For years, the Salt Institute has been touting the findings of a 2004 study by Dr. Ashima Kant on "Dietary Patterns and Health Outcomes
." We've argued that
no single nutrient can explain the effect of diet on health (pdf 216.70 kB)
and that
the diet provides context to food choices (pdf 405.43 kB)
. Healthy diets have predicted positive health outcomes and that's the advocacy position taken by the Salt Institute
. We've pointed to clear evidence that the best marker for a "quality diet" is potassium consumption
.
Dr. Kant has a new study, "Patterns of recommended dietary behaviors predict subsequent risk of mortality in a large cohort of men and women in the United States ," Kant concludes (see Table 2) that potassium and calcium are strongly related to overall dietary quality. No surprise there. What about sodium? A month earlier, another study of adherence to US Dietary Guidelines found that those consuming "better" diets actually consumed more salt (even though that diminished their overall diet quality score). So, Kant's findings would offer useful comparison.
Not.
Kant reported lots of nutrient variables including energy, energy from fat, alcohol, fiber, folate, Vitamins C and E, and carotene in addition to calcium and potassium. But not sodium.
Could it be another "inconvenient truth"?
"Healthy Choice" marketer ConAgra Foods announced publication today of a new study in the American Journal of Health Promotion that shows how unbalanced has been the debate on salt reduction.
Using data from the National Center for Health Statistics, National Academy of Sciences and the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Timothy Dall, et. al. of The Lewin Group documented that reducing calories by less than 5% would produce economic benefits of about $100 billion. Adopting the most anti-salt interpretation of the medical evidence (i.e. Ignoring evidence that sodium reduction would produce no net health benefit), the authors found that reducing salt by more than double that amount (>12%) would yield benefits of $5 billion. Dall declared: "One of the most revealing finding was just how big an impact of 100 calories less per day can have compared to the more modest benefit of sodium reductions." (And, he failed to note that the sodium reduction was two-and-a-half times more severe than the curtailed calories).
Put another way, using the Dall analysis, reducing calories by less than half the magnitude being advocated for salt reduction would put national economic savings at $243 billion a year.
ConAgra's diet foods reduce both calories and sodium, but as Dall concedes: "Although many adults could benefit from cutting back on both sodium and calories, the return on investment for long-term health is clearly greater for calories."
Add comment