V-8 Juice At Rimping

[Mekong Bob]

Regular v-8 juice (8-oz serving) contains a whopping 420-mg of sodium.

Low-sodium version contains only 140-mg.

[cloudhopper]

I checked out the sodium content for V-8 juice: it is between 25-30%! That's a killer (sodium=salt). Make your own.

What is the source of that information?

25-30% of what?

Of 100%. And sodium is a metal that bursts into flame when it contacts water.

This may be of interest to anyone who thinks critically - http://www.stat.berk...~census/573.pdf

[TheVicar]

I checked out the sodium content for V-8 juice: it is between 25-30%! That's a killer (sodium=salt). Make your own.

What is the source of that information?

25-30% of what?

Of 100%. And sodium is a metal that bursts into flame when it contacts water.

This may be of interest to anyone who thinks critically - http://www.stat.berk...~census/573.pdf

That figure (25-30%) is a percentage of the amount of sodium recommended per day. In other words, that one can of V8 juice gives you almost 1/3 of your recommended daily total of sodium!

Here's some info on V8 Juice and its high sodium content:

"We found the ingredients elsewhere, and reading it, one can see that, true, all the juice is from vegetables, but there are added ingredients. Here’s the list:

Tomato Juice From Concentrate (Water, Tomato Concentrate), Reconstituted Vegetable Juice Blend (Water and Concentrated Juices of Carrots, Celery, Beets, Parsley, Lettuce, Watercress, Spinach), Salt, Vitamin C (Ascorbic Acid), Flavoring, Citric Acid.

The number 1 addition is water! Notice that V8 is from concentrate. This means that the veggies were at one point juiced, but for logistical purposes, the water content was removed. (Same thing happens with orange juice). So you’re not getting freshly juiced vegetables. For all we know the veggies have been stored in refrigerated vats as concentrate for months.

Interesting addition to the list are the salt, vitamin C, and flavorings. A single glass of V8 contains 480mg of sodium, or 20% (!!!) of the daily maximum. Compare to 135mg for a small McDonald’s French Fries, or 290mg for a medium.

Why so much salt you ask? Because it tastes good. There’s a low sodium option with only 140mg, and after you taste it, you’ll understand. But could there be a middle ground, or some attempt to slowly reduce the salt content over time?

The added vitamin C is worth mentioning too. Why would a vitamin rich juice need any additions? Well, vitamin C is one of the mot volatile micronutrients, in a sense that it easily and quickly “evaporates” from fruits and vegetables the moment they are exposed to oxygen. So food processors simply add more. V8 adds a lot more – it contains 120% of the daily value.

The added flavorings are always a riddle. They are trade secrets, and are usually crafted to make a product smell and taste better. So is V8′s great taste to be attributed to the natural veggies, or some laboratory in New Jersey? Most likely a mix of both.

...

As for the other marketing claims – shame on the American Heart Association for endorsing this product. High sodium intake leads to heart problems, and the AHA is actively encouraging people to reduce their consumption. From the AHA website:

From the AHA website:

High-sodium diets are linked to an increase in blood pressure and a higher risk for heart disease and stroke. Reducing the amount of sodium you consume can help lower high blood pressure or prevent it from developing in the first place. Keeping your blood pressure at healthy levels is important, because high blood pressure can lead to heart attacks or stroke.

The American Heart Association recommends that you choose and prepare foods with little or no salt to reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease. Aim to eat less than 1,500 mg of sodium per day.

So why in the world would the AHA recommend a product that with once glass reached a third of the daily maximum? (hint: Campbell’s, the owner of V8 brand, pays the AHA a hefty sum for each product endorsed.)

As for the “Essential Antioxidants” blurb, it has absolutely no meaning, no way to be verified, and unfortunately misguides shoppers.

Bottom line: V8 may not as bad as soda, but is a far cry from a daily, nurturing habit. The high sodium content is very worrying, and from a veggie perspective, you are better off consuming the real deal, fiber and other fresh nutrients included."

SOURCE: http://blog.fooducat...-a-health-scam/

Like I said in an earlier post, make your own juice; it's healthier and tastier.

