/ Toxins

      Well, since our food these days is lacking in iodine, I would say iodized table salt is a better option then sea salt. Check out Dr. Greger’s video on Iodine

      http://nutritionfacts.org/videos/avoiding-iodine-deficiency-2/

    • http://nutritionfacts.org/members/chelsea/ Chelsea

      Hey, psychwoman1! You are not asking a stupid question; there are many varieties of salt that exist beyond table salt and sea salt. As a connoisseur of salt (I have over 8 types in my house right now…and no table salt), I would be glad to explain the difference. Table salt is refined and mostly just plain ol’ sodium chloride, with some anti-caking agents thrown in. Iodine is one additive typically in table salt. Sea salt is just your evaporated sea water, which will vary depending on where it’s from in the refining, additive, and mineral content. The really good stuff is unrefined salt. These are the only types of salt that I have, and they each contain a variety of minerals that give a unique flavor to the salt. Just as the name implies, they are unrefined. Some sea salts can be unrefined as well; I think I have grey sea salt and fleur de sel which are both fantastic and unrefined. I urge you to branch out from table salt, but keep an eye on your iodine levels if you do! And check out this other video on salt: http://nutritionfacts.org/videos/dietary-guidelines-with-a-grain-of-big-salt/

      • http://nutritionfacts.org/members/psychwoman1/ psychwoman1

        Chelsea,

        I already am a lover of ‘alternate’ salts :) My fav is pink Himalayan Sea Salt. I just was curious if it was actually less bad for you than regular ‘ol table salt, since it is less or not at all refined. I’m glad I’m not the only one who loves salt! :) I am going to try harder to reduce my salt usage, but I think I’ll stick with my Pink sea salt, and may look for the salts you mention too.

  • http://nutritionfacts.org/members/vallis/ Vallis

    Would it be your point of view that salt water would be injected into all or most chicken found in supermarket?? How about organic Chicken?

    • http://nutritionfacts.org/members/toxins/ Toxins

      Most of the conventional chicken is injected with saline solution and you can read how much of the weight is of this salt water on the packaging. As for organic, it is not injected but that doesn’t mean organic chicken is healthy.

      • http://nutritionfacts.org/members/vallis/ Vallis

        Thank-you Toxins. I personally do not eat animal “products”‘; but I was asking on behalf of the rest of my tribe that does.

  • http://nutritionfacts.org/members/vegannutritionist/ VeganNutritionist

    Something to consider with those who eat a diet of mostly fruits and vegetables and who work out a great deal. If you are sweating a lot and eat foods with insufficient sodium, you can develop hyponatremia or low blood sodium. You may feel ill, fatigued, loss of appetite, headache, confusion, vomiting, etc. I experienced this last year for the first time, and it was quite difficult for me to figure out.

    I was eating a high raw all fruits and vegetable diet, and couldn’t even get out of bed in the morning. I thought I caught a bug or had Lyme disease. It wasn’t until a threw a little salt on my popcorn one evening did I realize what it was. I felt much better in a very short amount of time.

    Moral of the story is that salt is still an essential mineral and you can develop a deficiency.

    • http://nutritionfacts.org/members/toxins/ Toxins

      Indeed, salt is necessary for health. Here is a quote from Jeff Novick on sodium and sweat loss.

      “Endurance athletes who work out in high temperatures who are adapted to a high sodium diet can lose sodium though their sweat.

      However, when one adapts to a low sodium diet, which can take about a week or so, they will lose much less sodium through their sweat and this will not be an issue.”

  • http://nutritionfacts.org/members/vegannutritionist/ VeganNutritionist

    I have been eating high raw for 4 years now, so his theory doesn’t apparently work for all people.

    • http://nutritionfacts.org/members/toxins/ Toxins

      Perhaps the issue of eating purely raw has a role in this, since a raw food diet has many drawbacks to a conventional whole foods plant based diet with cooking.

  • http://nutritionfacts.org/members/vegannutritionist/ VeganNutritionist

    A raw diet has drawbacks? Ok, I’ll bite. What is your argument?

  • http://nutritionfacts.org/members/vegannutritionist/ VeganNutritionist

    You haven’t shown any drawbacks of a raw food diet. You only showed me a couple videos that talked about nutrient absorption. Too many people (yes, even doctors) have fallen into the myth that more of a nutrient is always better. This has been proven to be a fallacy. Many times, too much of a single nutrient can be harmful.

