Guest guest Posted August 30, 2006 Report Share Posted August 30, 2006 On 8/30/06, Long <longc@...> wrote: > There are a lot of problems with the scientific method. I never heard it > called a theory before but you may be right. Well I think that the scientific method definitely has its place, but it shouldn't take over *everything* as if it is the only legitimate way of ascertaining knowledge. The age of the earth, or the relationship of DNA to inheritance, for example, are obviously questions that science cannot answer. Chris -- The Truth About Cholesterol Find Out What Your Doctor Isn't Telling You: http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 30, 2006 Report Share Posted August 30, 2006 On 8/30/06, haecklers <haecklers@...> wrote: > But aren't the Inuit an example of people living on a mostly > carnivorous diet - almost all meat? And weren't some of the > vegetables they ate sea vegetables? They wouldn't have needed salt. I agree. But I would like to see some evidence that it is possible to approach a salt intake even remotely in the area of 40 grams on a 100% seafood diet. Chris -- The Truth About Cholesterol Find Out What Your Doctor Isn't Telling You: http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 30, 2006 Report Share Posted August 30, 2006 On 8/30/06, haecklers <haecklers@...> wrote: > I think you misunderstood me, I'm not saying anyone should eat 40 > grams of salt a day. Just that salt isn't as bad as > the " authorities " say it is. For most people it won't give them > high blood pressure, kidney disease, or osteoperosis. It's being > maligned as much as fat is. The 40 grams a day is just an example > that the comparatively smaller amounts we'd like to use on our food > will probably not harm us in any way. If it tastes good salty, eat > it salty! That's all. I don't think we have a whole lot of disagreement here, except that I question the basis for the 40 gram figure. It may be correct, but I won't believe it without seeing where the figure came from. Chris -- The Truth About Cholesterol Find Out What Your Doctor Isn't Telling You: http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 30, 2006 Report Share Posted August 30, 2006 On 8/30/06, Jane Rowland <classicalwriter@...> wrote: > And, BTW, I don't reject Evolution per se, just species jumping, for no other reason than it cannot empirically support its own claims. Micro evolution is apparent. But let's remember we're talking about this all in the context of the relative merits of salt. There is no such thing as " species jumping " because species are fluid. The fluidity of species is extremely well-demonstrated. It is further well-established that genes are the basis of heredity, that genes change, and that single-gene alterations can result in large-scale morphological changes and lifestyle modes that are equivalent to speciation from a morphological point of view (i.e. the only possible paradigm of what a " species " is that does not accept evolution), which are empiricly observed and reproducible in the laboratory. Numerous cases of speciation that do not involve striking morphological changes have also been observed, empirically supporting our understanding of how groups can be genetically isolated in order to produce greater divergence over time. All of this misses the point. To say we must directly observed something to show that something is true is not science. Science is developing an explanation and methodically developing predictions of that explanation, and discovering whether or not those predictions are true or not. Chris -- The Truth About Cholesterol Find Out What Your Doctor Isn't Telling You: http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 30, 2006 Report Share Posted August 30, 2006 On 8/30/06, Jane Rowland <classicalwriter@...> wrote: > Species Jumping. Can't get a duck from a dog. Or a man from an ape. That's all. This would be a much stronger point if the theory against which you are arguing predicted that you could get a duck from a dog. Since it does not, this is not a very strong point. Chris -- The Truth About Cholesterol Find Out What Your Doctor Isn't Telling You: http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 31, 2006 Report Share Posted August 31, 2006 I am curious about it myself, because in the same book he tells how they'd soak their salted food in water to remove the saltiness until it became palatable. So the food may have had 40 grams in it, but how much did they discard with the soaking water? I wouldn't be at all surprised it the real amount was closer to 20 grams. As for the Inuit's seafood diet, I guess we'd have to know what they ate every day and how much of it and how much salt was in it and whether they ever cooked in sea water. Sounds like a lot of work! > > I think you misunderstood me, I'm not saying anyone should eat 40 > > grams of salt a day. Just that salt isn't as bad as > > the " authorities " say it is. For most