Reminder: Government nutritional guidelines are malicious

I suddenly feel like playing Deus Ex

Attached: jc hyde.jpg (1000x1244, 241K)

A lot of americans have hypertension and a lot of hypertension is salt sensitive

Nope.

Hypertension is caused by refined carbohydrates and obesity. The supposedly "salt sensitive" portion of the population is practically nothing.

Even supposedly "salt sensitive" people shouldn't restrict sodium intake. Absolutely nobody benefits from these reccomendations.

"Salt sensitivity" was a post-hoc rationalization dreamed up when people started asking why the government was killing people with their sodium guidelines.

That these harmful recommendations persist even though the evidence is indisputable proves they are malicious.

Attached: C342698E-D868-4EC6-BDE0-11A9F3EF5F67.png (632x200, 156K)

Why weren't people dropping dead from "salt sensitive" hypertension back when salt intake was ten times higher because it was a common preservative before refrigeration?

>"Salt sensitivity" was a post-hoc rationalization dreamed up when people started asking why the government was killing people with their sodium guidelines.

t. not a scholar

Answer this, buddy:

They want the global minority to cuck out again and again and again while third world parasites take up more and more unpunished.

>Sam Hyde incel
>feels like playing a videogame
Wow a shock

because it wouldn't make any sense to "drop dead" from it. you don't drop dead from bad diet, you develop complications, my american friend. and although I'm not stating that salt consumption was the main factor in it, people did have considerable lower life expectancy back when they were salting food to preserve it.

Remember their definition of low carb when they say low carb is unhealthy is 150 grams. It's insane.

> ten times higher
Try three. And they were dying from hypertension induced conditions such as stroke and heart disease.

You drop dead from heart attacks. If "salt sensitive" people were getting heart attacks from too much salt why wasn't this noticed by anyone when salt consumption was far higher?

>people did have considerable lower life expectancy
Government shill cope.

No they weren't.

>Government shill cope.
i was about to say something among the lines of "no disrespect meant, but you sound like you're basing your opinions either on speculation or shitty google searches" but now you just sound like an idiot. good grief

You're mentally retarded.

Life expectancy was lower because of things like infant mortality and disease.

Life expectancy was not at all impacted by salt consumption.

>Life expectancy was not at all impacted by salt consumption.

Attached: citation.png (331x132, 40K)

You're the one who made the claim that there was an association between life expectancy and salt consumption. Burden of proof is on you.

Again, you're a mental fucking retard. You can't even understand burden of proof.

>You're the one who made the claim that there was an association between life expectancy and salt consumption. Burden of proof is on you.

if we go back to we see:
>and although I'm not stating that salt consumption was the main factor in it, people did have considerable lower life expectancy back when they were salting food to preserve it.

you're furious dude, I'm just saying you're basing yourself on thin air assumptions and that it's stupid, I haven't even claimed anything because I'm not a fucking historian.

Its impossible to prove a negative. Its up to you to prove life expectancy was impacted by sodium consumption.

Ketard alert

>I'm not stating that salt consumption was the MAIN factor in it (emphasis added)
So you're claiming it was a factor?

Prove it.

For more than forty years, our doctors, the government, and the nation’s leading health associations have told us that consuming salt increases blood pressure and thus causes chronic high blood pressure.

Here’s the truth: there was never any sound scientific evidence to support this idea. Even back in 1977, when the government’s Dietary Goals for the United States recommended that Americans restrict their salt intake, a report from the U.S. Surgeon General admitted there was no evidence that a low-salt diet would prevent the increases in blood pressure that often occur with advancing age.1 The first systematic review and meta-analysis of the effects of sodium restriction on blood pressure did not occur until 1991, and it was almost entirely based on weak, nonrandomized scientific data—but by then, we had already been telling Americans to cut their salt intake for nearly fifteen years. By that point, those white crystals had already been ingrained into the public’s mind as a primary cause of high blood pressure—a message that remains today.

>1. Bayer, R., D. M. Johns, and S. Galea. 2012. Salt and public health: contested science and the challenge of evidence-based decision making. Health Aff (Millwood) 31(12): 2738–2746.

Evidence in the medical literature suggests that approximately 80 percent of people with normal blood pressure (less than 120/80 mmHg) are not sensitive to the blood-pressure-raising effects of salt at all. Among those with prehypertension (a precursor to high blood pressure), roughly 75 percent are not sensitive to salt. And even among those with full-blown hypertension, about 55 percent are totally immune to salt’s effects on blood pressure.2

That’s right: even among those with the highest blood pressure, about half are not at all affected by salt.

>2. Overlack, A., et al. 1993. Divergent hemodynamic and hormonal responses to varying salt intake in normotensive subjects. Hypertension 22(3): 331–338.

how long will it take to get through your thick, debate-seeking skull that I'm not claiming it was a factor? it could very well have been a possibility, no? that's all I'm saying.
I already said I'm not a fucking historian so I see myself as someone who isn't in a position to make any claims regarding that period of time. but you? you must be one. because you are vehemently defending your position that salt did 100% not cause any harm. fuck, I'm not even saying you're wrong, I'm just not sure why you're so convinced.

Attached: my_fox_when.jpg (352x395, 23K)

refute this image.

Attached: carb-fat ratio.png (956x195, 140K)

No, it couldn't possibly have been a factor. You don't know what you are talking about.

Why make a claim when you are totally uneducated?

>No, it couldn't possibly have been a factor
nigga how. that's like saying stress in today's age can't possibly be a factor for heart disease.

Salt doesn't cause hypertension.

It doesn't cause hypertension today. It didn't cause hypertension ten, twenty, a hundred, or a thousand years ago. It doesn't cause hypertension at all.

According to the cochrane library reducing dietary salt does lower blood pressure.

cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD004937.pub2/media/CDSR/CD004937/CD004937.pdf

See: Nice desperate googling, though, buddy.

> A single study from 1993 with an n of 163 studying blood pressure response to dietary salt intake after a week
vs
> A cochrane systematic review from 2013

Holy shit

Attached: 770E15AD-8BA0-4585-8965-A8D4C7EB6F33.jpg (1000x667, 411K)

If you found a study saying that leeches reduce blood pressure would you come to the conclusion that lack of leeching causes hypertension?

friendly reminder that ketards are sedentary and don't lift.

Did you click on the study? They even included a plain language summary for ketards like yourself:

> Modest salt reduction lowers blood pressure in all ethnic groups at all levels of blood pressure without adverse consequences
> The public health recommendations in most countries are to reduce salt intake from the current levels of approximately 9-12 grams per day to less than 5-6 grams per day. Our pooled analysis of randomised trials of 4 weeks or more in duration shows that such a reduction in salt intake lowers blood pressure both in individuals with raised blood pressure and in those with normal blood pressure. The fall in blood pressure is shown in both whites and blacks, men and women. Additionally, our results show that a longer-term modest reduction in salt intake has no adverse effect on hormone and lipid levels. These findings provide further strong support for a reduction in population salt intake. This will likely lower population blood pressure and reduce strokes, heart attacks and heart failure. Furthermore, our results are consistent with the fact that the lower the salt intake, the lower the blood pressure. The current recommendations to reduce salt intake to 5-6 grams per day will lower blood pressure, but a further reduction to 3 grams per day will lower blood pressure more. Therefore, 3 grams per day should become the long-term target for population salt intake.

Leeches also reduce blood pressure.

Are lack of leeches the cause of hypertension? Were people in the past dying because they didn't leech enough? Are people today dying because they don't leech enough?

> Modest salt reduction lowers blood pressure in all ethnic groups at all levels of blood pressure without adverse consequences
The public health recommendations in most countries are to reduce salt intake from the current levels of approximately 9-12 grams per day to less than 5-6 grams per day. Our pooled analysis of randomised trials of 4 weeks or more in duration shows that such a reduction in salt intake lowers blood pressure both in individuals with raised blood pressure and in those with normal blood pressure. The fall in blood pressure is shown in both whites and blacks, men and women. Additionally, our results show that a longer-term modest reduction in salt intake has no adverse effect on hormone and lipid levels. These findings provide further strong support for a reduction in population salt intake. This will likely lower population blood pressure and reduce strokes, heart attacks and heart failure. Furthermore, our results are consistent with the fact that the lower the salt intake, the lower the blood pressure. The current recommendations to reduce salt intake to 5-6 grams per day will lower blood pressure, but a further reduction to 3 grams per day will lower blood pressure more. Therefore, 3 grams per day should become the long-term target for population salt intake.

Attached: 35C3528F-FB44-4D31-8F40-36B06ED5A896.jpg (1000x722, 117K)

>Furthermore, our results are consistent with the fact that the lower the salt intake, the lower the blood pressure.