As an aside, the developer of V8 juice, W. Peacock, died at what age? He made it to the ripe old age of....52! Died of a massive heart attack. That's what big doses of sodium does to the heart.

Edited November 27, 2012 by TheVicar

[cloudhopper]

Like I said in an earlier post, make your own juice; it's healthier and tastier.

Yeah I suppose so but with the Stoly and Tabasco I'd never know. Say Vicar do you reckon the V8 we get here is made from the pesticide-laden local veg you blend up or does it come from the States?

As an aside, the developer of V8 juice, W. Peacock, died at what age? He made it to the ripe old age of....52! Died of a massive heart attack. That's what big doses of sodium does to the heart.

Ate too much fiber probably. Yes there are some people who are salt sensitive especially if they kidneys aint workin too good.

I look to Winston Churchill for inspiration myself.

[Dante99]

I checked out the sodium content for V-8 juice: it is between 25-30%! That's a killer (sodium=salt). Make your own.

What is the source of that information?

25-30% of what?

Of 100%

100% of what?

[butterisbetter]

I checked out the sodium content for V-8 juice: it is between 25-30%! That's a killer (sodium=salt). Make your own.

What is the source of that information?

25-30% of what?

Of 100%. And sodium is a metal that bursts into flame when it contacts water.

This may be of interest to anyone who thinks critically - http://www.stat.berk...~census/573.pdf

That figure (25-30%) is a percentage of the amount of sodium recommended per day. In other words, that one can of V8 juice gives you almost 1/3 of your recommended daily total of sodium!

Here's some info on V8 Juice and its high sodium content:

"We found the ingredients elsewhere, and reading it, one can see that, true, all the juice is from vegetables, but there are added ingredients. Here’s the list:

Tomato Juice From Concentrate (Water, Tomato Concentrate), Reconstituted Vegetable Juice Blend (Water and Concentrated Juices of Carrots, Celery, Beets, Parsley, Lettuce, Watercress, Spinach), Salt, Vitamin C (Ascorbic Acid), Flavoring, Citric Acid.

The number 1 addition is water! Notice that V8 is from concentrate. This means that the veggies were at one point juiced, but for logistical purposes, the water content was removed. (Same thing happens with orange juice). So you’re not getting freshly juiced vegetables. For all we know the veggies have been stored in refrigerated vats as concentrate for months.

Interesting addition to the list are the salt, vitamin C, and flavorings. A single glass of V8 contains 480mg of sodium, or 20% (!!!) of the daily maximum. Compare to 135mg for a small McDonald’s French Fries, or 290mg for a medium.

Why so much salt you ask? Because it tastes good. There’s a low sodium option with only 140mg, and after you taste it, you’ll understand. But could there be a middle ground, or some attempt to slowly reduce the salt content over time?

The added vitamin C is worth mentioning too. Why would a vitamin rich juice need any additions? Well, vitamin C is one of the mot volatile micronutrients, in a sense that it easily and quickly “evaporates” from fruits and vegetables the moment they are exposed to oxygen. So food processors simply add more. V8 adds a lot more – it contains 120% of the daily value.

The added flavorings are always a riddle. They are trade secrets, and are usually crafted to make a product smell and taste better. So is V8′s great taste to be attributed to the natural veggies, or some laboratory in New Jersey? Most likely a mix of both.

...

As for the other marketing claims – shame on the American Heart Association for endorsing this product. High sodium intake leads to heart problems, and the AHA is actively encouraging people to reduce their consumption. From the AHA website:

From the AHA website:

High-sodium diets are linked to an increase in blood pressure and a higher risk for heart disease and stroke. Reducing the amount of sodium you consume can help lower high blood pressure or prevent it from developing in the first place. Keeping your blood pressure at healthy levels is important, because high blood pressure can lead to heart attacks or stroke.

The American Heart Association recommends that you choose and prepare foods with little or no salt to reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease. Aim to eat less than 1,500 mg of sodium per day.

So why in the world would the AHA recommend a product that with once glass reached a third of the daily maximum? (hint: Campbell’s, the owner of V8 brand, pays the AHA a hefty sum for each product endorsed.)