people it won't give them > > high blood pressure, kidney disease, or osteoperosis. It's being > > maligned as much as fat is. The 40 grams a day is just an example > > that the comparatively smaller amounts we'd like to use on our food > > will probably not harm us in any way. If it tastes good salty, eat > > it salty! That's all. > > I don't think we have a whole lot of disagreement here, except that I > question the basis for the 40 gram figure. It may be correct, but I > won't believe it without seeing where the figure came from. > > Chris > -- > The Truth About Cholesterol > Find Out What Your Doctor Isn't Telling You: > http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 31, 2006 Report Share Posted August 31, 2006 Acetylcholine... Thanks I'll have to try that. Do you know what foods contain a lot of it? >Once the adrenal glands are strengthened through a > nutritional program, aldosterone levels rise and the craving for > salt diminishes. They make it sound so easy. I have been on a nutritional program for years! I hate that procrustean bed mentality. If you have bad adrenals.. take a lot of sea salt and it can only help. That's not true. Haven't we learned there are no easy answers. Of course copious amounts of sea salt will not be good for everyone. By thinking my problem could never be with the sea salt, I suffered from that dry mouth longer than I had to. Also, sea salt also breaks the wall of candida and candida is your body's way of protecting you against mercury until the detox pathways are open and you can excrete it. > " When an individual suffers from adrenal insufficiency, it is also > helpful to limit foods high in fat and to be certain to eat low- fat > protein foods two or three times per day. I definitely do not agree with that. Adrenals love fats. Just introducing healthy fat into my diet cut my " panic attacks " by 65 percent. >Manganese is an essential nutrient for enhancing low sodium levels. >Often, a craving for table salt is due to a manganese deficiency. >Other specific nutrients which assist adrenal activity and sodium >retention are potassium, vitamin B-1, vitamin B-5, vitamin C and >vitamin E. " I just don't think micromanaging with these supplements are the way to go to get better. We are so stuck on that. Very few people think outside the box on this b/c there is not really an audience for it. The very few people who I managed to find who got completely (or almost completely) better from what ailed them were people who had energy work done, did chi moving exercises, or reduced a lot of their toxic loads or otherwise did something on top of nutrition - a few didn't even have what we would think is good nutrition. I just write this b/c I know people come on here to try and find ways to get better and there's a bigger picture out there besides nutrition and supplements. I know, I know.. this a nutrition chat group but it doesn't hurt to keep the big picture around. Native people didn't just use nutrition, a lot of them were barefoot too for those of you who get what I " m saying. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 31, 2006 Report Share Posted August 31, 2006 I have made the berry syrup recipe on page 111 of NT with raspberries and used 1 teaspoon instead of 2 teaspoons of salt. It turned out fine. some on the Discussing NT group have said that if a ferment turns out too salty, put it in the back of the fridge for a month or 2. when they try it later it tastes better and less salty. also, they are not meant to be eaten in large quantities but as condiments. they can take the place of salt in recipes. I have eaten kraut with salmon and thus did not add any salt to the salmon. Carolyn > > Back to the original question: Do the lacto-ferment recipes work with > less salt? Some I've tried were way too salty for me. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 31, 2006 Report Share Posted August 31, 2006 On 8/31/06, haecklers <haecklers@...> wrote: > I am curious about it myself, because in the same book he tells how > they'd soak their salted food in water to remove the saltiness until > it became palatable. So the food may have had 40 grams in it, but > how much did they discard with the soaking water? I wouldn't be at > all surprised it the real amount was closer to 20 grams. I wouldn't be surprised if it was considerably less than that. > As for the Inuit's seafood diet, I guess we'd have to know what they > ate every day and how much of it and how much salt was in it and > whether they ever cooked in sea water. Sounds like a lot of work! I think you could just estimate the typical sodium content of a piece of fish, and multiply it by 3000 calories. I think that it's pretty simple. Or just pick the maximum salty seafood that is plausible for them to have eaten much of and calculate the maximum. They ate most of their meat raw I think. Chris -- The Truth About Cholesterol Find Out What Your Doctor Isn't Telling You: