Evidence debunking low sodium diet

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
it took me 5 seconds and a google to get the whole article after your little quip here. Do you know what the word ignorant means? What about irony?
Click to expand...
It doesn't matter that the expensive tissue hypothesis is wrong. That's not the point. The point is that we DID switch to a meat based diet. The why doesn't matter. We could have switched to a meat based diet to grow harder fingernails. It's irrelevant.

I could put a diesel engine in my car because it gets better mileage, and you could put a diesel engine in your car because you like the smell of it. At this point, we both have to fill up with diesel because our engines will no longer run properly on other types of fuel. That's the "evolutionary argument." The initial reason we both switched to a diesel engine is completely irrelevant at this point.

You kept saying over and over, "There is no teh evolutionary basis for that there paleo diet!!111"

So I sent that link to show you that we did in fact eat a meat-based diet.

That was the point.
Members don't see this ad.
 
Last edited:
CaptainSSO said:
It doesn't matter that the expensive tissue hypothesis is wrong. That's not the point. The point is that we DID switch to a meat based diet. The why doesn't matter. We could have switched to a meat based diet to grow harder fingernails. It's irrelevant.

I could put a diesel engine in my car because it gets better mileage, and you could put a diesel engine in your car because you like the smell of it. At this point, we both have to fill up with diesel because our engines will no longer run properly on other types of fuel. That's the "evolutionary argument." The initial reason we both switched to a diesel engine is completely irrelevant at this point.

You kept saying over and over, "There is no teh evolutionary basis for that there paleo diet!!111"

So I sent that link to show you that we did in fact eat a meat-based diet.

That was the point.
Click to expand...

facepalm again.... except if you had read the link that you called ME ignorant for earlier for not understanding you would understand 1) that the theory has not been accepted and 2) it does not exclude carbs and 3) does not demonstrate that we ate a meat diet.

Irony.... seriously.... look it up. it applies here.

aside from that, if you look at your original post that bothered me - "eat paleo like we evolved to do" - and if you understood anything about what is being talked about here you would see the problem with that statement.
 
SpecterGT260 said:
facepalm again.... except if you had read the link that you called ME ignorant for earlier for not understanding you would understand 1) that the theory has not been accepted and 2) it does not exclude carbs and 3) does not demonstrate that we ate a meat diet.

Irony.... seriously.... look it up. it applies here.

aside from that, if you look at your original post that bothered me - "eat paleo like we evolved to do" - and if you understood anything about what is being talked about here you would see the problem with that statement.
Click to expand...
Read the link facetguy posted. Paleolithic people were not eating a diet that contained refined carbs. The refinement process did not exist at that time. I'll leave it at that.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
CaptainSSO said:
Read the link facetguy posted. Paleolithic people were not eating large amounts of carbs. They couldn't just whip up spaghetti.
Click to expand...

no s***. I don't think I can make you understand where your argument fails. Guess I will just walk away in those nikes that I evolved to wear :rolleyes:

Your argument made an illogical rhetorical leap - that is what I had a problem with. You backed it up with a paper that didnt actually claim what you claimed after only reading the abstract and calling me ignorant for not having read it. We also didn't evolve using antibiotics. Gunna call those unhealthy now too? The point is, nothing is inherently "good" or "bad" due to its presence or absence during evolution - yet THAT is what you attempted to argue. THAT is the only thing I had an issue with and you just keep going as if I am claiming this diet has no benefit. like.... seriously.... how do you not get this?
 
SpecterGT260 said:
no s***. I don't think I can make you understand where your argument fails. Guess I will just walk away in those nikes that I evolved to wear :rolleyes:

Your argument made an illogical rhetorical leap - that is what I had a problem with. You backed it up with a paper that didnt actually claim what you claimed after only reading the abstract and calling me ignorant for not having read it. We also didn't evolve using antibiotics. Gunna call those unhealthy now too? The point is, nothing is inherently "good" or "bad" due to its presence or absence during evolution - yet THAT is what you attempted to argue. THAT is the only thing I had an issue with and you just keep going as if I am claiming this diet has no benefit. like.... seriously.... how do you not get this?
Click to expand...

I am pretty sure I've posted this already--no, just because we didn't evolve with something doesn't make it unhealthy. I have NEVER SAID THAT.

We can pretty easily see that refined carbs are unhealthy. So, if the staple of our diet is unhealthy, what do we eat? Well, what did we historically eat? That's the evolutionary argument. I've told you this a few times.

The modern argument is that "saturated fats are bad." Well, we evolved eating them. They aren't bad. That's the evolutionary arguments. Not that anything we didn't evolve with is inherently bad. You've been attacking me for making an argument I was never making in the first place.

PS -- I've read the paper plenty of times. I haven't read it in since I had access to it, a couple of years ago. So I might have gotten one of the details confused--but I don't think I did.

You never specified what you were even talking about. You kept saying "it's baseless, it's baseless," and I had no idea why you kept saying that, so finally I assumed you believed we didn't eat meat and called you ignorant for thinking we didn't eat meat. So I posted an article referencing the fact that we ate meat. That is why I posted the paper. To show we ate this diet high in fat. That was it. Look at the one facetguy posted. It's pretty clear. We ate meat. We ate nuts. We ate saturated fat. And we didn't eat refined carbohydrates.

Clearly in your mind I was saying anything we didn't evolve eating has to be bad. No. The point is that we know the Paleo diet isn't bad, evolutionarily.

It's like if people were walking around on their hands instead of their feet. Let's say they keep spraining their wrist. Evolutionarily, we walk on our feet. So they argument is, hey, there's a way you can walk so you won't hurt yourself--use your feet. That's how we evolved to walk and and it works well, you won't injure yourself. There is no inherent reason that refined carbs had to be bad--it just turns out they are. Maybe in 20 years we will start eating dust from Mars and that will be the best, most healthful diet ever. There's no reason that can't happen. The "evolution argument" makes no statement on such things.
 
Last edited:
CaptainSSO said:
I am pretty sure I've posted this like 3 times--no, just because we didn't evolve with something doesn't make it unhealthy. I have NEVER SAID THAT.

We can pretty easily see that refined carbs are unhealthy. So, if the staple of our diet is unhealthy, what do we eat? Well, what did we historically eat? That's the evolutionary argument. I've told you this a few times.

The modern argument is that "saturated fats are bad." Well, we evolved eating them. They aren't bad. That's the evolutionary arguments. Not that anything we didn't evolve with is inherently bad. You've been attacking me for making an argument I was never making in the first place.

PS -- I've read the paper plenty of times. I haven't read it in since I had access to it, a couple of years ago. So I might have gotten one of the details confused--but I don't think I did.

You never specified what you were even talking about. You kept saying "it's baseless, it's baseless," and I had no idea why you kept saying that, so I assumed you believed we didn't eat meat and called you ignorant for thinking we didn't eat meat. So I posted an article referencing the fact that we ate meat. That is why I posted the paper. To show we ate this diet high in fat. That was it. Look at the one facetguy posted. It's pretty clear. We ate meat. We ate nuts. We ate saturated fat. And we didn't eat refined carbohydrates.

Clearly in your mind I was saying anything we didn't evolve eating has to be bad. No. The point is that we know the Paleo diet isn't bad, evolutionarily.

It's like if people were walking around on their hands instead of their feet. Let's say they keep spraining their wrist. Evolutionarily, we walk on our feet. So they argument is, hey, there's a way you can walk so you won't hurt yourself--use your feet. That's how we evolved to walk and and it works well, you won't injure yourself. There is no inherent reason that refined carbs had to be bad--it just turns out they are. Maybe in 20 years we will start eating dust from Mars and that will be the best, most healthful diet ever. There's no reason that can't happen. The "evolution argument" makes no statement on such things.
Click to expand...

Sigh
 
facetguy said:
Timely article from Scientific American about calories:
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/2012/08/27/the-hidden-truths-about-calories/

This speaks mostly to the issue of food quality, which is sorely lacking in the typical American diet.
Click to expand...

This Nature article is kind of related to the above in that it examines the role of gut flora:
http://www.nature.com/nrgastro/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nrgastro.2012.161.html

Bariatric surgery effects go beyond simply physically restricting food intake. Gut flora likely fit into this.
 
SpecterGT260 said:
Want to speculate?
Click to expand...

Based on other studies looking at the topic (not necessarily the evolutionary aspect but the association with weight gain/obesity), I think there is reason to believe that late-night exposure to light screws with us. Whether the evolutionary angle pans out, who knows. But it isn't that far-fetched a concept.

