You're probably right, LOL! People who smoke tend to have lower incidences of Parkinson's disease and Alzheimer's disease; also less asthma and ulcerative colitis.

Here's one example of current research possibilities:

Parkinson’s researchers have long been intrigued by epidemiological research showing a possible link between cigarette smoking and a lowered risk of PD: the disease is far less prevalent among smokers...

http://www.michaeljfox.org/newsEvents_mjffInTheNews_pressReleases_article.cfm?ID=400

Hopefully a supersized sugary, artificially flavored/colored drink can be healthy too, please! please!

I wonder what percentage of our ever increasing health care bill goes to funding these conflicting "studies" and efforts to coerce people into submitting to whatever the currently popular "healthy lifestyle" fad happens to be.

Dan the more $$ we put into research, the better we understand human biology and medicine, the better treatments we can innovate. Public education and increasing our scientific knowledge are the BEST ways to reduce health care costs...far more effective than government mandates and insurance overhauls. By the way, this research was conducted in Europe, not funded by our health care dollars. In addition, if you're interested you can read in the HCR law exactly what proportion of our dollars are earmarked for future research, I'll give you a hint, it ain't that much!

It has been documented that chewing tobacco and spitting is partially protective against hookworms. (It is the spitting that is important as juvenile hookworms migrate in the bloodstream to the lungs. They are then coughed up and either swallowed or spit out. If swallowed, they then pass to the small intestine where they do their damage.)

Nonbeliever--You're probably right. As I was reading this article, my husband was reading an article once more proclaiming the hazards of eating too much salt. We almost got into an argument because he insisted "the article" said salt was bad and I said not so, until we realized we were reading different articles. Eat whatever you want within reason. My dad always said, if it has "too" in front of it (like too much sugar, too much salt, etc.), it's bad for you.

"However, participants with the lowest salt intake had the highest rate of death from heart disease during the follow up (4 percent), and people who ate the most salt had the lowest (less than 1 percent)."

So now they're saying that taking too little salt makes you 4 times as likely to die of heart disease?

Wow - Can't wait to see what my doctor says about this.

Zod "Pass the chips."

And the salt. It's been long used as a 'preservative', so I guess it makes sense (just joking). Since cancer loves sugar, I wonder if salt is a cure for cancer too?

Assuming you also have an adequate intake of potassium.

why?

Plus, I have yet to hear of a potassium deficiency in the US...

"Almost one out of five people hospitalized in the United States has a low potassium level." E-medicine. Huge amounts of sodium cause the kidneys to also excrete more potassium. Potassium and sodium have similar chemical properties, but are not interchangeable.

haha--a low postassium level in a hospitalized patient does not equal a potassium deficiency in the US

Most of those patients are getting lasix, or have had surgery with huge fluid shifts causing a temporary plasma potassium deficiency--rarely are they total potassium deficient though

Mmm...your physiology is close to right--sodium does cause potassium to be excreted. But luckily potassium is in almost everything you eat---no worry of running out

just shows how little we actually know about human biology and medicine, and how needed these very studies actually are...and more!

Multivitamins have not been shown to improve health. However, they also have not been shown to hurt health. High vitamin D levels have been significantly associated with lower rates of cancer, diabetes, and asthma. Whether vitamin D from a pill is as good as from the sun is questionable.

its just the differnce between population based studies and individual studies. If you look at the US as a whole, and decreased our salt intake by half, blood pressure would go down, new cases of hypertension would go down, strokes/heart attacks would also go down. michelle obama sees this and says 'why are we not doing this!" Very true from the data above

However, on an individual basis, if you have no predisposition to high blood pressure and 2 working kidneys, you can eat all the salt you want without any health problems. Don't even give it a second though. But if you have a strong family history, think again.

I know everyone in America likes to make things about themselves, but this was a European study. Now back to America, no big business has nothing to do with this, the majority of research funding comes from government grants (NIH). I believe findings like this highlight how poor our understanding of human biology and medicine really is. I would much rather see $$ pour into funding research, so that we can someday have a solid base understanding to develop better medicines and treatments, than waste $$ squabbling over insurance and who pays for some of the crap medicines and treatments we already have.

right you are beer, this is a euro study, thanks for the correction!

Agreed about your second point as well

I agree, everyone bodies are different. What works for one person might not work for another. I was never taught how to cook and lived of of processed, high salty foods throughout my early 20's. My blood pressure was slowly going up and up, and I ignored it. It hit 210/165. The first pill they give you is a kind of water pill that helps to get rid of the salt you intake. I also began to cook my own food and adding far less salt to my diet. Within the first week my blood pressure went down 60 points. I am one of those that salt does have a bad effect on me. Some people are sensitive to it, others obviously not.