http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 31, 2006 Report Share Posted August 31, 2006 > > I am so happy this subject came up b/c I have been thinking about it > for a couple of months. Since I came over from the dark side, I > always heard how sea salt is so good for you and the sky is the > limit and that you have a built-in mechanism for how much salt you > need which is your taste and... etc, etc. > > In the last year I have felt so many symptoms from the health > problems that have been percolating for decades. One symptom was my > mouth was dry, dry dry. Out of all the symptoms I had, this one was > the hardest one to deal with. It was something out of Dante's > Inferno or something. My tongue would feel like a rock in my mouth. > Anyway, one of my friends who knows ridiculous amounts of info on > health (a Idol type) told me that too much sea salt is bad. I > didn't want to accept it, loving salt and having bad adrenals etc. > He read to me from a book (I can find out the name) that unless you > are a lumberjack, seasalt can be very dehydrating and most people > don't need that much. At first I was like, whatev, but then I > remembered some months ago on here someone writing about not taking > too much sea salt b/c of getting too many trace minerals or > something (I have searched and searched trying to find it) At the > time I thought that was so wierd but then hearing twice a caution > about salt I backed off, and I rarely get the dry mouth anymore. My > friend suggested b/c I'm type O, I should be using Potassium > Chloride, which I tried but didn't like. Anyway, I would be very > interested in hearing discourses against too much salt. > I've been doing the salt/C protocol (like Renate) for chronic Lyme. I take 10-12 grams of Celtic or Redmond Real Salt daily. While going through herxes (die-off reactions)-these occur every 4 weeks or so- I feel very thirsty and drink more water than usual. The herx passes but I maintain the same salt dose and my normal thirst returns. I should also note since beginning the protocol I think my sensation of thirst has become more normal. Whereas before I had to force myself to drink the recommended 2 liters of water a day and would be in the bathroom every 20 minutes to pee, now I naturally drink that much each day and without it running quickly through my system. Just my personal observations FWIW. Oh and much improved adrenals primarily evidenced by great sleep/no night waking anymore. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 31, 2006 Report Share Posted August 31, 2006 > > > > > > > Plus, if one buys into the whole Evolution silliness anyway, then whatever those > > ancient apes ate wasn't enough to keep them from needing to evolve into another > > SPECIES with other plans for food aggregation. Maybe they needed to run fast to > > go get salt for everybody;) > > > > And what exactly do you " buy into " , pray tell? > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 31, 2006 Report Share Posted August 31, 2006 -------------- Original message ---------------------- From: " kristinmoke " <kmoke@...> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Plus, if one buys into the whole Evolution silliness anyway, > then whatever those > > > ancient apes ate wasn't enough to keep them from needing to > evolve into another > > > SPECIES with other plans for food aggregation. Maybe they > needed to run fast to > > > go get salt for everybody;) > > > > > > > And what exactly do you " buy into " , pray tell? > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 31, 2006 Report Share Posted August 31, 2006 Just sneaking in here! I lived in the Orient for several years and ate a lot of dried squid and other dried seafood as well as dried seaweed and I will tell you it is pretty salty!! They didn't soak their seaweed or squid just ate it dried. So I guess what I am trying to say is the Inuit eat dried seafood, trust me, it is salty. It may not have 40 grams but it definitely had salt. Allyn _____ From: [mailto: ] On Behalf Of Masterjohn Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2006 4:45 PM Subject: Re: Re: Salt On 8/31/06, haecklers <haecklers (DOT) <mailto:haecklers%40> com> wrote: > I am curious about it myself, because in the same book he tells how > they'd soak their salted food in water to remove the saltiness until > it became palatable. So the food may have had 40 grams in it, but > how much did they discard with the soaking water? I wouldn't be at > all surprised it the real amount was closer to 20 grams. I wouldn't be surprised if it was considerably less than that. > As for the Inuit's seafood diet, I guess we'd have to know what they > ate every day and how much of it and how much salt was in it and > whether they ever cooked in sea water. Sounds like a lot of work! I think you could just estimate the typical sodium content of a piece of fish, and multiply it by 3000 calories. I think that it's pretty simple. Or just pick the maximum salty seafood that is plausible for them to have eaten much of and calculate the maximum. They ate most of their meat raw I think. Chris -- The Truth About Cholesterol Find Out What Your Doctor Isn't Telling You: http://www.choleste <http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com> rol-and-health.