In a broader sense, considering factors other than just caloric intake and macronutrients (gut flora and light exposure as two examples) will likely prove helpful in the long run.
 
facetguy said:
Based on other studies looking at the topic (not necessarily the evolutionary aspect but the association with weight gain/obesity), I think there is reason to believe that late-night exposure to light screws with us. Whether the evolutionary angle pans out, who knows. But it isn't that far-fetched a concept.

In a broader sense, considering factors other than just caloric intake and macronutrients (gut flora and light exposure as two examples) will likely prove helpful in the long run.
Click to expand...

There is quite a bit of good data on circadian rhythms and they are linked to all sorts of fun stuff. Id say easily plausible and at least correlated with obesity. Its interesting that they find an inverse relationship to latitude however.... however their r^2 sucks and I'm not sure what their p value is related to (avg of individuals/region? Pertaining to the fit? Dunno...)
 
SpecterGT260 said:
There is quite a bit of good data on circadian rhythms and they are linked to all sorts of fun stuff. Id say easily plausible and at least correlated with obesity. Its interesting that they find an inverse relationship to latitude however.... however their r^2 sucks and I'm not sure what their p value is related to (avg of individuals/region? Pertaining to the fit? Dunno...)
Click to expand...

I just saw the abstract. No nitty gritty.
 
Don't ever just read the abstract unless it is for a school assignment (because then that is all your prof read as well) ;)
 
Members don't see this ad :)
Blogpost related to the light/weight thing:
http://www.dansplan.com/blog/1731-light-may-modulate-hunger-hormones

I've never read this blog before and have only read this one entry, so don't crucify me if the author is a freak. But it was timely. And it fell into my lap; I didn't search for this or anything.

"One line of research has looked at how sleep restriction influences hormones that affect hunger, including leptin which can be thought of as a fullness signal. It has now been shown several times that sleep restriction can influence these hormones so that you're hungrier during the day."

"It is likely that some of the negative health effects we associate with sleep loss are moderated by increased light and decreased darkness."

"New research from Figueiro et al., – to be presented next week at the European Sleep Research Society in Paris...What they found is that sleep restriction significantly reduced leptin levels when compared to these subject's normal values....this suggests that light can potentially impact obesity by reducing hunger that accompanies sleep deprivation. However, it appears that both sleep and light are both important."
 
SpecterGT260 said:
Sigh
Click to expand...

I think your problem with the argument is that you're underestimating the nuances of evolution.

Remember these are single mutations that result in subtle changes in phenotype…adding up over tens and hundreds of thousands of years. It wasn't like an overnight shift in diets and "Oh, this diet will do." No…the most infinitesimal advantage is exploited.

Hypothetically, yes, we could have evolved to eat the Paleo diet, been highly fit (more so than those eating, say, vegetation) from 0-30 years, and spontaneously combust at age 31. But in actuality, we know that doesn't/didn't happen (there is evidence for this…the nonmaleficence of the diet…not the lack of spontaneous combustion).

If you walked outside and found a zebra, and wanted to keep it as a pet, what would you feed it? Most likely whatever it eats in the wild, correct? Or you could feed it tuna, and see how that goes.

That's the idea behind it. We eat our "natural diet."

When we developed agriculture, we were able to manipulate our environment in such a way that we were no longer at its mercy. Yes, if that switch of diets had never been made, civilization wouldn't have arisen and I wouldn't be typing on this computer right now. But that doesn't mean the switch to a grain-based diet was healthy. More importantly the refinement process was the worst.

The base assumption should be that the "natural," or evolutionary diet is correct until proven otherwise, rather than the opposite.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/be/Bathurst_Island_men.jpg

Look at these guys. Hunter-gatherers. Clearly, they're not starving--they're actually pretty muscular. I would say most guys in America would be ecstatic to look like that. You can tell just by their body type that they're not burning all those calories off with distance running/walking. Do they look like they have DM2, or that they had an MI anytime soon after that picture was made?
 
At this point I just don't think you understand the implications of your argument
 
SpecterGT260 said:
At this point I just don't think you understand the implications of your argument
Click to expand...

Which part?

The gist of it is…10^4 years ago we developed agriculture, began eating a grain-based diet, and have not cycled through enough generations to have adapted to it yet.
 