I also learned a good lesson and enjoy cooking for myself.

some of the salt sold in the store has iodine added to it. I wonder if the salt used in massive quantities by the food industry is the same or does it not have iodine? The food is so salty that I have no tolerance to add any more,I don't like that taste.

Over the last 50 years I believe processed and restaurant food has become much much saltier. I think people sort of become trained to expect that salty taste. French fries used to come in a little cardboard boat,salt in a little paper thing that you tore open,you did not have to use it all(or even any of it)

If you wanted salted food you salted it yourself,now it comes tasting already salted about 4x times! "Reduced sodium"only about 2x times!

it has nothing to do with that. The media does a poor job of explaining to laypeople what doctors already know

Math and science education is abysmal in American public schools. Many of the posts here reflect that unfortunate truth. We like to place blame on others and conjure up conspiracy theories rather than read a text book.

You have got to be kidding. The human body is a very complex machine. No two individuals are alike, hence the multiple drugs used for treatment of one particular illness. Medicine at BEST is an experiment. Doctors are human and mostly are driven by the same thing all of the rest of the world is MONEY. As for education, I could not agree more. But I did not offer up any evidence, nor do I care too, it was merely my OPINION that the medical profession actually know very little in the grand scheme of things how wondrous and complex the human body is. Drug companies release drugs to the public with disclaimers that they do not know how the drug effects certain parts of the body or even is some cases with breathing issues how these beta blockers work.

I am certainly not kidding

Trust me, I know the human body is complex--I have spent the better part of my life studying its function

Medicine is an experiment to a certain degree--but not just some kids mixing chemicals in his basement as your tone suggests. We know a lot about cellular biology/physiology and how medicines work. We even have a pretty good clue about which of those medicines may work in certain people based on a very large body of something called published studies and evidence. If its worked for 50,000 people just like you, it will probably work for you too. Surely--no. Probably--yes

Again, trust me, there are easier ways of making money then 4 years of college, 4 of med school, and 3-9 years of residency/fellowship training while compiling huge student loans and getting paid peanuts for working 80 hours/week and sleeping 4 nights a week. Believe it or not, some doctors do it because they love the challenge of medicine, and like helping people. Its very rewarding and I don't expect you to understand

Breathing issues and beta blockers. Let me take you to school. The heart has chemical receptors on its surface called beta receptors. Specifically, beta-1 receptors. These recieve input from the sympathetic nervous system in response to stress, and cause a chronotropic and inotropic response of the myocardium. This response can be harmful in certain situations, especially MI (heart attack). B blockers "block" these receptors and blunt the sympathetic drive to the heart, thus reducing myocardial oxygen demand and preserving heart tissue.

Now, the trachea, bronchus, and bronchioles have beta receptors as well, but they are beta-2 receptors. These also recieve sympathetic input which causes the airways to dialate. The first beta blockers were nonselective, ie they blocked both beta-1 and beta-2 receptors causing bronchoconstriction which could worsen asthma/copd. However, beta-1 selective blockers were soon introduced which pretty much curtailed this side effect

Who doesnt know anything now, punk?

what you spew some medical crap you found in your grandpa's textbooks in the basement , make some insult in the end and claim to be some expert in medicine, whatever...take a pill

haha...what a well thought out, articulate response.

It was from memory, but this is the internet,so Im not suprised if you don't believe me.

Either way though, it completely contradicts your point that doctors dont know anything, even the specific example you gave. I just told you the exact biochemical reasoning behind it

I mean, that kinda disproves your whole point, doesn't it?

I've read some of those studies, too, and wondered when there would be more of a balance in the reporting. I'm glad to see it beginning. People are all different. One-size-fits-all policies don't work well. Things are just not that black and white. Please pass the salt :)

Yeah that guy is an idiot...once dissolved salt is no longer "abrasive" in the physical sense, although it can be corrosive, in a chemical sense. However all cells in our body have sodium and chloride channels for shuttling these ions in and out, its a perfectly natural and necessary part of biology.

biggest spender on research: the government

although they seem to be big spenders in other areas these days too.

Charls--they're talking about a 4-week period (or more??) and they're talking about a "modest reduction"--whatever that means. I'd hardly call from 3 to 12 g or vice versa modest. The Belgian study was an 8-year study of 3700 subjects. Should have some validity.

as ive said earlier, on a population basis sodium reduction clearly has benefits

On an individual basis, its harder to see and you have to select your patients carefully