Actually, the Scientific American article is wrong. This space study also concludes that salt is harmful. Now possibly in more ways than was previously known.
So, I am saying almost 5x the recommended limit for a month might not generalize very well. Sorry, 'Nope' is not going to cut it. Further, the human body climatizes to various situations over time suck as heat or altitude, I suspect salt intake is probably good example of that.
A lot of the cross-talk in the whole salt/sodium debate is caused by conflating salt (sodium chloride) with sodium, one of its constituents.
The US daily recommended sodium intake is 1.5-2.3g. The sodium component of sodium chloride is about 40%, so that's more like 3.75-5.75g of salt per day. Still lower than the study, but putting the higher recommended amount right around the lower study amount.
(I consume up to an extra teaspoon of salt each day to make sure I'm getting at least 5000mg of sodium so I don't start passing out at an inconvenient moment, on advice of a cardiologist)
These are supposed to be limits not minimum recommendations. Also people get sodium from more than just salt so 5.75g of salt is still high and calling 6g low is kind of a misnomer.
Nope. Try again. If you bother to read the study, this describes how salt induces breakdown of proteins and carbohydrates in body. That's in addition to other ill effects salt has that we are more aware of.
Not really. The articles talk about different sorts of effects of salt: The Scientific American paper is mainly about the link between heart disease and salt, which was basically scientifically shaky. The article we are discussing talks about different sorts of things that happen when we eat a lot of salt. It could be bad, sure, but it could be good when talking of weight loss. We'll see with more research.
It's been known to be shaky for at least 20 years, but that have not stopped various government health organisations campaigning for a reduced salt intake.
I can give them that it's a complex issue, there are probably no adverse effects and that reducing the risk for stroke even on the margin could be beneficial - such as for those that have a generic invariant that makes them very sensitive to salt levels.
For the past year I've been on a low sodium diet, not so easy to achieve. After reviewing the renal physiology I learned about years ago re: sodium and calcium regulation, I'll testify it's every bit as complex as I remember and then some.
I'll be interested in reading the articles the newspaper report is based on, but ATM not sure how much the new findings contradict (vs. extend) what's thought to be true about the physiological roles of sodium. In terms of implications for health issues, conditions like hypertension are enormously heterogeneous in origin, salt intake being only one factor among a huge number of factors involved.
I was interested in the comment that high salt intake was potentially adverse for bone health via glucocorticoid stimulation. One thing I've recently learned is how high dietary sodium negatively affects bone calcium balance via mechanisms within bone cells, and in some people, excessive renal calcium excretion as well. These issues aren't AFAIK primarily mediated by elevated cortisol. So it seems to be suggesting another way high sodium intake promotes bone loss.
Goes to show we know a lot less than we think we know, in this case about body regulation of essential minerals like sodium and calcium. When we realize that also applies to every other factor we think related to high blood pressure or osteoporosis, it's very humbling indeed.
A random theory, if you will: glucocorticoids have a weak affinity for the mineralocorticoid receptors (aldosterone, salt and water retention). The increased salt reabsorption caused by this could cause an osmotic gradient driving calcium excretion.
It sounds a bit too complicated though, where a transporter would fit in nicely.
I don't have any direct info re: mineralocorticoid effect on renal reabsorbtion of calcium, however the interaction of sodium and calcium has been studied as it is important in kidney disease, for example kidney stones, and osteoporosis as well. Here is an article on an excellent site that discusses some of the significant aspects of sodium/calcium regulation: http://kidneystones.uchicago.edu/does-too-much-protein-incre....
I have a hypothesis that all the negative effects associated with increased salt intake are really negative effects of overeating. If we measure the salt intake of people who primarily eat fast food -- which has a constant salt content -- the amount of salt ingested will be proportional to the amount of food ingested. So the person who eats five Big Mac meals a day will ingest, roughly, five times as much salt as a person eating only one, but I would claim the adverse effects associated with this are related to overeating, not the increased salt intake.
Is anyone familiar with studies that study the health effects of salt with this in mind? I.e. keeping food amounts constant over different groups, while varying only salt content?
all the negative effects associated with increased salt intake are really negative effects of overeating
I'd also say that plays a role to some degree in real life, but only some.
Net effects of higher salt intake (given oter things remain equal) can exist as well: the article clearly mentions higher salt intake leading to higher glucocorticoid levels which in turn are linked to osteoporosis, muscle loss, type 2 diabetes and other metabolic problems
I think Thor Heyerdahl or someone on one of his crews noted that when they added seawater to the freshwater to make it last longer it also made them less thirsty.
