Common sense enters salt intake debate

Common sense enters salt intake debate

“We saw no evidence that a diet lower in sodium had any long-term beneficial effects on blood pressure,” said Moore. “Our findings add to growing evidence that current recommendations for sodium intake may be misguided.”

The 2015-2020 Dietary Guidelines for Americans recommends limiting sodium intake to 2,300 grams a day for healthy people. For the study, the researchers followed 2,632 men and women ages 30 to 64 years old who were part of the Framingham Offspring Study. The participants had normal blood pressure at the study’s start. However, over the next 16 years, the researchers found that the study participants who consumed less than 2500 milligrams of sodium a day had higher blood pressure than participants who consumed higher amounts of sodium.

Other large studies published in the past few years have found what researchers call a J-shaped relationship between sodium and cardiovascular risk–that means people with low-sodium diets (as recommended by the Dietary Guidelines for Americans) and people with a very high sodium intake (above the usual intake of the average American) had higher risks of heart disease. Those with the lowest risk had sodium intakes in the middle, which is the range consumed by most Americans.

“Our new results support these other studies that have questioned the wisdom of low dietary sodium intakes in the general population,” said Moore.

The researchers also found that people in the study who had higher intakes of potassium, calcium and magnesium exhibited lower blood pressure over the long term. In Framingham, people with higher combined intakes of sodium (3717 milligrams per day on average) and potassium (3211 milligrams per day on average on average) had the lowest blood pressure.

Full Article

Does Glyphosate Cause Cancer?

Does Glyphosate Cause Cancer?

Conclusion

I am simply searching through PubMed to find reviews of the safety of glyphosate, and this is what I find. You can do the same, it’s a user-friendly searchable database. There is a remarkable consistency to the reviews – they all agree that the evidence does not support an association between glyphosate exposure and any adverse health outcome. The IARC are the only outliers, and yet their flawed and quirky conclusion is the one that garnered the most attention.

There is also a theme in the reviews that we could use more and better quality studies. To put that into context, however, that is almost always the conclusion of such reviews. It is difficult to prove a negative – a lack of a correlation. Such a negative conclusion is only as good as the data supporting it, and therefore the more and more rigorous the data the better the conclusion.

We can always use more and better data when it comes to safety, but the existing data is robust, consistent, and independently replicated, and includes both glyphosate and formulations with glyphosate.

Glyphosate, in fact, is one of the safer pesticides in use (including many organic pesticides). It has replaced far more toxic herbicides. Opposing glyphosate because of unwarranted fears of toxicity is likely to cause harm due to whatever replaces it. Tilling is bad for the soil and releases CO2 into the atmosphere, and we cannot feed the world through hand weeding. Herbicides have to be part of the equation, and glyphosate is one of the safest out there.

via Does Glyphosate Cause Cancer? — NeuroLogica Blog

A particularly troublesome aspect of climate alarmism

A particularly troublesome aspect of climate alarmism

Last week EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt stated that: “I think that measuring with precision human activity on the climate is something very challenging to do, and there’s tremendous disagreement about the degree of impact, so no, I would not agree that it’s a primary contributor to the global warming that we see.”

I can only applaud Pruitt’s thoughtful comments, writes Alan Carlin.

But in fact there is not just uncertainty as Pruitt said, but actual evidence that there are no significant effects of rising human-caused emissions or atmospheric CO2 levels on global temperatures.

The Climate-Industrial Complex (CIC) has responded to Pruitt’s comments with all its usual propaganda concerning 97% of scientists, sea level rise, scientific “consensus,” etc., all of which are either incorrect, misleading, or irrelevant to the CIC’s assertion that human activity is the primary contributor to global warming.

via Alan Carlin: A particularly troublesome aspect of climate alarmism — Tallbloke’s Talkshop

Food is food, it’s neither healthy nor unhealthy

Food is food, it’s neither healthy nor unhealthy

Meals are not healthy or unhealthy. They are simply part of one’s total diet. To claim that a restaurant menu is unhealthy is to extrapolate a meal into much more than it is. Most people would consider an apple to be “healthy” but if all you ate were apples, your diet would be very unhealthy. The same applies to restaurant meals. Here, lame-o food nannies are simply trying to pressure restaurants into designing politically correct kids’ menus — tasteless food that most kids won’t enjoy or eat.