    In addition, there are tens of thousands of nutrients in raw foods. A good percentage of those nutrients are destroyed during cooking. We haven’t even identified all the nutrients in raw plant-foods, so we can’t even know exactly how many or which ones are destroyed and how they impact the health of the consumer.

    If we are to eat like our ancestors and primate relatives, if would be all raw food.

    Show me an epidemiological study showing that raw foodists suffer health consequences from these drawbacks. Otherwise, they aren’t drawbacks at all.

    • http://nutritionfacts.org/members/toxins/ Toxins

      What we absorb is a key indicator of how healthy we are. The fact that it was found that raw foodists have equivalent levels of several antioxidants to that of a standard American diet shows its clear ineffectiveness.

      You are using the same faulty logic of the paleolithic diet. Are you really going to idolize our ancestors who lived till they were 30-40 years old? As of right now, there are no long term studies on raw foodists, nor is their evidence to support this diet. It is simply a theory. Cooking can be viewed as pre digestion, it is not toxic nor is it harmful. If one grills something that is a different story, but gently cooking food provides no issue.

      “Pre digesting” food allows us to consume more of it keeping us full for longer periods of time and allows us to absorb more nutrients. Complex carbohydrates, such as beans and sweet potatoes depend on being cooked to be consumed.

      It doesn’t matter how our ancestors ate, it matters what the science tells us now. I see no reason to jump on to the raw food bandwagon since this diet is unsupported by any scientific evidence. If you can present some valid studies showing how a raw food diet is healthier compared to a conventional whole food plant based diet then please do so. The burden of proof is on you.

  • http://nutritionfacts.org/members/vegannutritionist/ VeganNutritionist

    Don’t turn this around on me. You are the one who said raw food diets have a drawback. You haven’t shown me any proof. I never said that cooked food diets have a drawback, nor did I said everyone needs to eat a raw food diet. The burden of proof is on you to support your “drawbacks”.

    You claim “The fact that it was found that raw foodists have equivalent levels of several antioxidants to that of a standard American diet shows its clear ineffectiveness.”

    What is your reference that shows these lower levels of anti-oxidants. And what is your reference to show that cooked food vegans showed a higher level.

  • http://nutritionfacts.org/members/vegannutritionist/ VeganNutritionist

    Where is my proof of what? I am not trying to prove anything. You are trying to show me that a raw food diet has drawbacks. I am asking YOU to provide evidence to your claim. The studies to which you linked do not offer any epidemiological studies that suggest raw food diets have any drawbacks. Simply because cooking certain foods increases the absorption of some nutrients does not mean that eating them raw has a drawback. And having lower levels of a certain nutrient does not mean you are deficient. Deficient is defined as showing symptoms. So, unless you can show that eating a raw food diet creates a deficiency, I would say your comment that raw food diets have a drawback is moot.

    More is not always better. Sometimes it is simply just more.

    • http://nutritionfacts.org/members/toxins/ Toxins

      Antioxidant markers are an indicator of how healthy one is, what I am saying is that raw foodists have very similar markers to those on a standard American diet, which is lacking in antioxidants. Therefore one can conclude that a raw food diet doesn’t allow an adequate amount of nutrients to be absorbed despite the high intake of fruits and vegetables.

  • http://nutritionfacts.org/members/vegannutritionist/ VeganNutritionist

    You are making conclusions based on an extremely limited amount of information. You are making HUGE assumptions and not using sound scientific analysis. The level of assumption on your part is equivalent to saying “Hey, I know a guy who eats his boogers everyday and he is 100 years old, so if you eat your boogers, you will live to be 100 too!”

    There are THOUSANDS of anti-oxidants and you are basing a conclusion on two studies showing two anti-oxidants. Raw food diets may provide much higher anti-oxidant levels of many of the thousands of other anti-oxidants, but there are no studies to show one way or the other, so again, your conclusion is based on opinion, not science.

    There is NOTHING that shows anti-oxidant levels are an indicator of health. Have you considered the possibility that the raw food diet enables those anti-oxidants to react to free-radicals much quicker than a cooked food diet, and the reason the levels are lower is because they are being used at a quicker rate? I am not saying that is what is happening, but just one of dozens of possible scenarios. This is why you have to look at studies objectively and actively seek reasons why certain results may be suspect or even completely void.