IIRC they thought it was an interesting observation since it was against all common understanding, but I don't think they ever came close to a solution to why.
Did he (or they) happen to mention the ratios of salt water to fresh? I don't know a whole lot about this topic, but I do recall reading somewhere that thirsty seafarers who succumbed to the urge to drink seawater ended up dying more quickly. I wonder if they figured out how much was okay to drink before it started negatively impacting health.
The negative impact is due to water loss via vomiting or diarrhea, and thus having a negative water balance. It's not like saltwater in itself kills you. In fact, you could drink the water of some less salty seas, e.g. the Baltic Sea.
The real bad impact is from disrupting the way your kidneys work. Basically, seawater has a higher concentration of salt than it is possible for your kidneys to remove via urine (due to the physics of that process).
For one thing, your body will try to use its existing water supply to flush the extra salt, which means that you'll be urinating (= dehydrating) more than usual. Once that's all gone, and seawater is the sole source for water in your body, your body will no longer be able to produce urine to carry the usual toxins out. Eventually your kidneys will fail.
Although in practice, you will feel like a wreck both physically and mentally long before then, and given that people in a situation where they can only drink seawater generally have other dangerous conditions to deal with, these debilitating effects can well kill you before that.
This also explains why diluting seawater is potentially viable - so long as you keep the salt concentration below the level your kidneys can handle, you can keep them working normally.
But the entire article is about the body using metabolic water, not dietary water, to excrete salt. So it wouldn't matter the concentration of the salt in the water you intake - your body would burn enough carbohydrates and protein to generate enough water to dilute it.
I suppose in a starvation situation you'd be in extreme catabolism and just make everything worse.
This didn't surprise me so much. In several hot countries I have noted people taking salt to relieve thirst. In Mongolia I drank heavily salted tea (the usual there) all summer and it becomes quite natural.
You'll notice the same behavior from long distance runners, cyclists, hikers, etc. At some point you start feeling dehydration because you're missing electrolytes. If your water intake isn't salted or packed with minerals in some other way, it just makes you thirstier and thirstier.
This simple lesson was taught to us day one in boot camp when I was in the army, and reiterated constantly over the years.
We were required to take our salt packet out of our MRE's and eat the entire contents. The amount of water consumed (and flushed out through perspiration) throughout the day would have severely dehydrated anyone who didn't consume adequate (high) levels of salt.
Same: As a backpacker I worked in Kununurra, north of Australia, pruning 500 sandalwood trees a day. With 42•C, we drank 9 liters of water in 7hrs. Legend says a guy of the previous year didn't take electrolytes and died of dehydration. We literally soaked the portable waterproof batteries with out sweat.
I did not expect to read my about my home town on a comment here... I have plenty of experience picking mangos on a family farm there and I can also say we drink insane amounts of water and sweat it all out. You can squeeze your clothes and watch the sweat pour out.
After the work day I'd always have an insane craving for a Bundaberg ginger beer. Maybe I'd be getting electrolytes from that?
I drink tons of water and I get lots of cramps, presumably from electrolyte shortage. Is there any way of knowing what the right amount of salt is to be consuming?
basic osmosis - water washes out the body's minerals. esp. tap water.
add a bit of salt to your tap water - it helps to retain water and doesn't flush out your deposits.
too much water and too much salt are both bad! had a dude in my village die after drinking around 5 liters on a dare - nervous system failure. it was so severe that he couldn't be saved.
Rule of tongue - if it tastes salty its too much salt.
Take a half full water bottle. Add some salt. See if it is salty yet, then keep adding until it is just barely salty. Then fill the bottle to the top. If you taste salt you added too much.
Note that with kcl, you start with less water, more like a quarter of the bottle, because the salty flavor is much weaker.
No, this is only when I am going to exercise for an extended period of time, 30min+. I generally consume enough potassium from fruits and vegetables not to need any additional electrolytes in my day-to-day water.
Basically I don't consume sugar or alt-sugars so I make my own version of gatorade.
Hey. If you're drinking lots of water and getting lots of cramps, don't ask people on the internets. Ask a physician, right? If there's something wrong with your kidneys, say, you won't make it better until you figure out what it is.
Very often people on the internet have more expertise in things than a physician. Also, physicians are often overkill for minor problems, the system would be overloaded if we went to them for every little thing.
