Talk:Salt and cardiovascular disease

Comments by RockyBob

Regarding the sentences "An excessive intake of the ionic compound sodium chloride has long been suspected to increase blood pressure. [2] However, only serum sodium is thought to be strongly correlated to blood pressure levels and cardiovascular disease." These are speculative opinion statements (suspected, thought) and should either be eliminated or restated with supporting factual references.

Regarding the paragraph starting "The well known effect of sodium on blood pressure can be explained by comparing blood to a solution with its salinity changed by ingested salt.." This should be removed or provided with a reference. The reference should explain "why blood can be compared to a solution with its salinity changed by ingested salt."

Regarding the sentence "While the kidney reacts to excrete excess sodium and chloride in the body, water retention causes blood pressure to increase inside blood vessel walls." This sentence should be removed or a better reference provided. The reference [5] article only speculates in passing about the possibility of a relationship between serum sodium and hypertension. No data is identified to support the sentence.

Regarding the statement  "Blood pressure may continue to build as water is consumed hours after salt is ingested.[6] As excess sodium is excreted by the kidneys, blood pressure drops accordingly.[6]..." The reference is not relevant to these sentences. It is a short epistle on Potassium and health and does not address the sentences above. These sentences should be removed or a better reference provided.

Regarding the statements "Diets that consistently contain high salt content will increase blood pressure over time. Fortunately, as many studies have shown, limiting salt intake in the diet can reverse these effects." These statements are highly controversial and should be removed or provided with non-controversial references.

Regarding the paragraph starting "There has been strong evidence from epidemiological studies,..." needs to be removed or a proper reference provided. The current reference is to a one page, not peer-reviewed editorial that does not itself provide references for the claims made.

Regarding the topic of "Sodium Sensitivity" the link to reference [15] appears to be an error; the subject is unrelated to salt or hypertension.

Regarding the topic of "Sodium Sensitivity" there does not appear to any definition other than "individuals who appear to exhibit elevated blood pressure after salt ingestion". The references do not establish meaningful definitions of what constitutes a sodium sensitive individual. Recommend deleting this section until better studies are available.

RockyBob (talk) 20:18, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

It has been 10 years and most of those pointed out issues are still in the article. Eheran (talk) 09:54, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Opposing Views

Why does this article not contain any opposing views on salt intake and hypertension? http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=what-science-on-hypertension-really-shows — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.6.87.12 (talk) 17:30, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, there is plenty of questioning of the connection between salt and hypertension (at least whether there is a significant and widespread effect), both by researchers and more broadly. Whether it's right it wrong, it needs to be covered.

See for example Scant Evidence That Salt Raises BP, Review Finds - Medpage Today.

And this quote describes the medical view that I've heard: '“There is no doubt that excess salt, gross excesses, can produce high blood pressure in specific populations,” Robert I. Levy, director of the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute testified to the committee, according to a transcript. “The problem is demonstrating the efficacy of salt lowering in the American free-living population.”' - Post --Chriswaterguy talk 00:31, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, this should be added but not the Scientific American article (see also thhis http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/its-time-to-end-the-war-on-salt/ ) should be used but rather a peer-reviewed article. I think one good source could be the 2011 Cochrane Review: http://ajh.oxfordjournals.org/content/25/1/1.short on which the Scientific American article is likely based. --hroest 19:14, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

such views should also be added to Health effects of salt --hroest 19:14, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Clinical trials have shown that sodium intake can prevent hypertension and facilitate control thereof. That's an unorthodox view. The cited source says the opposite.--128.0.234.35 (talk) 20:39, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes an editor is quickly removing any opposing views. I added a bias tag so this can get resolved. Volunteer1234 (talk) 16:13, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Volunteer1234 is claiming bias in the article, but bias doesn't exist when a) the predominant reputable health science organizations - WHO, AHA, CDC, EFSA, among others - state that salt consumption by consumers should be lower, and b) the majority of current and past systematic reviews of high-quality clinical trials report that salt consumption above certain daily levels (1500-2000 mg) increases CVD risk. Those in this discussion claiming bias need to state your evidence, consistent with WP:MEDREV, that is contrary to the majority view, WP:BURDEN. --Zefr (talk) 17:10, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

You've removed the "bias" tag before there was any discussion. That isn't how it is supposed to work. I've restored it. You've also deleted the whole section in the body discussing the scientific disagreement *after* the bias tag was added. At least wait for discussion. Volunteer1234 (talk) 17:38, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Volunteer1234: You're claiming 'bias' in the face of numerous reputable organizations and publications dismissing an opposition viewpoint; this is WP:UNDUE which requires strong sourcing to establish. The above discussants and the Sci Am article in this edit are out of date by 3-8 years. There isn't any reputable 2019 source I can find that disputes the majority, current, state-of-the-science view that chronically high salt consumption leads to CVDs. The burden is on you to provide WP:MEDREV sources to the contrary. Until then, there is no bias to proclaim. --Zefr (talk) 18:27, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Both a) and b) are not questionable. As per the quote above:

“There is no doubt that excess salt, gross excesses, can produce high blood pressure in specific populations,” Robert I. Levy

Which is generally what the current article says too:

One study shows that the American population of African descent are significantly more salt sensitive than Caucasians.

Considering that this is such a (supposedly?) massively researched topic, I find the lack of basic details (like who it applies to and to what degree) astonishing. The consensus seems to be: Too much is bad. Eheran (talk) 10:08, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Those are fringe theories. Fringe theories on Wikipedia can be written, or have their own articles. Here's why. Remember that on internet, even for something on which there is a consensus anyone can come up with something contradicting 50 or more years of research. Article itself says that the study does not show reduced, or increased. 2-3 studies are unlikely enough to disprove what studies find consistantely. The authors of the studies themselves did not say, that lower salt, means higher blood pressure. Just that their studies did not have. It seems that usual results failed to be reproduced,it says also in the article too few salt can cause cardiovascular disease, that's not a new thing the article tells about. It's not either something that has large echo within the general public. A fringe theory may obtain a separate article thought. Well, it also says it that systolic pressure changes per minute so maybe, they did not find a difference for the simple reasons, the methods of the studies were bad. Here's it. --78.193.35.108 (talk) 14:12, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Merge?

Possibly this article could be merged with Health effects of salt? The article seem to cover much of the same ground. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 20:16, 3 June 2016 (UTC)