You make the mistake of assuming that longevity is an evolutionary goal. All assumptions therein are flawed.
 
SpecterGT260 said:
You make the mistake of assuming that longevity is an evolutionary goal. All assumptions therein are flawed.
Click to expand...

Well, the assumption is not that longevity is selected for via evolution (although, I don't consider it entirely implausible--longevity would imply more experience, which would mean impartation of knowledge to more inexperienced humans, which would promote survival, etc…although I would guess this would have diminishing returns, at what age it would be impossible to say).

The idea is not that longevity is selected for, per se, but rather that the refined carbohydrates/grains promote disease.

There is the implicit assumption, of course, that a Paleo diet does not induce these same diseases, but there is evidence for that. This stuff is hard to study in that we have found relatively few skeletal remains from Paleolithic humans, and I imagine it must be hard to separate mortality via infection, trauma, etc., vs. natural causes. But my understanding is that morbidity/mortality increased after the introduction of agriculture, although much more marked is the disease incidence in societies after being introduced to refined carbohydrates (i.e., past couple of centuries).
 
Last edited:
Someone earlier said Atkins-style diets were dangerous and therefore had fallen out of favor by the medical establishment, or some such BS. USA Today ran an article about the recent low-carb meta-analysis, and this quote caught my eye. It's from an obesity researcher, and one who has published low-carb research:

Gary Foster, director of the Center for Obesity Research and Education at Temple University in Philadelphia...."We have passed the time where we would say the Atkins diet is bad for you. That's an outdated position," Foster says. "This is a viable alternative for weight loss."

Just thought that was interesting.
 
I was the one who "said that" but what I actually said was very in line with your quote there
 
SpecterGT260 said:
I was the one who "said that" but what I actually said was very in line with your quote there
Click to expand...

I was too lazy to go back and see who had said it. Trying to avoid labor on Labor Day weekend.

How'd that head-to-toe PE exam go?
 
only missed a couple minor things - so pass with plenty of breathing room.
 
SpecterGT260 said:
only missed a couple minor things - so pass with plenty of breathing room.
Click to expand...

There's really no chivalrous way to say this, but so you'll know:

- = hyphen

-- = dash

A hyphen is used to join words, like right-of-way, while a "dash" is used to join separate parts of a sentence. Word processors will auto-fill the gap.
 
Last edited:
CaptainSSO said:
There's really no chivalrous way to say this, but so you'll know:

- = hyphen

-- = dash

A hyphen is used to join words, like right-of-way, while a "dash" is used to join separate parts of a sentence. Word processors will auto-fill the gap.
Click to expand...

How did you get your type writer hooked up to the internetz?
 
On the NSAID risk/benefit idea (was that in this thread?), new data shows NSAID risk for patients with hx of MI higher than thought:
http://m.theheart.org/article/14454...20120912_EN_Heartwire&utm_campaign=newsletter

In the above interview, the lead author said:

""So NSAIDs are still dangerous to patients with a history of MI, even five years after their event. I would say there is no safe treatment window for these patients, and even short-term treatment with an NSAID is hazardous," Schjerning Olsen added."

Interestingly she then said ..."many patients and doctors are unaware of this risk".

So perhaps there really is a problem with over-prescription of NSAIDs without adequate attention to risk.
 
New meta-analysis that is pro-low-carb:
http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/176/suppl_7/S44.abstract

23 RCTs.

"These findings suggest that low-carbohydrate diets are at least as effective as low-fat diets at reducing weight and improving metabolic risk factors. Low-carbohydrate diets could be recommended to obese persons with abnormal metabolic risk factors for the purpose of weight loss. "
 
BTW, currently on a low-key rotation where we study the effect of stress on the body. Here are some articles we read on the deleterious effects of the low-carb diet:

Low-carb diet causes increase in CRP:
http://www.jacn.org/content/26/2/163.long

Low-carb diet increases risk of cardiovascular disease:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22735105

Low-carb diet effects on vascular health:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2741266/

Worse of all, I had a peds patient come in last month who was started on a ketogenic diet for epilepsy, coming in with luckily reversible liver failure due to his diet.
Here are two articles that link the ketogenic diet with deleterious effects on the liver (steatohepatitis and increased hepatic insulin resistance) on mice:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3119109/
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2980360/

How about that benign low-carb diet, eh?
 