    You simply cannot make sound conclusions based on a few studies. You have to read hundreds or even thousands of studies on the matter. And studies focused on health markers provide significantly less valuable information than epidemiological studies. Dr. T Colin Campbell conducted the largest epidemiological project in history and he concludes that the more raw foods you consume, the better.

    Now, would you like to withdraw your statement that raw food diets have drawbacks? Or are you going to show me epidemiological evidence?

    • http://nutritionfacts.org/members/toxins/ Toxins

      What I am saying is that a raw food diet is unnecessary for a healthful diet and requires a lot more eating to acquire sufficient nutrients and satisfy energy needs. That is the draw back I have been addressing.

  • http://nutritionfacts.org/members/vegannutritionist/ VeganNutritionist

    AGAIN, you have zero documentation that a raw food diet requires more eating to get the same nutrients than a cooked diet. You are focused on two studies that address two nutrients out of tens of thousands.

    Energy needs or energy wants? Because we are living in the culture that consumes much more energy than it needs. Reducing the calories available to someone in Western cultures can only be considered beneficial. The less calories absorbed, the less diseases, the slower they age, and the longer they live.

    Do you, do you not have any epidemiological evidence that eating a raw food diet has any drawbacks? If not, then simply withdraw your statement.

    • http://nutritionfacts.org/members/toxins/ Toxins

      I don’t need a study to prove my simple point. Lets look at calorie density. Lets assume a 2,000 calorie diet consisting of fruits, vegetables and nuts (since complex carbohydrates require cooking unless sprouted)

      To achieve this you would need to eat about 6 bananas, 20 cups of chopped kale, and a cup cup of almonds (which is around 70 grams of fat, 100% of our daily value.) And all these foods would fill u up quickly (except the almonds) but not keep u full very long at all.

      Those ratios could be changed around however, it would still be quite an inefficient diet…especially with all that kale if u chose to gets your calories from this nutrient dense green.

      If we had cooked food on the other hand, we would need only 1 cup of dry rice, 2 cups of oats and 3 medium sweet potatoes (excluding all other fruits and vegetables from the diet). This food not only keeps us full long, but it is nutritious and satisfies our energy needs.

    • http://nutritionfacts.org/members/maybush1/ maybush1

      VeganNutritionist, one question: I’m assuming you eat a raw vegan diet (or “high raw” as you mentioned earlier)…why? Why NOT cook many of the foods that you eat?

  • VeganNutritionist

    Not sure what happened, but around 4 posts are gone, and the webpage to discussion board auto login stopped working.

  • VeganNutritionist

    Author: Toxins

    Comment:

    “I don’t need a study to prove my simple point. Lets look at
    calorie density. Lets assume a 2,000 calorie diet consisting of fruits,
    vegetables and nuts (since complex carbohydrates require cooking unless
    sprouted)

    To achieve  this you would need to eat about 6 bananas, 20 cups of
    chopped kale, and a cup cup of almonds (which is around 70 grams of fat,
    100% of our daily value.) And all these foods would fill u up quickly
    (except the almonds) but not keep u full very long at all.

    Those ratios could be changed around however, it would still be quite an
    inefficient diet…especially with all that kale if u chose to gets
    your calories from this nutrient dense green.

    If we had cooked food on the other hand, we would need only 1 cup of dry
    rice, 2 cups of oats and 3 medium sweet potatoes (excluding all other
    fruits and vegetables from the diet). This food not only keeps us full
    long, but it is nutritious and satisfies our energy needs. ”

    My Response:

    Toxnis,
    you are really proving your ignorance on nutrition.  First of all, the nutritional value of the raw food you mentioned is several orders of magnitude higher than the cooked food you recommended.  Kale being one of the highest in the world.  In addition, the best formula we have that simplifies the path to health is Health=Nutrients/Calories,  So, the more nutrients and fewer calories, the healthier we become.  You gave a list of cooked foods with rather low levels of nutrients and high calories.  Not the best foods for becoming healthy.  And what happens when someone eats more calories?  The first thing is their metabolism speeds up.  You probably think this is a good thing, but it is not.  A fast metabolism promotes disease and increases aging. 