The media release is below. Original Article

###

Nutritional quality of kids’ menus at chain restaurants not improving
HARVARD T.H. CHAN SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH

Boston, MA – U.S. chain restaurants participating in a National Restaurant Association initiative to improve the nutritional quality of their children’s menus have made no significant changes compared with restaurants not participating in the program, according to a new study led by Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. Among both groups, the researchers found no meaningful improvements in the amount of calories, saturated fat, or sodium in kids’ menu offerings during the first three years following the launch of the Kids LiveWell initiative in 2011.

They also found that sugary drinks still made up 80% of children’s beverage options, despite individual restaurant pledges to reduce their prevalence.

The study will be published online January 11, 2017, in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine.

“Although some healthier options were available in select restaurants, there is no evidence that these voluntary pledges have had an industry-wide impact,” said lead author Alyssa Moran, a doctoral student in the Department of Nutrition at Harvard Chan School. “As public health practitioners, we need to do a better job of engaging restaurants in offering and promoting healthy meals to kids.”

In 2011 and 2012, more than one in three children and adolescents consumed fast food every day, according to the study. For kids, eating more restaurant food is associated with higher daily calorie intake from added sugar and saturated fats.

This is the first study to look at trends in the nutrient content of kids’ meals among national restaurant chains at a time when many were making voluntary pledges to improve quality. By 2015, more than 150 chains with 42,000 locations in the U.S. were participating in Kids LiveWell–which requires that at least one meal and one other item on kids’ menus meet nutritional guidelines.

Using data obtained from the nutrition census MenuStat, the researchers examined trends in the nutrient content of 4,016 beverages, entrees, side dishes, and desserts offered on children’s menus in 45 of the nation’s top 100 fast food, fast casual, and full-service restaurant chains between 2012 and 2015. Out of the sample, 15 restaurants were Kids LiveWell participants.

The researchers found that while some restaurants were offering healthier kids’ menu options, the average kids’ entrée still far exceeded recommendations for sodium and saturated fat. Kids’ desserts contained nearly as many calories and almost twice the amount of saturated fat as an entrée. And even when soda had been removed from children’s menus, it was replaced with other sugary beverages such as flavored milks and sweetened teas.

The authors would like to see the restaurant industry adhere to voluntary pledges and consider working with government agencies, researchers, and public health practitioners to apply evidence-based nutrition guidelines across a broader range of kids’ menu items. They also suggest tracking restaurant commitments to determine whether restaurants currently participating in Kids LiveWell improve the nutritional quality of their offerings over time.

###

The ideological opposition to biological truth

The ideological opposition to biological truth

Facts? We Don’t Need No Stinking Facts.

One distressing characteristic of the Left, at least as far as science is concerned, is to let our ideology trump scientific data; that is, some of us ignore biological data when it’s inimical to our political preferences. This plays out in several ways: the insistence that race doesn’t exist (and before you accuse me of saying that races do exist, read about what I’ve written here before: the issue is complex), that there are no evolutionarily-based innate (e.g., genetically based) behavioral or psychological differences between ethnic groups, and that there are no such differences, either, between males and females within humans.

These claims are based not on biological data, but on ideological fears of the Left: if we admit of such differences, it could foster racism and sexism.  Thus. any group differences we do observe, whether they reside in psychology, physiology, or morphology, are to be explained on first principle as resulting from culture rather than genes. (I do of course recognize that culture can interact with genes to produce behaviors.) This ideological blinkering leads to the conclusion that when we see a difference in performance between groups and genders, the obvious explanation is culture and oppression, and the remedy is equal outcomes rather than equal opportunities. Yet in areas like most sports, where everyone agrees that males are on average larger and stronger than females, it’s clear that the behavioral differences (i.e., performance) result from biological differences that are surely based on evolution (see below). In sports like track and field or judo, nobody would think of making males compete with females.

Full Article

Germany’s €Trillion Euro Disaster: Wind Power ‘Transition’ Destroys its Industrial Heartland — Tallbloke’s Talkshop


Originally posted on STOP THESE THINGS: STT has a ‘thing’ for the English language. In the hands of adept practitioners, our mother tongue is capable of conveying all manner of complex concepts and ideas, and doing so with verve and wit. However, in the hands of the well-paid spin doctors and useful political idiots that…

via Germany’s €Trillion Euro Disaster: Wind Power ‘Transition’ Destroys its Industrial Heartland — Tallbloke’s Talkshop