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 31, 2006 Report Share Posted August 31, 2006 On 8/31/06, implode7@... <implode7@...> wrote: > I didn't see anything in the article that was contrary to the theory of evolution. How does this article imply that the theory of evolution is false? All that can be drawn from it is that there may be other factors involved in our understanding of how species evolve, no? I think that there is a big difference between saying that a theory, as we understand it, is 100% correct and final, and allowing for the fact that we don't understand completely how it works. I don't know if she meant by " pertains to the subject " that it is " contrary to the theory of evolution, " but I not only didn't see anything contrary to the theory of evolution, I didn't see anything that is additional to our current understanding of it either. Anyone who thinks that evolution is a gradual, slow, linear process is stuck in the 1960s. Chris -- The Truth About Cholesterol Find Out What Your Doctor Isn't Telling You: http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 31, 2006 Report Share Posted August 31, 2006 -------------- Original message ---------------------- From: " Masterjohn " <chrismasterjohn@...> > On 8/31/06, implode7@... <implode7@...> wrote: > > > I didn't see anything in the article that was contrary to the theory of > evolution. How does this article imply that the theory of evolution is false? > All that can be drawn from it is that there may be other factors involved in our > understanding of how species evolve, no? I think that there is a big difference > between saying that a theory, as we understand it, is 100% correct and final, > and allowing for the fact that we don't understand completely how it works. > > I don't know if she meant by " pertains to the subject " that it is > " contrary to the theory of evolution, " but I not only didn't see > anything contrary to the theory of evolution, I didn't see anything > that is additional to our current understanding of it either. > > Anyone who thinks that evolution is a gradual, slow, linear process is > stuck in the 1960s. > > Chris > I'm sure you are far more well read on the subject than me. Given that I don't consider myself particularly knowledgeable, I chose to make a more conservative assessment. But, yeah - what you say above. Although, man, I am stuck in the 1960's. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 31, 2006 Report Share Posted August 31, 2006 >This is just an article that pertains to this topic. I think it's a >good example of how so many accept evolutionary theory as fact that >contrary evidence isn't even recognized as such, much less >acknowledged. > >By SETH BORENSTEIN, AP Science Writer Thu Aug 17, 6:48 PM ET >WASHINGTON - Scientists believe they have found a key gene that >helped the human brain evolve from our chimp-like ancestors. In just >a few million years, one area of the human genome seems to have >evolved about 70 times faster than the rest of our genetic code. It >appears to have a role in a rapid tripling of the size of the >brain's crucial cerebral cortex, according to an article published >Thursday in the journal Nature. >Study co-author Haussler, director of the Center for >Biomolecular Science and Engineering at the University of >California, Santa Cruz, said his team found strong but still >circumstantial evidence that a certain gene, called HAR1F, may >provide an important answer to the question: " What makes humans >brainier than other primates? " Human brains are triple the size of >chimp brains. >Looking at 49 areas that have changed the most between the human and >chimpanzee genomes, Haussler zeroed in on an area with " a very >dramatic change in a relatively short period of time. " >That one gene didn't exist until 300 million years ago and is >present only in mammals and birds, not fish or animals without >backbones. But then it didn't change much at all. There are only two >differences in that one gene between a chimp and a chicken, Haussler >said. >But there are 18 differences in that one gene between human and >chimp and they all seemed to occur in the development of man, he >said. > , a Cornell University professor molecular biology who >was not part of Haussler's team, said that if true, the change in >genes would be fastest and most dramatic in humans and would >be " terrifically exciting. " >However, the gene changed so fast that said that he has a hard >time believing it unless something unusual happened in a mutation. >It's not part of normal evolution, he said. Haussler attributed the >dramatic