As for the “Essential Antioxidants” blurb, it has absolutely no meaning, no way to be verified, and unfortunately misguides shoppers.

Bottom line: V8 may not as bad as soda, but is a far cry from a daily, nurturing habit. The high sodium content is very worrying, and from a veggie perspective, you are better off consuming the real deal, fiber and other fresh nutrients included."

SOURCE: http://blog.fooducat...-a-health-scam/

Like I said in an earlier post, make your own juice; it's healthier and tastier.

As an aside, the developer of V8 juice, W. Peacock, died at what age? He made it to the ripe old age of....52! Died of a massive heart attack. That's what big doses of sodium does to the heart.

Actually, the influence of dietary sodium on blood pressure is generally ranges from weak to non-existent. It's just longstanding and widespread belief in the medical community based basically on the notion that "it stands to reason". Here's a link summarizing the various studies. http://www.jacn.org/content/25/suppl_3/240S.full

[Ulysses G.]

I have often wondered about the conventional wisdom on salt. A recent study which disputes the claim that salt is bad for you appeared in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) in May 2011. 3,681 healthy European men and women aged 60 or younger were followed for about 8 years. Those that consumed higher than average amounts of sodium did not experience increased risk for hypertension, stroke, or heart attack. Dr. Jan Staessen MD, author of the study, said that the study’s findings "do not support the current recommendations of a generalized and indiscriminate reduction of sodium intake at the population level.”

Also, Australian studies have shown that those individuals with Type 1 or Type 2 Diabetes actually die in larger numbers when following a salt restricted diet, but diabetics are usually advised to severely restrict their salt intake even though another 2010 study from Harvard University showed that participants developed insulin resistance when put on a salt restricted diet and insulin resistance is a condition that indicates a strong likelihood for the development of Type 2 Diabetes.

Edited November 28, 2012 by Ulysses G.

[BradinAsia]

Like I said in an earlier post, make your own juice; it's healthier and tastier.

Yeah I suppose so but with the Stoly and Tabasco I'd never know. Say Vicar do you reckon the V8 we get here is made from the pesticide-laden local veg you blend up or does it come from the States?

As an aside, the developer of V8 juice, W. Peacock, died at what age? He made it to the ripe old age of....52! Died of a massive heart attack. That's what big doses of sodium does to the heart.

Ate too much fiber probably. Yes there are some people who are salt sensitive especially if they kidneys aint workin too good.

I look to Winston Churchill for inspiration myself.

Winston Churchill lived a full, productive life, ate what he liked, smoked big cigars and lived to age 91.

Looking to Winston Churchill or even relying on anecdotal evidence from friends may be better than expecting to get useful advice from most doctors. A good friend has a son who is a doctor. During 12 yrs of medical training the son says only two weeks was devoted to diet and nutrition. No wonder that over the last 50 years my doctors have never once provided useful advice about healthy diet. Most of them probably know less about that subject than the average bloke who has made the effort to research it.

[TheVicar]

I have often wondered about the conventional wisdom on salt. A recent study which disputes the claim that salt is bad for you appeared in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) in May 2011. 3,681 healthy European men and women aged 60 or younger were followed for about 8 years. Those that consumed higher than average amounts of sodium did not experience increased risk for hypertension, stroke, or heart attack. Dr. Jan Staessen MD, author of the study, said that the study’s findings "do not support the current recommendations of a generalized and indiscriminate reduction of sodium intake at the population level.”

Also, Australian studies have shown that those individuals with Type 1 or Type 2 Diabetes actually die in larger numbers when following a salt restricted diet, but diabetics are usually advised to severely restrict their salt intake even though another 2010 study from Harvard University showed that participants developed insulin resistance when put on a salt restricted diet and insulin resistance is a condition that indicates a strong likelihood for the development of Type 2 Diabetes.

From the same man quoting, on a different thread, a Vietnamese government official in charge of promoting their catfish industry (and co-owner of the larges such company in Vietnam) on the safety of the Vietnamese catfish industry. Take it for what it's worth.

Edited November 28, 2012 by TheVicar

[TheVicar]

Like I said in an earlier post, make your own juice; it's healthier and tastier.

Yeah I suppose so but with the Stoly and Tabasco I'd never know. Say Vicar do you reckon the V8 we get here is made from the pesticide-laden local veg you blend up or does it come from the States?

As an aside, the developer of V8 juice, W. Peacock, died at what age? He made it to the ripe old age of....52! Died of a massive heart attack. That's what big doses of sodium does to the heart.

Ate too much fiber probably. Yes there are some people who are salt sensitive especially if they kidneys aint workin too good.

I look to Winston Churchill for inspiration myself.

Actually, I blend up veggies from an organic farm, available readily here in Chiang Mai. Yes, they do cost more but are worth it. To return to the theme of this thread, the man who developed and marketed V-8 juice died at the totally non-Churchillian age of 52, from a massive heart attack. And the juices he was drinking by definition do not contain fiber. Where do you come up with your nonsense? High salt (NOT "too much fiber") content causes heart attacks.

Edited November 28, 2012 by TheVicar

[Ulysses G.]

I have often wondered about the conventional wisdom on salt. A recent study which disputes the claim that salt is bad for you appeared in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) in May 2011. 3,681 healthy European men and women aged 60 or younger were followed for about 8 years. Those that consumed higher than average amounts of sodium did not experience increased risk for hypertension, stroke, or heart attack. Dr. Jan Staessen MD, author of the study, said that the study’s findings "do not support the current recommendations of a generalized and indiscriminate reduction of sodium intake at the population level.”

Also, Australian studies have shown that those individuals with Type 1 or Type 2 Diabetes actually die in larger numbers when following a salt restricted diet, but diabetics are usually advised to severely restrict their salt intake even though another 2010 study from Harvard University showed that participants developed insulin resistance when put on a salt restricted diet and insulin resistance is a condition that indicates a strong likelihood for the development of Type 2 Diabetes.

From the same man quoting, on a different thread, a Vietnamese government official in charge of promoting their catfish industry (and co-owner of the larges such company in Vietnam) on the safety of the Vietnamese catfish industry. Take it for what it's worth.

The Journal of the American Medical Association has pretty good reputation and they don't own any salt mines. Most rational people will not just dismiss an eight year study of 3,681 patients.

[cloudhopper]

High salt (NOT "too much fiber") content causes heart attacks.

Is that so Vicar? And all these years I was thinking that coronary artery blood clots caused heart attacks, and that too much salt just caused healthy kidneys to pee it out. I stand corrected...

[chiliwasabi]

I wish that there was a local version of V8, but they always add someting sweet like carrot or pineapple juice to the vegetable juice and ruin the taste.

Agreed. Same for the local versions of fruit juices in cans & cartons - pomegranate, mangosteen, etc.

Freshly-squeezed stuff (without the sweet syrup) is great.

You can buy sugar free fruit juices in tetra packs. Available in all the large food stores here.

There is no such thing as sugar free juice...only juice with no added sugar (on top of the copious amounts naturally present from the juiced fruit).

[butterisbetter]

I have often wondered about the conventional wisdom on salt. A recent study which disputes the claim that salt is bad for you appeared in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) in May 2011. 3,681 healthy European men and women aged 60 or younger were followed for about 8 years. Those that consumed higher than average amounts of sodium did not experience increased risk for hypertension, stroke, or heart attack. Dr. Jan Staessen MD, author of the study, said that the study’s findings "do not support the current recommendations of a generalized and indiscriminate reduction of sodium intake at the population level.”

Also, Australian studies have shown that those individuals with Type 1 or Type 2 Diabetes actually die in larger numbers when following a salt restricted diet, but diabetics are usually advised to severely restrict their salt intake even though another 2010 study from Harvard University showed that participants developed insulin resistance when put on a salt restricted diet and insulin resistance is a condition that indicates a strong likelihood for the development of Type 2 Diabetes.

From the same man quoting, on a different thread, a Vietnamese government official in charge of promoting their catfish industry (and co-owner of the larges such company in Vietnam) on the safety of the Vietnamese catfish industry. Take it for what it's worth.