    You are the FIRST person to suggest that more calories are better.  I am assuming it is because this is your last attempt to somehow promote the “drawbacks” of a raw food diet.  You have made a lot of assumptions and expressed your opinion, but you haven’t provided any evidence.  Why not step up and simply withdraw your statement that a raw foods diet has drawbacks.  Have you ever eaten a raw foods diet for any considerable amount of time?  Have you ever felt the energy and vitality they provide?  Have you ever been to a raw foods festival and seen the bodies of raw food practitioners?  The best way to describe most of them is “Greek Gods”.

    If you are eating any whole-foods plant-based diet, I certainly wouldn’t tell you it has drawbacks.  In fact, I would support you because it is very healthy for you, the environment, and the animals.  What is your motivation to tel someone who eats healthy and compassionately that their diet has drawbacks? 

    Dr Greger even stated in one of the videos you linked that we should consume vegetables in whatever form that makes us want to consume the most.  For me, that is raw.

    Author: maybush1

    Comment:

    VeganNutritionist, one question: I’m assuming you eat a raw vegan diet
    (or “high raw” as you mentioned earlier)…why? Why NOT cook many of the
    foods that you eat?

    Maybush,
    I don’t like cooked food as much as I like raw.  I do occasionally eat cooked food, but I like the way raw foods taste and the way they make me feel. 

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Frank-Maybusher/1691456890 Frank Maybusher

      Why is it that you are attacking someone who more or less agrees with the way you eat (we ALL agree that a vegan diet is the healthiest, regardless of HOW it’s prepared…those are minutia and details that shouldn’t invite such a strong attacking response). Calling someone ignorant (even indirectly) certainly does not invite people to your side. The same accusations you are directing toward Toxins (claiming something without proof, of which Toxins seems to have done one ONE point) is something you seem to be doing quite well and in seemingly much more abundance: “the nutritional value of the raw food you mentioned is several orders of magnitude higher than the cooked food you recommended” (“several orders of magnitude”? By what reference?), “the best formula we have that simplifies the path to health is Health=Nutrients/Calories” (Seems too simplistic of an equation…what about other factors? Organics? Age? Cooking? Etc…have we looked at all of those thousands of antioxidants you mentioned are in many foods? Maybe many are deleterious in higher numbers of that equation – the numerator), “a list of cooked foods with rather low levels of nutrients and high calories” (what nutrients? You previously mentioned thousands in food. And by what reference?), “The first thing is their metabolism speeds up. [After eating more calories]“, “A fast metabolism promotes disease and increases aging.” (I believe aerobic exercise tends to increase metabolism…should we stop?), ”
      The best way to describe most of them [people at a raw foods festival] is “Greek Gods”" (I’ve seen many and they seem sickly thin to me…but that’s admittedly just my *opinion*)…and all of these unsupported claims were found in your last post *alone*! My point is simply this: why argue so vehemently against someone who seems to be pretty much on your side of the health argument? I think your energy and resources would be better and more efficiently utilized  if directed toward those who REALLY promote unhealthy diet/lifestyles.

      To your health!

      • VeganNutritionist

        Now you are just using ad hominem and being quite hypocritical and not to mention rude.  I am not trying to win anyone to “my side” I am just challenging your inaccurate and opinionated statement that a raw food diet has some kind of drawback versus cooked food.  Just admit that what your claim is baseless. 

        Look up phytonutrients.  Something over 10,000 of them.  

        Exercise decreases metabolism.   This is why people train.  The lower the resting metabolism and the higher the maximum output means the greatest available work output. 

        “I think your energy and resources would be better and more efficiently
        utilized  if directed toward those who REALLY promote unhealthy
        diet/lifestyles.”

        You made the derogatory comment against my diet, remember?  Someone proves you wrong, and then you can only attack them?  Seriously, can’t you just man up and admit when you spoke out of ignorance? 

        • http://www.facebook.com/people/Frank-Maybusher/1691456890 Frank Maybusher

          That’s funny, but Toxins and I are two completely different people (I’m just observing from the sidelines as you continue to attack her/him). I think you’re confused as to whom is whom. Btw, I used no ad hominems toward you in my last post (if I did, please…point them out!…and if so, I apologize). Also, I completely agree that there are hundreds if not thousands of “phytonutrients” and antioxidants in foods. But you ignored my point with respect to them: if so, then how can YOU make a judgment call on their total efficacy (have they all been researched?), just as you have accused Toxins of doing the same with respect to the claim that they were making? 