Get back to me when leeches are an electrolyte.

>t. NPC
Heart rate is proven to increase on a low-salt diet. This harmful effect occurs in nearly everyone who restricts his or her salt intake. Although this effect is documented more thoroughly in the medical literature, no food ad or dietary guideline says, “A low-salt diet can increase your risk of elevated heart rate.” And what has a bigger impact on your health: a one-point reduction in blood pressure or a four-beat-per-minute increase in heart rate?

Never understood the US obsession with micromanaging your sodium intake. Sodium content is the least of the problems with most modern processed food. Tweaking almost any other part of your nutritional intake is going to have a more noticeable effect

They will do absolutely anything to avoid telling people to stop eating corn, flour, and sugar.

Supposed "salt sensitivity" is just a result of being a fat diabetes-riddled retard. Salt has no connection to hypertension.

Soon they will advocate leeching.

t. ketard

Evidence pls

Attached: 35366D88-87BB-42AF-81EF-E2C0BDE0C7E3.jpg (1243x847, 267K)

> Salt has no connection to hypertension.
See:

Attached: F4241A0F-DAB1-4F0E-B7B5-D0051603359A.png (500x600, 215K)

It's like a deliberate misdirection. "Don't pay attention to the fact your bread has HFCS in it, it's clearly the slightly elevated sodium that's killing you"

No other country even talks about sodium

Blood loss reduces blood pressure.

Is blood loss connected to hypertension?

legit government guidelines are retarded

>be brainlet
>follow government recommended amount of calcium to have stronk bones
>get calcium kidney stones
that was a pain in the ass experience

oh shit nigga what are you even saying

[x] reduces blood pressure.

Is [x] related to hypertension?

> No other country even talks about sodium
Why are you ketards so into conspiracy theories?
nhs.uk/live-well/eat-well/salt-nutrition/
canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/food-nutrition/healthy-eating/sodium.html
ec.europa.eu/health//sites/health/files/nutrition_physical_activity/docs/salt_report1_en.pdf
healthdirect.gov.au/salt-facts
healthnavigator.org.nz/healthy-living/eating-drinking/v/vitamins-minerals/sodium-salt/

Copey copey cope cope

>And as for salt, which Audette rails against in a manner so prolific it rivals the Westboro Baptist Church's hatred of the homosexuals, it's not only necessary, but critical.
>"Certain isolated groups in areas such as Brazil, Papua New Guinea, and rural African communities have been found to live on sodium intakes of as little as 1150 mg per day. However, despite finding generally low blood pressure in these remote communities, the little evidence that exists on these low salt societies suggests shorter life expectancy and higher mortality rates" (Kresser).
>Paleo authors will often rail against sodium intake, suggesting that paleolithic man consumed less sodium than is recommended by the government to maintain optimal health. Apparently, however, they lack access to Wikipedia. Wild animals, of whom our ancestors were a part, utilize natural "salt licks" to maintain healthy bone and muscle growth. These mineral licks are so important to wildlife that they're illegally used to bait animals for hunting, and even the Vikings mentioned them prominently in their mythology. According to Norse mythology,
>"In Norse mythology, before the creation of the world, it was the divine cow Audhumla who, through her licking of the cosmic salt ice, gave form to Buri, ancestor of the gods and grandfather of Odin. On the first day as Audhumla licked, Buri's hair appeared from the ice, on the second day his head and on the third his body" (Wikipedia)

Attached: Grand Blue Salt.png (637x648, 1.18M)

>In other words, no matter what the paleo authors might say, they're fucking morons- salt is important in your diet. Nevermind seasonings, which have been used since time immemorial- you need to salt your food. The issue with salt isn't too much salt- it's an imbalance in your salt and potassium intake. Prehistoric man ate a hell of a lot more potassium than we did, which kept their electrolytes balanced and kept them hydrated.
>plagueofstrength.com/paleotards-are-doing-it-wrong-part-deux/
>jn.nutrition.org/content/11/1/77.full.pdf
>scientificamerican.com/article/its-time-to-end-the-war-on-salt/
>washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/we-eat-a-lot-of-salt-but-scientists-say-there-are-good-reasons-for-that/2015/05/04/69ff7058-c806-11e4-a199-6cb5e63819d2_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.04177473db6b

Attached: Salt block grilling.jpg (1500x1004, 184K)

elevated daily consumption of [x] -- removal of which causes lower blood pressure -- contributes heavily to hypertension.