The Journal of the American Medical Association has pretty good reputation and they don't own any salt mines. Most rational people will not just dismiss an eight year study of 3,681 patients.

One of the 2 parties quoted above uses the premature death of one man as a statistically significant proof but discounts studies that number thousands and thousands of people. John Allen Paulos, a mathematician coined the use of "innumerate" to mean the mathematical equivalent of "illiterate". I will leave it to others to decide to which of these 2 parties it ought to apply.

[TheVicar]

I have often wondered about the conventional wisdom on salt. A recent study which disputes the claim that salt is bad for you appeared in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) in May 2011. 3,681 healthy European men and women aged 60 or younger were followed for about 8 years. Those that consumed higher than average amounts of sodium did not experience increased risk for hypertension, stroke, or heart attack. Dr. Jan Staessen MD, author of the study, said that the study’s findings "do not support the current recommendations of a generalized and indiscriminate reduction of sodium intake at the population level.”

Also, Australian studies have shown that those individuals with Type 1 or Type 2 Diabetes actually die in larger numbers when following a salt restricted diet, but diabetics are usually advised to severely restrict their salt intake even though another 2010 study from Harvard University showed that participants developed insulin resistance when put on a salt restricted diet and insulin resistance is a condition that indicates a strong likelihood for the development of Type 2 Diabetes.

From the same man quoting, on a different thread, a Vietnamese government official in charge of promoting their catfish industry (and co-owner of the larges such company in Vietnam) on the safety of the Vietnamese catfish industry. Take it for what it's worth.

The Journal of the American Medical Association has pretty good reputation and they don't own any salt mines. Most rational people will not just dismiss an eight year study of 3,681 patients.

One of the 2 parties quoted above uses the premature death of one man as a statistically significant proof but discounts studies that number thousands and thousands of people. John Allen Paulos, a mathematician coined the use of "innumerate" to mean the mathematical equivalent of "illiterate". I will leave it to others to decide to which of these 2 parties it ought to apply.

But the individual man I referred to was the man who developed and marketed (and presumably drank a lot of) V-8. I think that is relevant although I would agree with you that it might not be statistically significant, a claim I never made to begin with. The overwhelming weight of medical studies on sodium (which is salt) is that high levels of it are very harmful to the body. And the fate of the V-8 developer (dead at 52 of a massive heart attack) falls into that statical projection rather well.

The study cited by another poster in JAMA is an outlier, that is, an observation numerically distant from the rest of informed data. I could fill an encyclopedia with studies showing how sodium is bad for the body, including dozens of other studies in JAMA. Do a Google search if you don't believe me.

Here's a good simple essay from one of the top medical clinics in the world, the Mayo Clinic, on sodium and why too much of it is harmful. http://www.mayoclini...odium/NU00284

Similarly, the American Heart Association recommends strictly controlling sodium levels and warns that "The best way to reduce sodium is to avoid prepackaged, processed and fast foods..." which is exactly what V-8 is.

And here's expert commentary on the article referred to in JAMA which says it is a poor study:

And the JAMA paper has attracted criticism from experts in this field. For example, Professor Graham McGregor said in a Heartwire article last week that:

‘this is a ’badly written paper,” and there are “severe methodological problems” with it, most notably with urine collection in the group that had the lowest salt intake, MacGregor notes, adding that “JAMA has published a lot of controversial papers about salt. I really don’t think this is worth paying attention to. They are trying to create a stir. This is clever, but it’s harmful in my view. It’s like saying we don’t think cigarettes are harmful so we shouldn’t do anything about smoking,” he adds.

“The overall evidence [in favor of salt reduction] is overwhelming,” MacGregor asserts. “That isn’t to say we wouldn’t change our mind if we had really good evidence, but I don’t think this is it. This will not divert us from reducing salt intake worldwide. At a high-level meeting of the World Health Organization, salt reduction has been recommended as the next thing after tobacco reduction because it’s so cost-effective to implement and so easy to do.’