          One potential example, as you mentioned in an earlier post with respect to absorption of these nutrients, is the possibility that if taken in too large a number or dose they become hazardous. More, in other words, isn’t necessarily better. If this is what you are saying, then I applaud you!

          As for resting metabolic rate (RMR) and exercise…I am afraid you are completely wrong. RMR INCREASES (not decreases) with exercise. This is a very well-known result of exercise in the medical community. Metabolic rates measure how much energy is being utilized in the body and that measurement goes UP with training and exercise (not down). For those who wish to lose weight, exercise provides them the best way to burn that excess energy store, thus an increase in their metabolic rate will benefit them. (One quick example of research to support that claim from many that I can find: http://ukpmc.ac.uk/abstract/MED/3492457/reload=0;jsessionid=wFyKc43g4PP4tAIIjvMw.6)

          To you health!

    • Toxins

      The whole point of the calorie for calorie example was to show energy expenditures and efficiency of the diet in regards to quantity consumed. If you need to eat more raw food to achieve what cooked food has to offer that in itself is a drawback.

      • VeganNutritionist

        Sure, that is a drawback.  Because people just HATE eating food.

        I could make dozens more points against cooking, but I won’t.  If people are eating healthily, consciously, and have no symptoms of deficiency, then I wouldn’t dream of trying to get them to change by telling them their diet is somehow inferior to my own. 

        • Toxins

          People love eating food, that’s not the problem. The problem is when it gets to the point where one must eat food all day to remain satiated and to satisfy energy needs and expenditures. Its a constant state of digestion.

          • VeganNutritionist

            You are grasping at straws.  Yesterday, I ate over 4,000 calories in four meals that probably took around 30-40 minutes of my time, and most of that was cutting up the food.  When I cook food, I spend a LOT more time cooking than when eating raw foods, so I actually have more free time.  So, again, your point is baseless.  Can you simply admit that you have no evidence?  Or are you going to keep grasping at straws because your ego is too big to ever admit you may be wrong?

          • Toxins

             You seem to be missing my point… I have tried to explain it to you in several different ways now but I see now that you simply cannot grasp what I am trying to tell you. Ill leave it at that and let the readers of these comments decide what’s best.

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/Frank-Maybusher/1691456890 Frank Maybusher

            I agree. 

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/Frank-Maybusher/1691456890 Frank Maybusher

            I thought you recently mentioned that “the best formula we have that simplifies the path to health is Health=Nutrients/Calories”. 4000 calories in one day certainly sounds to me that the denominator in that equation will shoot the “Health” result straight down! Now, accusing someone’s ego of being too big to admit a wrong that you want desperately from them certainly sounds like a great example of an ad hominem to me! That’s an example of a character attack. 

            To your health!

          • VeganNutritionist

             Let me explain the formula to you in an easier to understand format. 

            Health=Nutrients/Calories means that the higher the nutrients, and the lower the calories, the healthier they tend to be.  Now you made the statement that 4000 calories would “shoot the “health” result straight down.”  But again, you are formulating a conclusion based on insufficient data.  You have no way of knowing how many nutrients I consumed.  If the nutrients I consumed where 1,000 fold that of someone who ate only a 400 calorie hamburger all day, then the resulting health figure would be 100 times more than that of the person who ate only the hamburger. 

            And I am sure I burned at least 4,000 calories yesterday. 

            Now, concerning ad hominem.  In order for me to have committed ad hominem, I would have to be attacking his character in order to show his argument is false.  I showed many times his argument was false and he repeatedly continue to fail to show any evidence to support his claims.  Therefore, the discussion was moot and at not time did I “attack” him to draw attention away from his position.  His position was already compromised. 

            However, you ARE committing ad hominem again by trying to focus on my character instead of the subject of the discussion. 

            Now, back to the discussion…

  • VeganNutritionist

    Oh, sure you are a different person.

    You are telling me I am attacking someone. That is ad hominem.

    I am just trying to get someone to show me evidence of the drawbacks of my diet, or admit they have none.

