- Joined
- Jan 29, 2010
- Messages
- 1,001
- Reaction score
- 64
http://www.medpagetoday.com/Cardiology/Hypertension/26258
I haven't head anyone talk about this new paper published by the AMA, but it's pretty important stuff.
The bottom line is that the low sodium hypothesis originated based on the thought that since
acute sodium ingestion leads to transient hypertension after consuming it, eating sodium therefore must lead to chronic hypertension. Not a bad idea in theory, but the problem is that's all it is. But sometime around the mid 20th century it started to get treated as a fact.
There was a study done, I don't feel like browsing for it right now but I will if anyone doubts it, that reducing sodium consumption by HALF lead to a tiny drop in systolic pressure, something like 10 mmHg for Type 1 hypertension (the numbers are not exact, I'm writing this from recall but it's close). And think about it--how feasible is it to cut out half of your sodium consumption? Not very. That's hard to do. Paricularly for such a modest gain. Everything's got sodium in it.
Anyway, there's nothing I love more than seeing evidence refute hypotheses that we seem to love to treat as empirical facts.
Edit: If you're wondering why I sound so angsty, it's cause I believe medical science should be based in science, it's something I feel passionately about. If not, then why even have phsycians? Might as well treat illnesses with folk remedies. I hate the arrogance of treating something we're not sure about as if we ARE sure about it. Reminds me of the big shot physicists at the close of the 19th century saying "That's it, we've learned all there is to know about physics."
I haven't head anyone talk about this new paper published by the AMA, but it's pretty important stuff.
The bottom line is that the low sodium hypothesis originated based on the thought that since
acute sodium ingestion leads to transient hypertension after consuming it, eating sodium therefore must lead to chronic hypertension. Not a bad idea in theory, but the problem is that's all it is. But sometime around the mid 20th century it started to get treated as a fact.
There was a study done, I don't feel like browsing for it right now but I will if anyone doubts it, that reducing sodium consumption by HALF lead to a tiny drop in systolic pressure, something like 10 mmHg for Type 1 hypertension (the numbers are not exact, I'm writing this from recall but it's close). And think about it--how feasible is it to cut out half of your sodium consumption? Not very. That's hard to do. Paricularly for such a modest gain. Everything's got sodium in it.
Anyway, there's nothing I love more than seeing evidence refute hypotheses that we seem to love to treat as empirical facts.
Edit: If you're wondering why I sound so angsty, it's cause I believe medical science should be based in science, it's something I feel passionately about. If not, then why even have phsycians? Might as well treat illnesses with folk remedies. I hate the arrogance of treating something we're not sure about as if we ARE sure about it. Reminds me of the big shot physicists at the close of the 19th century saying "That's it, we've learned all there is to know about physics."
Last edited: