Interesting article. I have some questions, however:

Why the focus on decades-old research rather than more recent (and more rigorous) assessments of the evidence? i.e.

It seems a bit odd to look at a single study that, as you mention several times, was done over 2 decades ago rather than more recent evidence.

Why the focus on soldiers in the early 1900s? This graph shows the issue quite well — as most metabolic disease develops later in life, and the life expectancy in the early 20th century was low, it’s a bit odd to say that salt intake would’ve been a major factor in health for any reason. Can’t get heart disease at 60 if you die from tuberculosis at 30!

Why the focus on older NHANES data? For example, this more recent study found that increased sodium intake was independently associated with increased risk of cardiovascular mortality,while you appear to be referencing studies with known confounding that were done more than a decade ago

Lastly, it’s odd that you label salt recommendations as a ‘scam’. The Cochrane foundation, who you’ve previously argued are “a well-respected independent group of physicians and researchers”, are among those who have demonstrated a link between high sodium levels and cardiovascular disease. Is Cochrane a ‘scam’? Are they all ‘scammers’? Seems an odd position to take.

Epidemiologist. Writer. Podcaster. Twitter FB Email