    Concerning RMR.  The abstract of the study to which you linked mentions nothing of energy intake.  Nor do dozens of other studies I have read mention energy intake.   This is a flaw in the design of the study by not controlling other effects of metabolism.  When people exercise, they usually eat more food.  More calories than the amount of exercise would normally burn. So, their metabolism increases to try and burn the extra calories. 

    Here is a study that takes in account the energy balance of the individual.  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19833807

    “These data suggest that when exercise is performed with energy
    replacement (i.e., energy balance is maintained), 24-h fat oxidation
    does not increase and in fact, may be slightly decreased. It appears
    that the state of energy balance is an underappreciated factor
    determining the impact of exercise on fat oxidation.”

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Frank-Maybusher/1691456890 Frank Maybusher

      lol, it’s completely up to you if you choose to believe that I am a different person than Toxins. It’s actually quite comical to think that I am! Anyway, “You are telling me I am attacking someone. That is ad hominem.” Uh, no. That is not an ad hominem. Here’s the definition (if you should choose to believe it) from Merriam-Webster: 
      1 : appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect2: marked by or being an attack on an opponent’s character rather than by an answer to the contentions madeNot to nitpick (but I feel that’s where we’ve gone), can you please explain to me how when I pointed out the fact that when you attacked someone I am using an ad hominem? I am neither “appealing to feelings or prejudices” (1) by pointing that fact out…nor am I “attacking you” by saying so (2). Good luck on that one!I, personally, have found little to no drawbacks to your raw diet…nor have I ever accused you of having any. In fact, I would like to know if there are any as well.RMR: It goes up with exercise (which was my point, if you missed it)…I said it does…you said it goes down…consistant research proves me correct no matter how much you wish to redefine their protocol.Enjoy!

      • VeganNutritionist

         Mr. Maybusher. 

        Here is the definition you posted.  ” marked by or being an attack on an opponent’s character rather than by an answer to the contentions made” 
        You attacked my character by claiming I attack others.  I did not. 

        No research proves that RMR goes up with exercise.  The study you linked to does not factor in calorie consumption.  Show me a study that does factor in calorie consumption that shows RMR increases when energy intake equals energy expenditure.   

        You need to be able too read the studies completely, understand the methods of data taking, understand the data derived, determine if the methods used to obtain the data support the conclusion, and use good raw data to establish your own conclusions.  I don’t just read the abstract and use it as evidence to show what I am speaking about is correct, I read the whole study and look at it objectively.  The study you linked to does NOT support your conclusion. 

  • Nicolás

    what about creatine transportation in blood? It needs both Na and Cl to be transported in the bloodstream, right?.

  • Michael Greger M.D.

    Please also check out my associated blog post Do Eden Beans Have Too Much Iodine?

  • vademonbreun

    Can you find out more information about sodium alginate?

    • Dr. Connie Sanchez, N.D.

      Sodium alginate is made from brown algae and is used as a food stabilizer, thickener, gelling agent, or emulsifier in foods such as ice cream or gravy. It has been found to increase blood pressure in some people.

  • Chris

    The Intersalt study in 1984 concluded for the world no association between sodium intake and blood pressure. Dr Michael Alderman has done a lot of work concluding the less salt we eat, the higher prevalence of myocardial infarction there is due to an increase in plasma renin. Salt is a mineral and it is good for us, too little can be harmful. I add good quality sea salt to everything i cook and eat and have done so for the past five years and my blood pressure is 100/50

  • rockyford58

    I have had very good blood pressure readings, usually 116-120/72-75. But after starting a plant based diet, and working a stressful job, studying for a major test for work, and having just moved into a new house, I found my blood pressure 135-140/81-85! That concerns me! I don’t know if it’s all the changes and work happening lately, but it can’t be the diet. Someone help!

  • http://www.facebook.com/ophira.swanson Ophira Swanson

    I have been thinking about reducing my sodium intake since I see stuff like this a lot but have developed hyponatremia. I dont do intense exercise where I sweat a lot, but my levels were almost severe that they ran the test twice. Ive been a vegan a few years now. Whats up with this? I am really surprised.

  • DavidAv8tor

    Would you comment on today’s (May 15, 2013) IOM/NAS study that has been reported to state that reducing sodium intake below 2300mg may be harmful? Sounds bogus to me…

©2012 NutritionFacts.org - All Rights Reserved | In partnership with the Jesse & Julie Rasch Foundation
Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Contact Us