Vi måste ha en balans mellan salt och socker i kroppen för att må bra. Inom åldringsvården ser och hör man fortfarande den uttalade och outtalade faran över saltkonsumtion. Helst skall maten inte smaka någonting och sedan klagar man på att våra äldre äter för lite.
Det här med hjärtattack, högt blodtryck och högt kolosterol har fullständigt satt klor i nästan varenda människas fantasivärld. Men är det verkligen så farligt eller är det bara en viss önskad vinstmarginal för den petrokemiska industrin som styr.
Vissa forskningsrapporter visar att salt är farligt medans vissa andra tyder på raka motsatsen. Vad skall vi tro på? Hypoteserna som utröns vid det vetenskapliga experimentet kanske formuleras för industrins bästa. Kommersiellt arbetande forskare styr ju sina studier i den riktning som deras uppdragsgivare anser vara mest rätt ur övertygningssynpunkt.
Här kommer lite historik:
http://www.health-report.co.uk/sodium_chloride_salt_myths1.html
About 100 years ago, French physicians reported that restricting salt and salty foods benefited patients with fluid retention and hypertension. Shortly thereafter, it was found that mercurial compounds used to treat syphilis often caused a significant diuresis, which led to the development of mercurial drugs to treat edema. Although more effective than trying to eliminate sodium intake, they had to be injected and often had serious side effects.
The advent of modern diuretics resulted from the equally serendipitous observation that some patients being treated with sulfa drugs for rheumatic fever and bacterial infections also often experienced a significant diuresis. In 1949, Bill Schwartz reported that three patients with marked edema due to heart failure who were given sulfonamides all showed dramatic improvement but that these drugs were also "too toxic for prolonged or routine use."
The first proof that reducing sodium intake could benefit some patients with hypertension also came in 1949 when Walter Kempner reported improvement in malignant hypertension associated with kidney disease and heart failure. The Kempner diet consisted solely of rice and certain fruits that limited sodium intake to less than 350 mg daily and had no fat. It was extremely hard to adhere to for more than a week or two but was preferable to bilateral lumbar sympathectomy, the only other treatment for this lethal disorder.
Karl Beyer, a research chemist, tried several variations of the sulfonamide formula and developed Diuril (chlorothiazide). It proved to be safer and more effective in reducing edema and it also lowered blood pressure in hypertensive patients without evidence of significant fluid retention. Diuril and other thiazide diuretics like Hydrodiuril and Hygroton quickly became the treatment of choice for hypertension. Support for their use came from animal studies showing a correlation between increased sodium content of arterial vessels and elevated blood pressure.
Lewis Dahl was able to develop a strain of salt sensitive rats who routinely developed hypertension to support his firm belief in the value of salt restriction. This was widely heralded and cited by other low salt proponents as proof of the role of salt in hypertension. What they often neglect to mention is that these rats would have to be fed an amount of salt equivalent to over 500 grams daily for an adult human. Dahl also demonstrated a linear relationship between salt intake and blood pressure in different populations as noted below:
This surely confirmed the dangers of salt for everyone and prompted the 1979 "Surgeon General's Report on Health Promotion and Disease Prevention" condemning salt as a clear cause of high blood pressure. Since then, the government has spent untold millions in a vain attempt to justify this claim. Their expensive and lengthy crusade to prove a link between sodium and hypertension began in 1984 with the $1.3 million INTERSALT study of 10,000 subjects in 52 centers around the world. As anticipated, researchers reported that societies with higher sodium intakes also had higher average blood pressures. A similar relationship was also allegedly shown in individuals, thus clinching the government's case.
Of course most studies are funded by vested interests with a financial interest in the results. So what scientist is going shoot themselves in both feet at once by coming up with a finding completely opposite to what he is being paid to find?
It's too easy to put a pair of blinkers on and focus on just one aspect of a particular problem without looking at the whole! Holistic healers look at the person as a whole - never seeking to isolate a single symptom and treat it with allopathic drugs and chemicals. High blood pressure is invariably caused by many other factors other than salt!
Det här med hjärtattack, högt blodtryck och högt kolosterol har fullständigt satt klor i nästan varenda människas fantasivärld. Men är det verkligen så farligt eller är det bara en viss önskad vinstmarginal för den petrokemiska industrin som styr.
Vissa forskningsrapporter visar att salt är farligt medans vissa andra tyder på raka motsatsen. Vad skall vi tro på? Hypoteserna som utröns vid det vetenskapliga experimentet kanske formuleras för industrins bästa. Kommersiellt arbetande forskare styr ju sina studier i den riktning som deras uppdragsgivare anser vara mest rätt ur övertygningssynpunkt.
Här kommer lite historik:
http://www.health-report.co.uk/sodium_chloride_salt_myths1.html
How Did the Low Salt Crusade Start?
If salt was believed to be so valuable and useful in so many ways for so many thousands of years by so many million people from so many different cultures, why is it that we have only recently discovered that it is dangerous? Like the conspiracy against cholesterol and fat intake, the denunciation of sodium began little more than 50 years ago. Low salt proponents point out that over four thousand years ago, the Yellow Emperor's Canon of Internal Medicine stated, "too much salt stiffens the pulse." They interpret this as representing advanced arteriosclerosis due to hypertension. However, unlike acupuncture, magnets and herbal remedies that are mentioned and are still popular, there was no further reference to this.About 100 years ago, French physicians reported that restricting salt and salty foods benefited patients with fluid retention and hypertension. Shortly thereafter, it was found that mercurial compounds used to treat syphilis often caused a significant diuresis, which led to the development of mercurial drugs to treat edema. Although more effective than trying to eliminate sodium intake, they had to be injected and often had serious side effects.
The advent of modern diuretics resulted from the equally serendipitous observation that some patients being treated with sulfa drugs for rheumatic fever and bacterial infections also often experienced a significant diuresis. In 1949, Bill Schwartz reported that three patients with marked edema due to heart failure who were given sulfonamides all showed dramatic improvement but that these drugs were also "too toxic for prolonged or routine use."
The first proof that reducing sodium intake could benefit some patients with hypertension also came in 1949 when Walter Kempner reported improvement in malignant hypertension associated with kidney disease and heart failure. The Kempner diet consisted solely of rice and certain fruits that limited sodium intake to less than 350 mg daily and had no fat. It was extremely hard to adhere to for more than a week or two but was preferable to bilateral lumbar sympathectomy, the only other treatment for this lethal disorder.
Karl Beyer, a research chemist, tried several variations of the sulfonamide formula and developed Diuril (chlorothiazide). It proved to be safer and more effective in reducing edema and it also lowered blood pressure in hypertensive patients without evidence of significant fluid retention. Diuril and other thiazide diuretics like Hydrodiuril and Hygroton quickly became the treatment of choice for hypertension. Support for their use came from animal studies showing a correlation between increased sodium content of arterial vessels and elevated blood pressure.
Lewis Dahl was able to develop a strain of salt sensitive rats who routinely developed hypertension to support his firm belief in the value of salt restriction. This was widely heralded and cited by other low salt proponents as proof of the role of salt in hypertension. What they often neglect to mention is that these rats would have to be fed an amount of salt equivalent to over 500 grams daily for an adult human. Dahl also demonstrated a linear relationship between salt intake and blood pressure in different populations as noted below:
This surely confirmed the dangers of salt for everyone and prompted the 1979 "Surgeon General's Report on Health Promotion and Disease Prevention" condemning salt as a clear cause of high blood pressure. Since then, the government has spent untold millions in a vain attempt to justify this claim. Their expensive and lengthy crusade to prove a link between sodium and hypertension began in 1984 with the $1.3 million INTERSALT study of 10,000 subjects in 52 centers around the world. As anticipated, researchers reported that societies with higher sodium intakes also had higher average blood pressures. A similar relationship was also allegedly shown in individuals, thus clinching the government's case.
Health-Report comments:
It is a very misinformed doctor or nutritionist that would suggest eliminating salt from the diet has any bearing on lowering blood pressure or reducing the risk of heart attack in this day and age. Yet almost with monotonous regularity we are exhorted to reduce salt consumption by perhaps well meaning government sponsored doctors and nutritionists who haven't even bothered to read the in-depth research on this subject.
It is typical of the dogma that surrounds the medical fraternity. If they are determined to "prove" a point they will selectively gather data so they are shown to be right and to hell with the real results. As long as their position is vindicated then they have justified their existence. Of course most studies are funded by vested interests with a financial interest in the results. So what scientist is going shoot themselves in both feet at once by coming up with a finding completely opposite to what he is being paid to find?
It's too easy to put a pair of blinkers on and focus on just one aspect of a particular problem without looking at the whole! Holistic healers look at the person as a whole - never seeking to isolate a single symptom and treat it with allopathic drugs and chemicals. High blood pressure is invariably caused by many other factors other than salt!
Inga kommentarer:
Skicka en kommentar