If New Study Showed Smoking was Healthy Would You Start Smoking

[ginkgo]

I am asking this since lots of studies show that salt is unhealthy. Webmd says that cutting down on salt is as good as quitting smoking. But a new study shows that salt is good for health. So do you just forget everything previously.? Please note from the comments that that is what people are doing-- ignoring all the previous research.

Jacob Teitelbaum, M.D.: Salt, Not So Bad for You After All?

The folks with the highest urinary sodium levels -- a sign of a higher dietary intake of salt -- had the lowest risk of developing heart disease. Looked at another way, the low-sodium folks had four times the rate of dying from heart disease, compared to the high-salt folks.

Can you find a flaw in the study? Note that above they assume an initial premise that may not be true. If you consume more sodium, then more sodium will be in your urine. If you consume more food, will you defecate more? What if the food is causing constipation?

[momo3bur]

Hmmm, well, I think the information provided concerning this study is a bit limited. I've always been taught that salt is good for you in moderation and not in excess of what each body individually needs. However, getting too little salt, unless it's medically necessary, can be harmful to your heart because of something to do with potassium AND sodium being needed in order to keep your heart muscles functioning correctly.

I'm curious if this study addresses only moderate amounts of sodium being good for the body or if it also addresses consuming high levels of sodium unnecessary to keep your body running correctly and whether or not these high levels of sodium are also thought to be healthy to consume.

I can see, however, if it is only addressing people who chose to consume a low sodium diet instead of consuming recommended amounts of sodium.

And to answer the question, NO! LOL! I quit smoking a long time ago and I feel MUCH better physically since then. Based on personal experience, NO, I would never want to wake up hacking my lungs in to bits ever again.

EDIT: Sorry! I just realized you posted a link to the study. I'll read and re-report. Thanks!

OK! I read and it doesn't really say much about people who eat WAY too much salt and actually stated that most people don't go over the amount of salt recommended by the FDA. SOOOO, it seems to me that this study coincides with what I've been taught...don't eat TOO much but there's no reason to limit the normal amount unless you already have a medical condition that constitutes doing so.

[firenexx]

There is no "moderate amount" of salt; salt is simply a rock that contains inorganic sodium. All the sodium you need you can get from vegetables and other foods that have already assimilated the inorganic sodium.

Simply put: Salt is unnecessary. You do not need it for health.
I use salt for my neti pot, and I use it for gargling on occasion.

[momo3bur]

Well, I'm not claiming to have come to the above conclusions on my own. This is what I've been taught.

I agree that we should be able to get enough salt for our bodies naturally, unless of course you are extremely active and sweat profusely, etc., etc. I do know that even animals need the use of a salt and mineral supplement (my horses, for example) or they can develop health issues due to lack of sodium and minerals in their diet EVEN though they are provided with all the grass and hay they can possible consume plus a specialized feed.

I don't see how this could be much different for humans with a lack of those things in their diets. Again, though, that is assuming the person is purposefully limiting their sodium intake. By moderate, I mean NORMAL, which is not too little or not too much.

We do need salt for our muscles to function correctly. The amount depends the individual person's needs based on activity and health. Usually I would think there would be absolutely no issue unless there is some underlying health problem or the person is extremely active.

[Acting Like Godot]

If a new study showed that smoking was healthy, would I start smoking?

I probably wouldn't, because I just don't like the smell.

However, if I were already a smoker, and a new study showed that smoking was healthy, then I would continue the habit.

In our hypothetical scenario, there is, however, a point that requires more scrutiny. How come the doctors and scientists all used to say that smoking is bad, and now they say that it is good?

This doesn't mean that their latest finding is wrong - it does mean that we need to scrutinise all the studies - old & new - to understand how this new angle arose, and whether there are any special points we need to note.

Originally Posted by ginkgo

I am asking this since lots of studies show that salt is unhealthy. Webmd says that cutting down on salt is as good as quitting smoking. But a new study shows that salt is good for health. So do you just forget everything previously.? Please note from the comments that that is what people are doing-- ignoring all the previous research.

That is not different from the coffee situation. A 100% natural drink which is much maligned by the less-informed health enthusiasts. They simply cannot manage to wrap their brains around the fact that coffee lowers the risk of:

dementia,
Alzehiemer's disease,
cirrhosis of the liver,
pharyngeal cancer,
esophageal cancer,
gout,
liver cancer etc.