First of course do some research on your own don't want to give wrong advice, but generally I would say:
Start by making sure you're eating enough. Adequate salt quantity starts by getting it from your food and getting enough to eat. Second just (slowly) add small amounts to your food and see if that addresses the problem. If you're exercising or doing physical activities and sweating a lot while also drinking a lot of water, you likely need to add some salt to food. As others have said, it should not be such an amount that tastes overly salty. Start really small.
disagree, I went for a 5 hour fairly hard (~2000m of climbing) bike ride last summer in hot weather with no food and drinking only plain water (and not that much water at that, around 1l during the ride, of course I had a very large breakfast beforehand) without any issues whatsoever.
I am not sure about the whole "working out requires eating salt tabs", when I was doing triathlons a lot of people took them and it was amazing seeing all the salt that ended up on their clothing due to sweat/evaporation. I've always thought that if you really needed the electrolytes your body wouldn't immediately try to get rid of them via sweat.
Again of course this is n=1, I think maybe my n=1 is different because I am used to an extremely low sodium diet, but goes to show that when it comes to diet it's all a big YMMV...
I wish I were like you! Before salt tabs, I'd cramp up and be useless after a pretty short time on the bike - maybe 2 hours / 2000 ft of climbing on a mountain bike. Now that I add two of those nuun tablets to my 3 L of water I sweat less and never cramp up anymore.
My sweat has always been very salty my whole life. I wish I didn't need to supplement for longer rides but time has shown me that it is unrealistic for me to skip it for anything over around 1.5 hours. Under that, I don't bother, though.
That's interesting what you said about your sweat being salty; is be interested in seeing how much electrolytes you're excreting that way. Conversely, my sweat isn't salty hardly at all, I've noticed. I wonder if there is any correlation, because I ride 50 to 60 miles, single speed on street tires, up and down elevation no problem with just regular water, never have had a cramp as far as I can remember. I don't consider myself a very fit person, and neither would a dietician, fwiw, so I'm not just some type of anomaly, just your typical desk dweller who hits the bike path hard on weekends when time allows.
Yes, your body has receptors that look for when the osmolarity gets too low (edit: I meant too high) in your blood. If it is, they will fire and induce feelings of thirst.
That is interesting.
I see an advantage this adaption offers when trapped with only salty sea water.
Excessive salt intake may occur naturally when in the ocean for whatever reason.
When this reduces thirst and offers an (internal) alternative for water this may help you survive until you strand somewhere to find fresh water.
Not the worst trait evolution could select for.
> Instead of drinking more, the crew were drinking less in the long run when getting more salt. So where was the excreted water coming from? “There was only one way to explain this phenomenon,” Dr. Titze said. “The body most likely had generated or produced water when salt intake was high.”
That's odd, what if simply a high-level of sodium reduces your perspiration? Wikipedia[1] says "The volume of water lost in sweat daily is highly variable, ranging from 100 to 8,000 mL/day." so between 0.1 and 8 liters per day! [2] even says 10 to 12 liters per day!
If on average over a long period the subjects drank let's say exactly 1 liter per day and peed strictly more than 1 liter of water, then I'd agree with what this Dr. said, but neither this nytimes article, nor the 2 papers mentioned [3][4] mention the word perspiration or sweat in their abstracts/summaries, why not?
Off-topic: Did nytimes.com made it hard on purpose to select text from their article? On Chrome and Firefox I can't select text easily, only Edge lets me.
And, Dr. Titze said, high glucocorticoid levels are linked to such conditions as osteoporosis, muscle loss, Type 2 diabetes and other metabolic problems.
And cystic fibrosis, which is perhaps best tldr'd as a salt wasting condition, frequently leads to Cystic Fibrosis Related Diabetes, which is neither type 1 nor type 2 diabetes.
CFTR, being a chloride channel, most likely leads to diabetes as a consequence of its effects on the voltage-regulated insulin release in beta cells from glucose sensing. [1]
It strikes me as unlikely to be related to the salt-wasting that occurs from failure to reabsorb chloride in the epithelium.
I think it is probably a lot more complicated than that. CF does a great many things to the body. It is an inflammatory condition and I have seen multiple articles linking diabetes and inflammation. People with CF tend to be seriously underweight and I have recently seen articles that link inadequate muscle protein to insulin resistance. There is no doubt more than that going on, those are just a couple of things that occur to me off the top of my head.
I have CF. About 2009 (age 32) I developed diabetes (commonly known as CFRD, CF related diabetes). CF patients early on have the ducts in their pancreas blocked from producing digestive enzymes, causing low weight. We take digestive enzyme supplements to (inefficiently) counter this. (I realize you have CF too - laying out background for the non-CF reader) My understanding is that the eventual diabetes is caused by gradually decreasing pancreas function.