You know I have backed you into a corner.

Many factors can be found to lower blood pressure. That doesn't suggest they have anything to do with hypertension.

Half of people with hypertension don't even have this supposed "salt sensitivity". There is zero connection between sodium and hypertension.

ok. so you're telling me if you increase your salt intake 10x, you won't have hypertension? try that, will you?

Stab wounds have a much stronger correlation with blood pressure than salt does.

me cumming in youre mom has a strong correlation with you being born

I will simply urinate out the excess sodium with no health effect.

Who do you think has more cases of hypertension, ancient Romans or modern Americans?

>The average Roman consumed 25 grams of salt, equivalent to 10 grams (10,000 milligrams) of sodium per day, more than 2.5 times our current average intake.4

>Kurlansky, M. 2003. Salt: A World History. New York: Penguin.

Did any of these groups have higher levels of hypertension than modern Americans?

>By the sixteenth century, Europeans were estimated to consume around 40 grams of salt per day; in the eighteenth century, their intake was up to 70 grams, mainly from salted cod and herring,6 an amount four to seven times the current intake of salt in the Western world. In France, in 1725, where detailed records were kept regarding salt revenue because of heavy taxation, the daily salt intake was between 13 and 15 grams per day.7 In Zurich, Switzerland, it was over 23 grams. Salt was consumed in even higher quantities in Scandinavian countries: consumption levels topped 50 grams of salt in Denmark, and Nils Alwall even estimated that in the sixteenth century, daily consumption of salt in Sweden approached 100 grams (again, mainly from salted fish and cured meat).8

>Kurlansky, M. 2003. Salt: A World History. New York: Penguin.
>Mente, A., M. J. O’Donnell, and S. Yusuf. 2014. The population risks of dietary salt excess are exaggerated. Can J Cardiol 30(5): 507–512.
>Ritz, E. 1996. The history of salt—aspects of interest to the nephrologist. Nephrol Dial Transplant 11(6): 969–975.

Attached: 1545703619633.jpg (191x180, 21K)

SNAKE OIL QUACK QUACK

We already know that salt intake was extremely high in Europe during the 1500s, somewhere between 40 and 100 grams of salt per day. If salt caused heart disease—chest pain leading to sudden death—and Europeans were consuming around 40 grams of salt per day in the 1500s,14 there should have been hundreds of thousands of reports of heart disease during this time. Yet the first report did not occur until the mid-1600s.15 And the rates of heart disease only jumped to critical levels in the early 1900s. The rise of chronic disease simply does not parallel the rise of salt consumption—if anything, it’s inversely proportional.

>14. Kurlansky. Salt: A World History.
>15. Johnson. The Fat Switch.

We can’t be entirely sure of the prevalence of hypertension in Europe in the 1500s to the 1800s—the blood pressure cuff was not invented until the late 1800s, after all—but we do know that the prevalence of hypertension in the early 1900s in the United States was estimated at 5 to 10 percent of the population.9 In 1939, in Chicago, the prevalence of hypertension in adults was just 11 to 13 percent. That figure then doubled to 25 percent by 1975, before finally reaching 31 percent in 2004.10 This figure has continued to edge upward, and as of 2014, one out of every three adults in the United States has hypertension.11

Stepping back from this data, we can generalize and say that the prevalence of hypertension in the United States in the first half of the 1900s was around 10 percent. However, the prevalence of hypertension is now three times as high12—despite salt intake remaining remarkably stable over the last fifty years.13

>9. Johnson, R. J. 2012. The Fat Switch. Mercola.com.
>10. Johnson, R. J., et al. 2007. Potential role of sugar (fructose) in the epidemic of hypertension, obesity and the metabolic syndrome, diabetes, kidney disease, and cardiovascular disease. Am J Clin Nutr 86(4): 899–906.
>11. heart.org/idc/groups/heart-public/@wcm/@sop/@smd/documents/downloadable/ucm_462020.pdf.
>12. cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db133.htm; cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/su6203a24.htm.
>13. DiNicolantonio, J. J., and S. C. Lucan. 2014. The wrong white crystals: not salt but sugar as aetiological in hypertension and cardiometabolic disease. Open Heart 1. doi:10.1136/openhrt-2014-000167.

