You probably saw my recent piece taking down the pretense that salt is bad for us (Why Do Animals Need Salt Licks And We Don’t?) The myth has been going around for years, despite the fact that those on a low salt diet die like flies in the desert heat of summer.
Well, predictably, that set off a cascade of pseudo-science, clinging to the old beliefs. There was no counter-science; just opinions from die-hards. But I’m sharing this with you, just to show how hard and furious these fights are, with truth being the first casualty of war, as the old saying goes.
What is so wrong is the PRETENSE of science that is used to jack up one person or another’s opinion. In this case a couple of toadies came forward with the necessary hatchet-job. In a Comment published in the July 30, 2011 issue of the Lancet and the press release that accompanied it, Dr Feng J He (Queen Mary University, London, UK) and Dr Graham A MacGregor (Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Barts, London, UK) claim that the pro-salt study “reflect poorly on the reputation of the Cochrane Library and the authors.”
You kidding me? The science must be wrong and the facts withdrawn because it would reflect badly on someone else’s reputation? What kind of science is that?
It’s not science. And notice that, this is how these things work: they did NOT reply to the journal that published the Belgian study (JAMA). Instead they went to the press and another rival journal to stick in their blow for ignorance.
This is bad protocol and not the way true science is conducted. Debate is OK (up to a point) but not running rings round somebody and getting pals in the media to stab your rival in the back! Shame, shame, you British doctors: that’s NOT cricket, bedamn! Waterloo, playing fields of Eton School, and all that…
The point about what the new study found was that it was LONG-TERM; all previous studies supposedly telling us salt was bad for us looked at no more than days or weeks and found that salt raised blood pressure. No previous study, to my knowledge, ever looked at whether long-term salt increased mortality.
So the Belgian study was a myth buster; but the myth won’t go away: it’s cemented in by pseudo-science and opinion.
In fact doctors He and MacGregor “reanalyzed” the same data but combined the people with no hypertension and those with raised blood pressure. They also omitted the heart-failure trial group.
Sounds like straightforward massaging of figures, to get the result you desire!
Call that science? I don’t.
MacGregor uses typical methods of obfuscating. He attacks the quality of the study, but offers little to support his assertion. He makes sweeping claims without supporting them. He then falls back on one of the grand standards for those who don’t really have good evidence to support their contentions: They make clear that their view is the popular one.
So would it surprise you to know that the salt industry was in there somewhere? Of course not!
Asked why their comment was sent to the Lancet rather than one of the two publications in which the original Belgian paper was published, MacGregor cited the need for a swift, high-profile response.
“Obviously this is somewhat urgent–this caused headline news around the world, and the [salt-industry trade association] SALT Institute has a huge amount on its website about this,” he said. “We wanted to get this correction in [print] very quickly and get it some publicity, because it’s obviously totally wrong to claim salt reduction is not beneficial.”
Doctors He and MacGregor declare they have no conflicts of interest (except an addiction to B*S* perhaps?)
For years I had heard that about one third of the population had the sensisitivity to sodium (salt) that meant that it posed a problem. I realise that it may not be easy to find if an individual has that sensitivity. However, to tell everyone to cut down on salt seemed unnecessary, yet I, along with a lot of others, have taken this step. Instead of adding salt to cooking or at table, I prepare a special mixture, which I would like to share with your readers. Take a screwtop glass jar. Fill it one third full with ginger powder; add one third ground black pepper; then add one third either salt or salt substitute; I then add a small amount ofcayenne peppper ( I don’t like very hot spices, so you can add more to taste). These ingredients all have beneficial properties. I find that this provides an adequate substitute for salt. I think that I get adequate sodium in prepared foods. The mineral content, including sodium, in vegetables and fruits is much lower than 50 years ago, due to modern chemical agricultural methods, so I think that I probably achieve a sensible balance. Taking various concentrates as supplements possibly adds extra sodium and other minerals, in particular kelp and spirulina. What do other readers do?
One point is missing in the salt story:
‘salty’ is a rather general term for a specific gustatory sensation. In fact, there are a lot of different substances on the market named ‘salt’. I really would like to see a differentiation between pure sodiumchloride, sea salt, stone salt etc.
The variety of minerals in the latter type is of great benefit. Artificial sodiumchloride (horrifyingly mixed with iodine and fluoride) is potentially dangerous. If we only focus the toxic mixture, I would strongly support a low-tox diet!!!!
Doc, do you have an overview on the different salt types and studies related to it?
Thank you!