Can you find a flaw in the study? Note that above they assume an initial premise that may not be true. If you consume more sodium, then more sodium will be in your urine.

Not so much a flaw, but further points for investigation.

For example, perhaps people with higher urinary sodium are people who naturally dispose sodium from their bodies more easily. As for the other folks, they store more sodium in their kidneys, have lower sodium levels in their urine and get the diseases traditionally associated with higher salt consumption.

[Dulma]

Forming your diet around the conclusions of various "studies" will likely make your eating habits unnecessarily complicated and fluctuating. Don't trust studies, trust your body!

[Clint Cora]

There a lots of ways to rip a study apart. I was in an industry where we use to do that all the time. Some factors include;

- number of people involved?
- was it double-blinded?
- what journal was it published in?
- does this back up other similar studies?
- who are the researchers and what else have they published?
- what was the control group?
- where were the research sites?
- who sponsored the study?

Many of the rip-off health companies try to sell you that they have a 'study' but not all studies are equal.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by Clint Cora

There a lots of ways to rip a study apart. I was in an industry where we use to do that all the time. Some factors include;

- number of people involved? 3,681 people.
- was it double-blinded?
- what journal was it published in?
- does this back up other similar studies?
- who are the researchers and what else have they published?
- what was the control group?
- where were the research sites?
- who sponsored the study?

This isn't "ripping apart". These are rather basic questions to consider, when reading about any scientific research.

[Alex Barboza]

Some studies say TOO MUCH salt is bad. All studies say even very little smoke is bad.

Even if it were healthy smelling like that and having my teeth and fingers turn yellowish is just not funny

And what about the money wasted on cigarretes?

I'd pass on this one

[agsags]

- Low sodium is good for people with hyper-tension. This does NOT mean however that a healthy person will benefit from low sodium diet - likely otherwise.

- A lot of saturated fat and dietary cholesterol is not good for sedentary people. At the same time, they cause little trouble and are in fact needed for active healthy people.

- Excessive consumption of alcohol, nicotine, caffeine, mushrooms, ganja, peyote has negative health effects. At the same time, this substances have been consumed for centuries in moderation - often in ritualized manner - without ill-effects and possibly with many indirect benefits.

[Winter Goddess]

Hands down, I would use it as an excuse to go back to smoking.

I quit cold turkey 2 months ago because of the rising prices per box, and I was smoking 2 boxes (40 cigs) a day on most days. It was too expensive. I didn't care about the smell, and I love it for the whole 11 years that I smoked.

But I was never a fan of adding salt to anything except some of my meats so I hardly care about salt-related research. Something can be the greatest thing in the world, but unless it was a magical cure for me, I wouldn't touch it if I didn't like it.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by Winter Goddess

Hands down, I would use it as an excuse to go back to smoking.

But of course. It would be unhealthy for you not to go back.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by agsags

- Low sodium is good for people with hyper-tension. This does NOT mean however that a healthy person will benefit from low sodium diet - likely otherwise.

The study is telling you otherwise.

Read the part that says the low-sodium folks are four times likelier to die of heart disease.

[JamesKnochel]

Originally Posted by ginkgo

I am asking this since lots of studies show that salt is unhealthy.

It helps to understand the historical context of the pharmaceutical companies' anti-salt crusade.

New diuretics came out in the 1950's which caused sodium to be excreted in the urine. These were used to treat all kinds of diseases related to water, like high blood pressure, edema, pregnancy, etc. Salt restriction was recommended based on the theory that this would make the diuretics more effective.

But biochemists know that salt restriction is rather silly. The body can easily get rid of extra salt (via the urine and kidneys), but what's it supposed to do if it desperately needs salt but there's not enough in the diet?

If a woman is pregnant, restricting salt in her diet is both ignorant and stupid. Search on 'salt pregnancy diet' for more information.

Thanks, Ginkgo - I learned something while reading up for this post.

-James

[MightySunTzu]

After working out in the fat burning zone for 20 years and believing that i needed to avoid saturated fat and eat lots of grains for optimal health, i have learned to basically ignore the media, the governmental agencies and the researchers who are all too often paid to produce a predetermined result.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by agsags

- A lot of saturated fat and dietary cholesterol is not good for sedentary people. At the same time, they cause little trouble and are in fact needed for active healthy people.

A good study on the effects of saturated fat/diet cholesterol etc would take into account the possible effects of other variables such as an active lifestyle.

- Excessive consumption of alcohol, nicotine, caffeine, mushrooms, ganja, peyote has negative health effects.