Source: http://sciblogs.co.n...or-your-health/

Who to believe? The Mayo clinic, the World Health Organization, the overwhelming weight of authority in JAMA and the American Heart Association--or you?

Edited November 28, 2012 by TheVicar

[butterisbetter]

But the individual man I referred to was the man who developed and marketed (and presumably drank a lot of) V-8. I think that is relevant although I would agree with you that it might not be statistically significant, a claim I never made to begin with. The overwhelming weight of medical studies on sodium (which is salt) is that high levels of it are very harmful to the body. And the fate of the V-8 developer (dead at 52 of a massive heart attack) falls into that statical projection rather well.

Does this make any kind of sense at all? It seems meaningless to me. How can something be relevant but not statistically significant? It's only relevant if it is statistically significant. Otherwise it's just noise. This is clearly a case of what statisticians calls confirmation bias and what the rest of us might call cherry picking. And as for the overwhelming weight of medical studies on sodium being that high levels of it are very harmful to the body, this is simply and flatly untrue.

The prejudice against salt consumption has its roots in a priori reasoning. Since salt would draw more water into the blood stream there would be higher blood pressure and this would damage the kidneys. But it was never clinically proven.

Anyway here are 2 links. One is to an article in the Oxford International Journal of Epidemiology

http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/31/2/311.full

and the other, to a rather more approachable article by a science writer in the New York Times

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/03/opinion/sunday/we-only-think-we-know-the-truth-about-salt.html?pagewanted=all.

[SeaVisionBurma]

Post flaming another member, and reply quoting it - have been removed.

Please keep the discussion civil, sensible, and free from bickering.

[Ulysses G.]

The prejudice against salt consumption has its roots in a priori reasoning. Since salt would draw more water into the blood stream there would be higher blood pressure and this would damage the kidneys. But it was never clinically proven.

There is a lot of research out there on this. An article in Scientific American magazine does a good job of explaining it.

This week a meta-analysis of seven studies involving a total of 6,250 subjects in the American Journal of Hypertension found no strong evidence that cutting salt intake reduces the risk for heart attacks, strokes or death in people with normal or high blood pressure.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=its-time-to-end-the-war-on-salt

[Mekong Bob]

Following up on multiple requests to stock V-8 Low-Sodium on Rimping Supermarket shelves, I was politely informed by the Purchasing Agent at Rimping / Nim City today that he was unable to order this product from the supplier. The supplier did not provide a reason to the purchasing agent, only that this item cannot be ordered. Hmmmm.

[TheVicar]

The prejudice against salt consumption has its roots in a priori reasoning. Since salt would draw more water into the blood stream there would be higher blood pressure and this would damage the kidneys. But it was never clinically proven.

There is a lot of research out there on this. An article in Scientific American magazine does a good job of explaining it.

This week a meta-analysis of seven studies involving a total of 6,250 subjects in the American Journal of Hypertension found no strong evidence that cutting salt intake reduces the risk for heart attacks, strokes or death in people with normal or high blood pressure.

http://www.scientifi...the-war-on-salt

You are misleading people again.

1. The study you present as scientific fact is an outlier. Almost every major medical group worldwide advises exactly the opposite: cut salt intake. The results are overwhelming (the same kind of preponderance of the evidence that exists for smoking being bad for your health). As with cigarettes, there were studies also claiming they were not harmful (it turned out most were sponsored by the tobacco companies). Please let us know who sponsored these studies you cite.

2. Don't believe this nonsense. Do a search on Google and you'll find out what I mean.

3. The same poster (on another thread) is a guy claiming that Thais don't eat fast food and that fast food is not the real cause of Thais getting fatter! He's living in another world.

Edited December 5, 2012 by TheVicar

[junglechef]

Following up on multiple requests to stock V-8 Low-Sodium on Rimping Supermarket shelves, I was politely informed by the Purchasing Agent at Rimping / Nim City today that he was unable to order this product from the supplier. The supplier did not provide a reason to the purchasing agent, only that this item cannot be ordered. Hmmmm.

Perhaps the supplier read and weighed all the pertinent studies on the subject and made a consciuos decision based on what he believes is in the best interest of his clientele

[Ulysses G.]

