Our understanding of the way the body handles salt may be wrong
nytimes.com
nytimes.com
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/its-time-to-end-t...
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.
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.
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.
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.
It sounds a bit too complicated though, where a transporter would fit in nicely.
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?
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
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.
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.
I suppose in a starvation situation you'd be in extreme catabolism and just make everything worse.
I'd guess they started with a little saltwater in the rations and increased as they sailed.
Maybe I'm missing some of the subtleties here?
Especially when it's hot out.
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.
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.
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.
Basically I don't consume sugar or alt-sugars so I make my own version of gatorade.
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.
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 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...
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.
(unrelated, I think fast food companies are already aware of the more hunger from salty food.)
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.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perspiration
[2] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2267797/
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.
It strikes me as unlikely to be related to the salt-wasting that occurs from failure to reabsorb chloride in the epithelium.
That's an evergreen, accurate response to anything in human biology!
PDF: The underappreciated role of muscle in health and disease
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/84/3/475.full.pdf
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.)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
That seems like a potentially significant change you're ignoring.
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]
1. https://bmcbiochem.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12858...
Bread and potatoes have a big impact on blood glucose levels. Actually, potatoes have a glycemic index that's even higher than table sugar.
Diet is such a complex thing that it's really difficult to control for.
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.
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.
Sodium and potassium balance in the body is essential for cell physiology and our health https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Na%2B/K%2B-ATPase
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.
i find adding some soysauce to a cup of water and chugging that before bed takes care of most side effects.
and food does taste better with salt added, i must admit, esp. meat.
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.
used to be useful when we were huntergatherers!
these days, it's just nice for food to taste good!
It's still a salt, but a salt of ammonia instead of sodium. And very different in flavor.