change to the stress of man getting out of trees and >walking on two feet. >And it's not just that this gene changed a lot. There is also its >involvement with the cerebral cortex, which is responsible for some >of the more complex brain functions, including language and >information processing. > " It looks like in fact it is important in the development of brain, " >said co-author Sofie Salama, a research biologist at Santa Cruz who >led the efforts to identify where the gene is active in the body. >The scientists still don't know specifically what the gene does. But >they know that this same gene turns on in human fetuses at seven >weeks after conception and then shuts down at 19 weeks, Haussler >said. He makes a lot of assumptions here which he reports as fact. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 31, 2006 Report Share Posted August 31, 2006 On 8/31/06, Long <longc@...> wrote: > He makes a lot of assumptions here which he reports as fact. There may be many assumptions involved, but he does not report them as fact. He says certain things " seem " to and " appear " to be, and there is " strong but circumstantial " evidence for the interpretation. Chris -- The Truth About Cholesterol Find Out What Your Doctor Isn't Telling You: http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 31, 2006 Report Share Posted August 31, 2006 On 8/31/06, implode7@... <implode7@...> wrote: > I'm sure you are far more well read on the subject than me. Given that I don't consider myself particularly knowledgeable, I chose to make a more conservative assessment. But, yeah - what you say above. Although, man, I am stuck in the 1960's. Just to fill you in, there is pretty good evidence for mechanisms by which a period of extremely rapid mutation could fundamentally change a gene in a relatively short (evolutionarily speaking) period of time and contribute to change isolated to a single event of speciation. One example would be mobile genetic elements called transposons. These are elements that are virus like but are part of the host's own genome. They can get up and move around, fit into other chromosomes, make duplications of themselves and so on. However, it only takes slight mutations to immobilized. Basically, a gene could get loaded with transposon repeats that could substantially alter the protein it expresses, and then this round of mutation would stop, once the transposon itself accumulated sufficient mutations to stop its activity and immobilize it. It is assumed at present that the process is random, and it is very clear that it tends to correlate with periods of time where there was rapid speciation. It is my understanding, however, that Shapiro who I think is out in Boston somewhere, Cambridge maybe, who has been uncovering evidence that transposons respond to stimuli and their activity might not be as " random " as we think. It isn't entirely clear. But it is an example of how a gene could change vastly beyond the mutation rate during a certain period of time, and then have that hypermutation rate shut off after a period of time, so that the hypermutation was completely isolated within one speciation event. As an additional mechanism, the " SOS response " of E. coli has been well-described, in which environmentally stressful situations induce a hypermutation response where it deliberately copies its DNA with a second set of error-prone replicating enzymes that cause a massive and sudden increase in phenotypic variation, allowing the chance that some of the phenotypes will be able to survive the environmental stress. When the stress stimuli is gone, the hypermutation stops and the variability returns to normal. There are probably more mechanisms of which I am unaware that are studied and yet more that will be discovered in the future. Chris -- The Truth About Cholesterol Find Out What Your Doctor Isn't Telling You: http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 11, 2006 Report Share Posted September 11, 2006 >>It isn't entirely clear. But it is an example of how a gene could change vastly beyond the mutation rate during a certain period of time, and then have that hypermutation rate shut off after a period of time, so that the hypermutation was completely isolated within one speciation event.