wakka12 wrote: » But all natural foods have some sodium naturally occurring.When I calculate all my foods on cronometer on days Im just eating completely whole foods its still not that far off the 1500 mg advised by medical professionals for optimal heart health. Sodium is a necessary micro nutrient like any others, we just talk about it more and consider it as different because its one you can taste and it tastes good. The whole issue is that sodium is one micro nutrient most of us get wayyy too much of. So saying its necessary so dont bother too much about amounts is almost meaningless to say, there is absolutely nobody on earth who doesnt get enough sodium unless they are fasting and doing huge amounts of sweaty exercise daily and not replenishing at all, but several billion probably get so much it damages their health, to some extent. So sodium should definitely be watched, it is ridiculously easy to ingest very unhealthy quanitities. Simply being aware and cutting back will just bring you down to the baseline level representative of amounts foods in nature , there is literally zero chance of you getting too little sodium in your diet, especially the modern western one
AllForIt wrote: » I read some time ago that giving up salt has caused some ppl to be sodium deficient and is causing health issues in some ppl. I think if one's diet is good then there is absolutely no reason to give up seasoning one's food with salt, as you say ODB. If one is eating crap food regularly then that is much more of a problem than the extra salt.
Greyfox wrote: » For me giving up sugar is a lot harder than given up salt, alcohol or sex. For me a bar of choc or biccies with tea is prob the most underratted thing in the world. Last month I set 3 days, Tues, Thursday and Sunday where I'm not allowed any treats and for meals I need to try to avoid things high in sugar like sauces. It's working but still get the cravings but telling myself tomorrow i can have some works. I have a no choc allowed in the house which is really tough but it must be done as if it's in the house I'll definitely mill into them. When I eat choc I also eat slower where before the bar would be gone and you've only had 3 sips of tea. On the days I eat choc it's 1 bar or equivalent a day max.
Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: » Considering doctors were until very recently still pushing the food pyramid and some probably still do, I take their diet advice with a pinch of salt. Pun intended. I think we can easily take in more than the naturally occurring amounts and do no harm. Here’s a few interesting articles and they are far from the only one. The science is shaky enough on how damaging salt is:https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/its-time-to-end-the-war-on-salt/https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2017/09/03/547827356/has-salt-gotten-an-unfair-shake-sodium-partisans-say-yes?t=1572226906451 If we stuck to the amounts naturally occurring in food, many meals would be very bland because added salt used properly is a flavour enhancer, like pepper. Life truly is too short for bland food. None of us avoid processed foods either. If you eat dried pasta or noodles, you eat processed food. Ditto bread. In sensible amounts, it’s not the enemy. Yes, and excessively salted food is very unpleasant. It’s about balance and also accepting that people’s palettes differ, even if they are healthy eaters. I’m not one of those people who doesn’t provide salt on the dinner table when I cook for others. Some people like just a little extra sprinkle and that’s fine by me.
wakka12 wrote: » I have read some interesting articles about salt not being as unhealthy as originally thought, same with saturated fat..red meat..eggs, and a lot of other things. But I take it that there is something Im missing, tbh. Doctors are all very well trained and very intelligent people, if there was new evidence showing salt to not be unhealthy any longer I am of the belief that they would know about it before me and know a lot more on the topic so Ill take advice through them rather than the internet, theres no reason why they would want the population to limit salt intake without a strong case. A lot of studies on the internet can be manipulated to make people believe whatever they want, I guess thats why you seem to get quite a few large scale studies with almost contradictory results. Doctors ,I hope, see through that and give better quality advice.Im sure you could find some 'articles' or 'studies' that show candy and chocolate arent as bad as we think or that their damage is overrated or whatever you want to prove, theres somebody out there with some information to back you up, its just important to recognise that that doesnt mean it invalidates the stronger body of research its questioning
mr_fegelien wrote: » How much sugar do you people eat daily? I would eat around 300g of sugar. Both added (into tea, juice, smoothies) and from pre-made food/snacks in the store. I've heard that's not healthy as the RDA is about 30g a day so I'd be eating over 10x the daily limit.
Deleted User wrote: » Switch to like 85% chocolate. It's lovely.
igCorcaigh wrote: » Almost a third of a bag of sugar each day? Wow.
Social Medium wrote: » I find it bizarre that the conventional nutrional advice we've been getting over the last few decades actually causes more harm to people. Avoiding saturated fats actually causes more harm to people. Saturated fats are very good for you. (This does not include trans fats, they should most definitely be avoided). Consuming vegetable oils is harmful and should be avoided. Conventional advice has recommned vegetable oils. Wholegrains hold little nutritional value, in fact they usually contain lectins or anti nutrients which are harmful. Red meat is plentiful in nutritional value and should be consumed, not avoided as per conventional advice. Eat as many eggs as you want, eggs are nature's multi vitamin. Polyunsaturated fats are actually the fats to avoid, so put down those fish oil supplements you have been told are healthy. Little is ever said of the foods containing the most nutritional value such as liver, shellfish and bone broth. There seems to be far too much emphasis put on foods such as kale and blueberries. Too much emphasis is put on running when discussing exercise. Too much long distance running is harmful to the body. Have a look at long distance runners vs 100m sprinters, who looks healthier. The focus should be on high intensity training, weight training and mobility training.
Pac1Man wrote: » Not really to be honest. It would never take a lot to satisfy it anyway. Have you tried substitute the craving with fruit? I know it sounds dull but the next time you want something, guzzle about 3 or 4 ripe strawberries and see if the craving is still there.
Social Medium wrote: » I didn't say that eggs are healthier than blueberries or kale, but I'm going to say it now, they are healthier. Although I don't like the term healthier, it's not specific enough. That's the problem with the studies over the past 40 years or so, they are poorly designed and with erroneous conclusions. Often correlation is confused with causation, or other factors are over looked. For example, a study could find that those who eat more less red meat live longer on average than those who don't and conclude that red meat causes people to die younger. What the study doesn't take into account is that those who eat less red meat are also less likely to smoke and drink alcohol excessively. So the quality of studies you typically see regarding nutrition is garbage.
Greyfox wrote: » For me giving up sugar is a lot harder than given up salt, alcohol or sex. For me a bar of choc or biccies with tea is prob the most underratted thing in the world.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wb.vanillicon.com/v2/bed6f1d088326d5eb21c0139847332c7.svg)