Excessive consumption of anything including Vitamin C and oxygen has negative health effects. The word "excessive" already tells you that.

A good study on the effects of the consumption of anything would build some parameters around the quantity issue.

[agsags]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

The study is telling you otherwise.

Read the part that says the low-sodium folks are four times likelier to die of heart disease.

This doesn't contradict what I said because the study was done on people who did not have hypertension to start with. I wouldn't be surprised if people WITHOUT hypertension did worse on low-sodium diet.

However it is well-tested clinical wisdom that people who ALREADY developed hyper-tension DO benefit from reducing their salt.

[Lifeisamazing]

Originally Posted by firenexx

Simply put: Salt is unnecessary. You do not need it for health.

Maybe this is true, but studies that confirm that salt is not unhealthy help those who like salty food. So if it is neutral to your health or even healthy, but you like to use it on your food, it's pretty good news, isn't it?

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by agsags

This doesn't contradict what I said because the study was done on people who did not have hypertension to start with.

Sorry ... I misread your earlier post.

[Lifeisamazing]

By the way, those of you who think that salt is neutral or healthy, what's your take on the difference between industrialized salt and sea salt?

To Gingko:
I think it's a bit uncalled analogy. I don't think there is any contradicting evidence about smoking, but there is quite a bit of contradicting evidence about salt intake. So we are not really talking about one study, but several studies. If there are several studies that tell you that conventional wisdom isn't true, then I think it's probably a good idea to become a bit skeptical and investigate it further.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by firenexx

Simply put: Salt is unnecessary. You do not need it for health.

The study is suggesting that salt will improve your health by lowering your risk of heart disease. That is, if you and I are equally healthy, and then for the next eight years I eat a lot more salt than you, then, all other things being equal, the probability of me getting heart disease is four times lower than you getting heart disease.

Of course, this study is not going to be the last word on the topic - the research will go on and on.

[SeizureSideSalad]

well first of all, a study would not show that smoking is healthy, and if it did then there are flaws.

and secondly, yes, because i already do smoke

[Lifeisamazing]

Originally Posted by SeizureSideSalad

well first of all, a study would not show that smoking is healthy, and if it did then there are flaws.

Fortunately, I think there is no debate over whether smoking is unhealthy or not. Now if they designed new cigarettes, it could change.

[agsags]

Originally Posted by Lifeisamazing

Fortunately, I think there is no debate over whether smoking is unhealthy or not. Now if they designed new cigarettes, it could change.

And where does such assurance come from? It's all about the quality of tobacco (cigarettes have a lot of harmful additives) and quantity. Tobacco has been ritualized by American Indians (while totally willified by mainstream in the last 1/2 century) and something tells me that the quantities in which they consumed it were not harmful to health.

[Lifeisamazing]

Originally Posted by agsags

And where does such assurance come from? It's all about the quality of tobacco (cigarettes have a lot of harmful additives) and quantity. Tobacco has been ritualized by American Indians (while totally willified by mainstream in the last 1/2 century) and something tells me that the quantities in which they consumed it were not harmful to health.

Read my post again and you'll probably realize that I acknowledged it.

[SeizureSideSalad]

anything can be healthy... in moderation

[firenexx]

Let us remember that salt is not sodium and sodium is not salt.

[ChrisGinsburg]

I take option 3. Stop endlessly following studies where people claim to have all the answers but really don't and live your life. It's not that difficult to figure out what's healthy and what your body reacts well to.

[russianrocket]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

A good study on the effects of saturated fat/diet cholesterol etc would take into account the possible effects of other variables such as an active lifestyle.




Excessive consumption of anything including Vitamin C and oxygen has negative health effects. The word "excessive" already tells you that.

A good study on the effects of the consumption of anything would build some parameters around the quantity issue.

"Excessive" can also mean, more then your body requires. It doesn't "already" tell me that it will create negative effects. That's just your label that you put on the word.

[russianrocket]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

That is not different from the coffee situation. A 100% natural drink which is much maligned by the less-informed health enthusiasts. They simply cannot manage to wrap their brains around the fact that coffee lowers the risk of:

You can make a 100% natural drink out of anything. Salt water is also a 100% natural drink. Who says that it should be made into a drink in the first place, and who says we are supposed to ingest it? Not to mention, that the coffee that people drink today, is far from natural, just as beer might have been healthy for you at one point, while it's no longer the case.