>> Cracks me up! Stuck in the 60's? Punctuated equilibrium is the newest attempt to account for the lack of a fossil record and nobody buys it. Well, many buy it who are *progressive* in the sciences, but nobody without an agenda buys it. How perfectly convenient that " the mechanism shuts off " so that it can never be studied. Why has there been no " hypermutation " of a species at least since recorded history, say 10,000 years at the outside? You know why? Because it doesn't exist. No PE? No ducky dog? Even with all the stress we put on ducks? I'm sorry, I know youre' a scientist and all that, but throw me a bone. (No, don't throw a bone *at* me!) Trust me, I'm having a lot of fun here and am not particularly concerned that I can't take you on in your science lingo, but you can't take me on in common sense, so we're gonna have to call it even. Let's try to remain friendly and all. I'm otherwise a very nice person. Jane, not quite done mutatin' Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 13, 2006 Report Share Posted September 13, 2006 Suz, I have a question about having regular salt. I ate some pork rinds last night that contained salt. I didn't think twice about it until this morning when I woke up all puffy faced and my floaters came back. Same thing happens when I eat salted butter. What is the regular salt doing to me? Is it possible to buy pork rinds made with sea salt? Anybody seen them in the Whole Foods store? I haven't checked myself. Shirley >From: " chefsuz2 " <thenaturalkitchen@...> >re: shelton farms turkey dogs: > >i used to snack on these now and then too, they never bothered my >candida symptoms, but eat them in moderation as they're really salty >and not made with good sea salt. > >~ suz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 13, 2006 Report Share Posted September 13, 2006 I too swell up and stomach bloats up from eating regular salt. I just plain feel awful after it. I told my sister about the lemon water and sea salt. She got upset with me because she really swelled up when using the sea salt. What she didn't follow was omitting the table salt. Guess you win some you loose some. Betty RE: [ ] salt > Suz, > > I have a question about having regular salt. I ate some pork rinds last > night that contained salt. I didn't think twice about it until this > morning > when I woke up all puffy faced and my floaters came back. Same thing > happens > when I eat salted butter. What is the regular salt doing to me? Is it > possible to buy pork rinds made with sea salt? Anybody seen them in the > Whole Foods store? I haven't checked myself. > > Shirley > > >>From: " chefsuz2 " <thenaturalkitchen@...> > >>re: shelton farms turkey dogs: >> >>i used to snack on these now and then too, they never bothered my >>candida symptoms, but eat them in moderation as they're really salty >>and not made with good sea salt. >> >>~ suz > > > > > Please trim your messages - see the Candida Group Information Folder. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 14, 2006 Report Share Posted September 14, 2006 Shirley wrote: > > Suz, I have a question about having regular salt. I ate some pork rinds last night that contained salt. I didn't think twice about it until this morning when I woke up all puffy faced and my floaters came back. Same thing happens when I eat salted butter. What is the regular salt doing to me? Is it possible to buy pork rinds made with sea salt? Anybody seen them in the Whole Foods store? I haven't checked myself. ==>Suz won't be around for at least 2 weeks, but I can help you. Obviously the regular salt caused an increase in toxins. Read the articles on Salt in our files. It describes what is in regular table salt, which is deoderized, bleached, and contains aluminum, etc. and it is totally devoid of any nutrient value whatsoever. I recommend unsalted cultured butter and only products that contain sea salt. Bee Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 21, 2006 Report Share Posted November 21, 2006 > > how is the electrolyte drink good for you? i know the > lemons are good for digestion but how is salt good for > you? I always heard that salt was to be avoided if you > have high blood presure. Mine tends to run high at > times and a friend just had her run high, did a stress > test and found a blockage in her heart. Her dr told > her to avoid salt. Is sea salt different than regular > mortons salt? > ==>Hi jack. Welcome to our group. Please find out all you need to know about table salt versus ocean sea salt and how affects blood pressure in our Salt Folder (left menu). Bee Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 11, 2007 Report Share Posted June 11, 2007 Take. anything in moderation according to your own bodily needs. If you want to know if your body needs or don't need salt, iodine or anything else get tested from your doctor. Ask Your Dr. if you need more salt, water, iodine etc. D999 Chuck B <gumboyaya@...> wrote: In light of the recent raves over the benefits of salt, a study just announced by Brigham and Women's says that reducing salt intake results in a dramatic decrease in cardiovascular disease. http://www.brighamandwomens.org/Pressreleases/PressRelease.aspx?PageID=250 You are welcome to choose which to believe. Chuck Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 11, 2007 Report Share Posted June 11, 2007 The reduction in salt intake may be true for normies that ingest high levels of salt, but for those of us with compromised adrenal glands, it could be very dangerous. I am on a high-salt diet, and still have low sodium. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.