Salt is so basic to our existence we often forget its life-saving role as an essential nutrient; consider oral rehydration therapy which has saved millions of lives, particularly in Africa. But salt is not only essential to life, it plays a key role combatting mental retardation; consider the enormous achievement of iodized salt.
New York Times columnist Nicholas D. Kristof does just that. In today's paper, he reviews the enormous paybacks of salt iodization, "Raising the World's I.Q ."
Salt does have a real downside, Kristof admits -- "it's so numbingly boring, few people pay attention to it or invest in it. (Or dare write about it!)." I guess we here at the Salt Institute are so insensate we didn't realize that salt was boring or unworthy of attention so count us among the few.
Thankfully, Kristof is one of the few as well. With his proselytizing, perhaps the few will become many.
Although the study was conducted in an at-risk population being treated for congestive heart failure (CHF) and, therefore, not directly comparable to healthy populations, yet another study has found reduced-sodium diets creating health risks.
A study by an Italian research team led by Salvatore Paterna and Pietro Di Pasquale on "Normal-sodium diet compared with low-sodium diet in compensated congestive heart failure " in the October issue of Clinical Science asks: "Is sodium an old enemy or a new friend?"
Friend, according to the data. Lowering dietary sodium stimulated plasma renin activity (PRA) and aldosterone production.
The normal-sodium group had a significant reduction, P less than 0.05, in readmissions. BNP values were lower in the normal-sodium group compared with the low sodium group (685±255 compared with 425±125 pg/ml respectively; P
When PRA and aldosterone levels are high, multiple studies have shown subjects have significantly higher incidence of heart attacks and cardiovascular mortality.
Thus, the study concluded: "a normal-sodium diet improves outcome, and sodium depletion has detrimental renal and neurohormonal effects with worse clinical outcome in compensated CHF patients."
The 2010 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee has begun its five-year review of the science behind the government's recommendations for U.S. food consumers -- all of us!
In its latest Salt and Health newsletter, the Salt Institute examines "The Evidentiary Foundation of our Dietary Gudelines " and finds that foundation is built on sand, not rock. The article recounts a 2007 review of the process by the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences which confirmed that the scientific review of the diet and disease data was based on the opinions of respected authorities -- the lowest level of evidence -- rather than on controlled trials of dietary interventions. That review drew on a New York Times Magazine story on "Why can't we trust much of what we hear about diet, health and behavior-related diseases?" The Salt Institute endorses an "evidence-based" approach as opposed to the "opinion-based" recommendations produced in the current process.