I genuinely think it is a lot more complicated than that. My blood sugar is more stable than it has ever been and I have gotten off digestive enzymes. I wasn't doing anything to specifically try to fix my blood sugar issues. I was doing things like trying to get inflammation and infection under control based on the success of therapies like daily ibuprofen. I read up on that, inferred that if you can reduce inflammation, you can be less symptomatic, and used a dietary and lifestyle approach to do that. I did take ibuprofen daily for something like 5 or 6 years, but was eventually able to successfully control symptoms such that I no longer needed it. Somewhere along the way, I happened to see articles about the link between diabetes and inflammation. Inflammation and infection go hand in hand, so I think very likely infection plays a role in the collapse of pancreatic function in pwcf.
The low weight is also from the gut being all kinds of out of whack and just not absorbing nutrients. There are things that can be done to improve gut function. The gut is about 70 percent of your immune system, so I think efforts to repair the gut lead to many different good things, including better nutritional status and a more functional immune system.
Though the degree to which you can correct these problems no doubt will be influenced by which specific alleles you have, I think there is a lot of room for improvement for most people with CF. Maybe it won't make much difference if you have one of the variations where the CFTR just basically doesn't work at all.
I used to jokingly talk about "Pale Skin Disorder" as a metaphor for special needs in my kids. It works well as a metaphor for what I mean here too. If you have pale skin (low melanin production) and are easily sun burned, there are things you can do to protect against sunburn. You aren't doomed to simply be sunburned to the point of peeling all the time. But if you are an albino and totally lack melanin, it is a whole different ball game.
So, if you have a form of CF that is the equivalent of albinism where the CFTR simply does nothing or is outright absent, instead of one of the many variations where it has one of a number of different types of impairments, my assumption is that would be less responsive to dietary and lifestyle changes. Though I don't actually know.
Anyway, my apologies if I have offended. I rarely engage pwcf in discussion anymore as it tends to go bad places. Thank you for commenting.
> Though the degree to which you can correct these problems no doubt will be influenced by which specific alleles you have, I think there is a lot of room for improvement for most people with CF. Maybe it won't make much difference if you have one of the variations where the CFTR just basically doesn't work at all.
I'm delta-f508 homozygous, so I suspect there's less CFTR function. I lose a tremendous amount of salt when I sweat, so I suspect that's an indicator of function level. Oddly enough, I've always had less respiratory issues for CF, but my stomach pain and weight have been pretty severe as long as I can remember. (I wasn't diagnosed about age 13, and I can remember intense pain before then. When I'm religious about enzymes it's usually not an issue however.) My A1C these days is poor, and my BGC always runs high. I could probably counteract with diet, but then I have to contend to with keeping my weight up. I suspect I may be a much lower pancreas function than what you're describing.
> Anyway, my apologies if I have offended.
Not at all! I'll definitely look into inflammation etc.
It would be nice of you to provide some sources for your claims. I don't know if you are right or not, but at least providing links to the articles you are referring to would be appreciated.
There is a long and wordy section about muscle and insulin resistance, some choice outtakes:
However, over the past few years it has become evident that changes in the metabolic function of muscle itself plays a more direct role in the genesis of insulin resistance than previously appreciated. (This is rebutting the idea that higher fat levels explain insulin resistance.)
as little as a single bout of exercise [thereby stimulating triacylglycerol deposition in muscle intramuscular triacylglycerol (IMTG) oxidation] can transiently reverse insulin resistance (44).
The section concludes with:
Regardless of the specific intracellular mechanisms
at the molecular level, it is clear that insulin resistance is not simply the result of increased fat mass and release of FFAs into plasma at an accelerated rate, with the muscle responding to elevated plasma FAA concentrations. Rather, alterations in the metabolic function of muscle are central to the development of insulin resistance and ultimately diabetes.
I am not finding an exact point at which it explicitly says "Muscle loss causes insulin resistance" but that was my personal takeaway from reading this some time back. (On the other hand, maybe it does explicitly say that and I am just rushed for time and have crap eyesight, so maybe I am just not finding it. Whatever.)
my n=1: I am on an extremely low sodium diet (around 500mg/day) and I didn't find any difference in thirst or hunger levels compared to when I was on a more typical 4000-5000mg/day one.
The only change for me (besides of course a period of adjustment where food didn't taste like much) has been a significantly lower blood pressure (from typically 145/85 to 105/65), everything else has remained pretty much the same.