The prejudice against salt consumption has its roots in a priori reasoning. Since salt would draw more water into the blood stream there would be higher blood pressure and this would damage the kidneys. But it was never clinically proven.

There is a lot of research out there on this. An article in Scientific American magazine does a good job of explaining it.

This week a meta-analysis of seven studies involving a total of 6,250 subjects in the American Journal of Hypertension found no strong evidence that cutting salt intake reduces the risk for heart attacks, strokes or death in people with normal or high blood pressure.

http://www.scientifi...the-war-on-salt

You are misleading people again.

1. The study you present as scientific fact is an outlier.

The article in Scientific American refers to at least 64 different studies. Who is the one who is misleading people?

A 2003 Cochrane review of 57 shorter-term trials similarly concluded that "there is little evidence for long-term benefit from reducing salt intake."

"This week a meta-analysis of seven studies involving a total of 6,250 subjects in the American Journal of Hypertension found no strong evidence that cutting salt intake reduces the risk for heart attacks, strokes or death in people with normal or high blood pressure"

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=its-time-to-end-the-war-on-salt

[butterisbetter]

The prejudice against salt consumption has its roots in a priori reasoning. Since salt would draw more water into the blood stream there would be higher blood pressure and this would damage the kidneys. But it was never clinically proven.

There is a lot of research out there on this. An article in Scientific American magazine does a good job of explaining it.

This week a meta-analysis of seven studies involving a total of 6,250 subjects in the American Journal of Hypertension found no strong evidence that cutting salt intake reduces the risk for heart attacks, strokes or death in people with normal or high blood pressure.

http://www.scientifi...the-war-on-salt

You are misleading people again.

1. The study you present as scientific fact is an outlier. Almost every major medical group worldwide advises exactly the opposite: cut salt intake. The results are overwhelming (the same kind of preponderance of the evidence that exists for smoking being bad for your health). As with cigarettes, there were studies also claiming they were not harmful (it turned out most were sponsored by the tobacco companies). Please let us know who sponsored these studies you cite.

2. Don't believe this nonsense. Do a search on Google and you'll find out what I mean.

3. The same poster (on another thread) is a guy claiming that Thais don't eat fast food and that fast food is not the real cause of Thais getting fatter! He's living in another world.

A careful reader will notice a multiplicity of dubious statements in thevicar's paragraph #1. First off, the vicar asserts that UG cites a study which is an outlier. No, UG cites several studies. And these are meta-analyses of other research. Lots and lots of other studies. Which means that a large number of studies were combined to increase the statistical significance of the results. The same sort of thing that Nate Silver did for polling in the latest U.S. election. Lots of people questioned his approach, too.

The vicar also asserts that the results are overwhelmingly in favor of sodium playing a significant role in hypertension, but offers no proof of this.

As for the request of proof of who sponsored the studies. UG is citing work from the Journal of Hypertension and an article from Scientific American. Both highly reputable journals. It's very doubtful that they would be citing corrupt studies sponsored by interested parties. After all, their reputation is on the line. Rather it is incumbent upon thevicar to prove the unlikely assertion that these studies are somehow corrupt.

The vicar also pulls a switch. Against the studies cited by UG, he asserts that almost every major medical group supports his position. No one is disputing that. The question is on the basis of what overwhelming evidence?

So far, thevicar has cited none. Instead he's asserted that there's an overwhelming amount out there. Assertion is not proof.

In paragraph #2 thevicar characterizes the evidence that UG provides as "nonsense." Denigration is proof of what exactly? The thevicar advises readers to search the internet. Search for what, precisely? Why doesn't thevicar take it upon himself to do that and provide us with the evidence? Perhaps because it isn't really there?

In paragraph #3 thevicar cites the fact that UG questions how many Western fast food outlets there are in Thailand. What has this to do with anything? If UG were to post something in support of the theory of relativity, should we discount the theory of relativity because of UG's views on the preponderance of Western fast food in Thailand. I think thevicar's ad hominem attack on UG says something significant about thevicar, and nothing at all significant about the issue at hand.