> There is a clear link between high sodium intake and high blood pressure; likewise there is conclusive scientific evidence showing that reduction of sodium consumption reduces blood pressure.
ec.europa.eu/health//sites/health/files/nutrition_physical_activity/docs/salt_report1_en.pdf

Ketard, it’s okay to accept that not every single health issue is caused by carbs. Some are caused by other things (like salt).

Attached: 0617E58C-6D47-4EF0-A8DD-8119F9BF05BF.png (1000x500, 890K)

Attached: literally_shakinggif.gif (1196x1160, 1.8M)

>try that, will you?
Are you a British queer or Yoda?

> No longer dying from the flu
> Able to live long enough to develop hypertension.

it was probably because of sugar consumption. can't a spike in insulin raise blood pressure?

Whoops. Put your foot in your mouth there, buddy.

Refer to the four posts above yours (not including the shitpost).

Yeah, hypertension is obviously a result of refined carbohydrate consumption.

Shills say the dumbest things to deflect blame away from the real culprit. Like this retard, for example:

See and and see pic related.

Level 1 evidence beats your level 4 shit

Attached: DEFE40B1-6A61-463E-A864-7B32060F5F21.jpg (690x470, 49K)

Does a lack of stab wounds cause hypertension?

>unthinking automatons repeat over and over again that sodium restriction lowers blood pressure on average
Explain in your own words why you think this is relevant.

Attached: npc_0.png (800x900, 215K)

if restricting sodium intake lowers blood pressure, that means that sodium raises blood pressure.
if someone is consistently eating too much sodium, they consistently have higher blood pressure
if they consistently have higher blood pressure, they have hypertension

it's the same as the fat man thing:
if restricting burger consumption lowers fat and tendency to clap
then burger is cause for fat and tendency to clap
if you consistently eat burger, you will consistently become fat and have a tendency to clap

>if restricting sodium intake lowers blood pressure, that means that sodium raises blood pressure.
So lack of stab wounds raises blood pressure?

you don't take stab wounds daily. which means lack of stab wounds is a completely irrelevant factor.
you DO consume salt daily, so lack of salt IS a good factor to make assumptions on.

>if [a stab wound] lowers blood pressure, that means that [lack of stab wounds] raises blood pressure
>if someone is consistently [not suffering stab wounds], they consistently have higher blood pressure
>if they consistently have higher blood pressure, they have hypertension

QED. Therefore hypertension is caused by lack of stab wounds.

Or maybe you just fail at basic logic.

you ignored what I said. salt is a daily thing, so subtracting from it and seeing the effects will give you knowledge on the effects of salt. we don't usually take stab wounds, so "subtracting" the stab wounds that you never take leads to no conclusions.

These evidence based studies/guidelines all state that dietary salt causes hypertension

Your entire logic chain is predicated on sodium restriction lowering blood pressure.

None of them say that.

SNAKE OIL QUACK QUACK

>get BTFO
>reply to your own post with "snake oil quack quack"
You've done this twice now.

let me give you another one then.

we consume water daily.
if we restrict water consumption, we can find that it leads to dehydration. so, with that, we can assume that water leads to hydration.
we subtracted from something we had daily.

fucking how can you even read your own stupid stab wound analogy and not see the clear difference

How does "salt is a daily thing" factor into your original argument?

>salt restrictions lower blood pressure
>salt is a daily thing

These are two completely disconnected statements. Explain the connection.

Attached: npc_merchant.png (552x652, 197K)

>if we restrict water consumption, we can find that it leads to dehydration
If you're simply claiming salt restriction leads to hyponatremia that's true.

But if hyponatremia causes low blood pressure it doesn't logically follow that healthy sodium intake causes hypertension.

Alex please, it's getting out of hand

>we consume water daily.
>if we restrict water consumption, we can find that it leads to dehydration
These are two disconnected statements.

What's the logical link you are trying to make between them?

Attached: NPC_Memeball.jpg (800x652, 28K)

What's with the shills not writing in proper sentences? They are accustomed to writing in Hebrew or something?

I've noticed it in many threads. There is always someone shilling against eggs, shilling in favour of veganism, shilling against sodium, or shilling against nofap who doesn't capitalize their sentences and misses punctuation.

Attached: 1309881157728.png (406x406, 110K)

>we consume x on a day to day basis
>if we, on a specific day, restrict it to x-1, we observe this and this and that
you can't possibly not understand this
or do you expect me to speak in fucking syllogisms?