As with many things different people react in different ways. Examples with taste include Low Salt (potassium based) which a few people taste as being quite bitter. Coriander / Cilantro is a lovely herb to many, but a few people find it very soapy.
My understanding has been that some people are more sensitive to sodium than others. If your BP is normal, chances are it won't have much affect, but if you've high BP then it is more likely to have an affect on your BP. I can't comment on causes, perhaps those who are more sensitive are more likely to have raised BP.
That's interesting, did you control for changes in other diet elements, exercise, and water intake ?
Some more recent studies show that except for short term spikes in blood pressure, salt isn't that guilty for high blood pressure in healthy individuals.
I'm going to throw a wrench into the gears by sharing the following: I had high blood pressure- not medication-triggering, just high-eyebrow stuff when I was younger (30s-early 40s). As a teenager I learned of the dangers of salt and weaned it out of my diet.
I got married and am the cook of the family, so after much complaining I started to add salt to my dishes when I cooked.
My blood pressure when down. Not by a little, but to the "wow your blood pressure is amazing" category (105 or 110). So, yeah, I don't think we know how salt works.
NB my exercise/habits stayed pretty much the same in this period.
My cardiologist told me never to try a low-sodium diet without talking with him first. He is very up-to-date on research and said that an equal number of people see blood pressure increase on low-sodium as see blood pressure decrease but for many (most?) people the difference is negligible. In other words if you are one of the ones who is very sensitive to changes in sodium you are as likely to be harmed as helped by lowering sodium.
Another n=1. I've been on 2 blood pressure pills for 2 years I was reading about very low sodium diets, and decided to start an experiment on Thursday. Eating only unprocessed foods, non-dairy/meat/fish. I dropped the diuretic pill at the beginning, and have now dropped the ARB medication. Gone from average 140/95 to 124/84 in 4 days.
It seems possible that there are widely varying responses, and for those like me who are salt sensitive, then low sodium may mean 500mg rather than 1500/2250mg that various research suggests. In hunter/gatherer societies, 500mg would be a more typical level one would receive - this research refers to 4 tribes with lowest sodium intake (& lowest BPs) in INTERSALT study.
http://publicacoes.cardiol.br/abc/2003/8003/80030005i.pdf.
Also, came across, an article which mentioned no other animal has a sodium potassium balance with more sodium than potassium which is what most humans in 'modern' world now have.
no other changes, working out and water have been the same before and after (always worked out quite a bit, always drank quite a bit) same as appetite: I did not restrict sodium for blood pressure reasons, I was definitely surprised when I saw it that low and remain low since as all my life prior I've always been around the same higher but still normal bp, the sodium intake was the only change I made (of course this also implied some dietary changes, like no bread anymore due to sodium contents, but nothing else really major)
Would definitely be interested in finding more studies on extremely low sodium diets (especially on possible long term side effects), but finding information has been quite difficult.
It's not clear how you can say "no other changes" and follow on with "of course this also implied some dietary changes, like no bread anymore due to sodium contents".
That seems like a potentially significant change you're ignoring.
fair enough, although I personally don't think that cutting bread and eating more potatoes is that big of a difference overall, it is a difference so hey, for all I know that might have influenced things. As I was saying above, n=1 after all.
It has been suggested that "leptin resistance is considered a primary risk factor for obesity. It has been hypothesized that dietary cereal grain protein could cause leptin resistance by preventing leptin from binding to its receptor."
"Similar to what is observed in chronic inflammation, chronically elevated leptin levels are associated with obesity, overeating, and inflammation-related diseases, including hypertension, metabolic syndrome, and cardiovascular disease."[2]
Salt as far as I know is the only mineral (non plant) spice we use, it's purpose is to enhance taste.
There is a common confusion between salt (sodium chloride) and sodium, many falsely believing salt is not used only for taste but it's essential for health.
Sodium is a vital element that is found in almost all plants and animals and there is no need for an extra sodium intake because our food has plenty.
I don't add salt in my food and avoid products with salt for more than a year, "heavy food" doesn't feel as heavy, my skin is not as dry as before and looks better and injuries seem to heal faster.
Ammonium Chloride is also used. Indian cooking uses it as an ingredient in chaat masala, and the Nordics use it to flavor licorice to make salmiakki. It's typically called noshader or sal ammoniac if you're looking for it in a market.
It's still a salt, but a salt of ammonia instead of sodium. And very different in flavor.
Right, so the mode of intake matters, not just the salt itself.
For example one could eat bland (unsalted) food and drink salt water later which would produce less pleasure for the same quantity of sodium consumed. So there might be different physiological effects.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/its-time-to-end-t...