Slade said:
BTW, currently on a low-key rotation where we study the effect of stress on the body. Here are some articles we read on the deleterious effects of the low-carb diet:
Click to expand...

I'm sure you guys had a nice, thorough, objective discussion looking at all sides of the issue :rolleyes::rolleyes:.

Low-carb diet causes increase in CRP:
http://www.jacn.org/content/26/2/163.long
Click to expand...

We know from plenty of other studies that this is not an across-the-board finding. Most of the related studies show reductions in inflammatory markers. Insulin resistance and poor glucose control are themselves inflammatory, so it makes sense that any diet that improves these factors should reduce inflammation. One also needs to consider the quality of the overall diet, since fatty acids et al will affect inflammatory markers as well.

http://www.nmsociety.org/docs/LowCarbDiet/Forsythe_Lipids2008.pdf

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22190020

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=Volek J, Phinney S, Forsythe C 2009

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15380496


Low-carb diet increases risk of cardiovascular disease:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22735105
Click to expand...

The design of this trial is such a joke, nobody takes it seriously. It's been discussed somewhere around here before. But what the authors did was they took a group of study subjects, had them fill out a questionnaire that required them to recall from memory what they had eaten for the prior 6 months, then re-evaluated these patients like 20 years later or something and used that initial questionniare as the basis for their current state of health. Sounds legit...not! This study has been picked apart in detail elsewhere.

Again, the volume of low-carb research indicates reductions in CVD risk overall.

Low-carb diet effects on vascular health:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2741266/
Click to expand...

A recent human study from Hopkins disagrees:
http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/news..._risks_to_obese_people_seeking_to_lose_weight

Another study looked at carotid measurements.
http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/121/10/1200.long

"Conclusions— Two-year weight loss diets can induce a significant regression of measurable carotid VWV. The effect is similar in low-fat, Mediterranean, or low-carbohydrate strategies and appears to be mediated mainly by the weight loss–induced decline in blood pressure."

Worse of all, I had a peds patient come in last month who was started on a ketogenic diet for epilepsy, coming in with luckily reversible liver failure due to his diet.
Here are two articles that link the ketogenic diet with deleterious effects on the liver (steatohepatitis and increased hepatic insulin resistance) on mice:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3119109/
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2980360/
Click to expand...

The diet for these kids isn't really comparable to what is typically recommended to other patients. I'll try to take a look later.

How about that benign low-carb diet, eh?
Click to expand...

Now, being the objective scientist I know you are, I trust that you'll report back to your classmates and let them know they only got part of the story in class. :D
 
Looks like facetguy covered everything. One more important thing to add is that the vascular study was done on mice. It's pretty well known that mice will get fat on a high fat diet. Humans won't. Animal models are great, but you have to remember sometimes they break down.
 
Slade said:
Here's another showing higher mortality associated with low carb diet:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17136037

and captain, since you were recommending the ketogenic diet, how do you discredit the liver data?
Click to expand...

I cannot necessarily discredit it.

All I can say is n=1, and for any one individual a ketogenic diet could be harmful. It is simply my belief that for the majority of the population, a Paleo diet is beneficial.

Also, I am not necessarily for ketogenic diets--I am more against refined carbs. I mentioned at one point I do eat things like some fruit, sweet potatoes, nuts, etc. I honestly have not specifically researched ketogenic diets enough to say they're good/bad.
 
Last edited:
facetguy said:
Looks like a worthwhile read re: low carb
http://www.nature.com/ejcn/journal/vaop/ncurrent/abs/ejcn2012194a.html

Anyone have access to the full text?
Click to expand...

Aaah, I was waiting for this thread to get resurrected. I know it's only n=1 but I lost a significant amount of weight (50 lbs) after the adoption of a paleo/primal diet and weight lifting (tried the "healthy whole grains, calorie counting, and cardio" approach several times but it never worked for me as it never addressed my carb/sugar cravings), and have kept it off for a year (that's a big accomplishment considering all of the complete junk food pushed on med students at lunch lectures!).

I don't have full text access to the article listed above but here is another interesting article with full text access:

http://www.dovepress.com/the-wester...f-civilization-peer-reviewed-article-RRCC-MVP
 
Debate? This sounds much like the Swiss court "proving" mmr causes autism....


These things shouldn't be "debated" in my understanding of the word. It isn't opinion, but evidence that determines what we should do

Sent from my DROID RAZR using SDN Mobile
 
SpecterGT260 said:
Debate? This sounds much like the Swiss court "proving" mmr causes autism....


These things shouldn't be "debated" in my understanding of the word. It isn't opinion, but evidence that determines what we should do

Sent from my DROID RAZR using SDN Mobile
Click to expand...

Exactly. But a debate can arise when the evidence doesn't necessarily mesh with our current policies/guidelines/recommendations. When it comes to dietary advice, we've seen this pretty clearly. Some would argue that a similar disconnect exists when it comes to cholesterol-related issues.

I hope we get an opportunity to hear/see the debate.
 
I would settle for an abbreviated transcript.

I am interested to see what positions are taken. I think at least part of the issue arises from dietary recommendations intended to treat symptoms being used as global recommendations. But if we go back all the way to the OP, there are plenty of reasons to avoid salt in the right situations.
 
facetguy said:
On the NSAID risk/benefit idea (was that in this thread?)....again
Click to expand...

This was kind of interesting.

http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/...=general&utm_source=buffer&buffer_share=8bbf1

Haven't bothered to check the original studies, but this article describes the GI effects of ibuprofen taken prophylactically before exercise. They used cyclists as the exercise subjects.

"But a valuable new study joins growing evidence that ibuprofen and similar anti-inflammatory painkillers taken before a workout don’t offer any benefit and may be causing disagreeable physical damage instead, particularly to the intestines."

"At the end of each rest or ride, researchers drew blood to check whether the men’s small intestines were leaking. Dr. van Wijck found that blood levels of a protein indicating intestinal leakage were, in fact, much higher when the men combined bike riding with ibuprofen than during the other experimental conditions when they rode or took ibuprofen alone. Notably, the protein levels remained elevated several hours after exercise and ibuprofen."

An earlier study looked at ultramarathoners and use of ibuprofen:

"In other words, the ultramarathon racers who frequently used ibuprofen, an anti-inflammatory, wound up with higher overall levels of bodily inflammation. They also reported being just as sore after the race as runners who had not taken ibuprofen."

"So why do so many athletes continue enthusiastically to swallow large and frequent doses of ibuprofen and related anti-inflammatory painkillers, including aspirin, before and during exercise? “The idea is just entrenched in the athletic community that ibuprofen will help you to train better and harder,” Dr. Nieman said. “But that belief is simply not true. There is no scientifically valid reason to use ibuprofen before exercise and many reasons to avoid it.”"

"Dr. van Wijck agrees. “We do not yet know what the long-term consequences are” of regularly mixing exercise and ibuprofen, she said. But it is clear that “ibuprofen consumption by athletes is not harmless and should be strongly discouraged.”"
 
facetguy said:
Exactly. But a debate can arise when the evidence doesn't necessarily mesh with our current policies/guidelines/recommendations. When it comes to dietary advice, we've seen this pretty clearly. Some would argue that a similar disconnect exists when it comes to cholesterol-related issues.

I hope we get an opportunity to hear/see the debate.
Click to expand...

SpecterGT260 said:
I would settle for an abbreviated transcript.

I am interested to see what positions are taken. I think at least part of the issue arises from dietary recommendations intended to treat symptoms being used as global recommendations. But if we go back all the way to the OP, there are plenty of reasons to avoid salt in the right situations.
Click to expand...

There will be a live stream at 11am EST today. "Watch Live" link on blue banner left of page:
http://www.health.uct.ac.za/

I don't know whether it will be available for viewing afterward. I hope so.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Next unread thread

Similar threads

D
low NBME scores
Replies
2
Views
657
darlingletsgocrazy
D
S
Why are interview rates so low?
Replies
39
Views
2K
aldol16
A
C
MD Relating to my classmates as a low-SES student
Replies
9
Views
1K
DarkBluMage
D
Doctoscope
How difficult is it to match into heme onc, PCCM, and cards from a low tier academic IM?
Replies
3
Views
438
obiwan
obiwan
M
Potential low pass on rotation - what should I do.
Replies
17
Views
2K
LeaveNoTrace
L
Top