Salt Tablets?

Paul Saunders

Peter Clinch wrote:

>>> while "natural" salt is crystalline sodium chloride with
>>> impurites.
>>
>> With extra *minerals*. I've read that sea salt is filtered to get
>> rid of other crap.
>
> An impurity in NaCl is anything that isn't NaCl. If I give you a bar
> of lead and it's full of gold, the gold is still an impurity, even if
> a rather nice one.

Fair enough, but I mentioned filtering to distinguish between useful
minerals and other "crap" that might be harmful.

>> "However, unrefined sea salt contains many important minerals that
>> regular iodized table salt does not contain."
>
> It may well do, but anyone eating a balanced diet gets all the
> minerals and vitamins they need in any case.

I very much doubt that the majority of people in the civilised world are
eating a healthy balanced diet these days.

> More isn't better, it's
> just more, and will get thrown away down the toilet.

Certain vitamins yes, but I don't believe that's the case with minerals.
Which could be a bad thing with some minerals of course. Zinc, iron and
copper need to be eaten in the correct relative quantities for example, if
you eat too much of one then it inhibits the absorbsion of the others. But
how do you know how much you're getting anyway?

>> "[Processed] salt is dried at high temperatures (over 1,200F /
>> 649oC), which alters the ionic structure of the salt."
>> http://www.rssl.com/OurServices/Foo...ewsletterID=235
>
> and?

I don't know. I'm just trying to get to the truth of the matter here. I've
read a lot of stuff saying that sea salt is healthier than processed salt
(with the high temperatures cited as one reason for this), but nothing
claiming that the latter is just as healthy. I haven't found any official
sources that comment on this issue (perhaps because it would affect sales if
they admitted sea salt was healthier, or perhaps because there's no
effective difference). I found a page on salt myths, but sea salt being
healthier wasn't amongst them.

> A concentrated dose of salt is still a concentrated dose of salt
> and it still has the same amount of Na and Cl in it in identical
> proportions (1 for 1).
> This strikes me as a bit like the marketing of Ultrafleece as "a warp
> knit fleece": it /is/ a warp knit fleece, but how does that particular
> fact really impact on the wearer?

That's what I'd like to know too. But you know how much crap is written on
the internet, it's hard to tell what the truth of the matter is. There are
an awful lot of sites promoting the health benefits of sea salt over
processed, but I've found none that claim the reverse or that there's no
difference.

It's a well known fact that processed foods aren't as healthy as foods in
their natural state, so why would salt be any different? Given the choice it
would seem to make more sense to go for natural than processed. I'm
skeptical of any processing these days. Even if salt isn't exactly a food,
processing at high temperatures and adding additives doesn't sound like a
good idea to me. Many of the arguments against processing seem quite
reasonable, and I haven't yet found any information to dispute these
arguments.

>> Besides, what better way to compare tastes than on their own?
>
> Because slat on its own is a very specific and powerful taste that may
> rather overload the detectors. I'm just guessing here, but contrast
> the way that whiskies are often tasted with a dilution of spring
> water.

I haven't been swallowing teaspoons of the stuff! Just a few grains.

Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk/
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk/weblog/
Latest Post
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk/w...y/comet-holmes/

Peter Clinch

Paul Saunders wrote:

> Fair enough, but I mentioned filtering to distinguish between useful
> minerals and other "crap" that might be harmful.

Understood, though my point was the difference between, say, 98% salt
content and 97.5% salt content really doesn't make any difference to the
salt content.

> I very much doubt that the majority of people in the civilised world are
> eating a healthy balanced diet these days.

fair enough, but if you're not it'll be easier to get mineral
supplements than fine tune your table salt, I'd have thought...

> Certain vitamins yes, but I don't believe that's the case with minerals.
> Which could be a bad thing with some minerals of course. Zinc, iron and
> copper need to be eaten in the correct relative quantities for example, if
> you eat too much of one then it inhibits the absorbsion of the others. But
> how do you know how much you're getting anyway?

Are you exhibiting symptoms of deficiency? If not, you're probably
getting enough.

> I don't know. I'm just trying to get to the truth of the matter here.

You need to separate useful and useless truth though. Unless you happen
to know quite a lot about the physics and chemistry of salt crystals and
how they change with heat then knowing to within half a degree how hot
it got just isn't useful information.

> I haven't found any official
> sources that comment on this issue (perhaps because it would affect sales if
> they admitted sea salt was healthier, or perhaps because there's no
> effective difference).

Since official sources, e.g. the Department of Health, are doing their
damnedest to get us to cut down I don't see why affecting sales would
bother them. And I can't see any particular reason why they wouldn't
say sea salt was healthier if anyone genuinely thought it was. As it
is, I suspect you're getting a lot of touchy-feely speculation and
little to none in the way of real evidence.

I think the wiki is a good place for this sort of info, because it tends
to end up effectively peer reviewed into something approaching a pretty
good consensus. For sea-salt it doesn't note any particular health
benefit, though it does note an iodine deficiency which can be
problematical with it. It does bear out the different taste, mind.

> That's what I'd like to know too. But you know how much crap is written on
> the internet, it's hard to tell what the truth of the matter is. There are
> an awful lot of sites promoting the health benefits of sea salt over
> processed, but I've found none that claim the reverse or that there's no
> difference.

I think the salient point is I can't find any government/NHS health
advice saying it's better for me, and the consensus case that is the
Wiki doesn't claim it or point to good evidence either.

> It's a well known fact that processed foods aren't as healthy as foods in
> their natural state, so why would salt be any different?

Because most of what you get in sea salt is NaCl crystals, while most of
what you get in table salt is NaCl crystals. Impurities in the
supporting cast aside, the NaCl crystal is what meets the digestion
process, and I doubt that it'll make much difference to it where it came
from. The processing doesn't really alter the fundamental thing much,
just makes it a bit easier to package. Compare and contrast refined
sugar, which is very different in form to what you'll get in, say, an apple.

In summary, if you prefer the taste is a pretty damn good reason, but
any health benefits are arm-waving speculation AFAICT.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Paul Saunders

Peter Clinch wrote:

>> Fair enough, but I mentioned filtering to distinguish between useful
>> minerals and other "crap" that might be harmful.
>
> Understood, though my point was the difference between, say, 98% salt
> content and 97.5% salt content really doesn't make any difference to
> the salt content.

True, but it makes a big difference to the all the trace elements present.

>> I very much doubt that the majority of people in the civilised world
>> are eating a healthy balanced diet these days.
>
> fair enough, but if you're not it'll be easier to get mineral
> supplements than fine tune your table salt, I'd have thought...

Funnily enough, I've never noticed gold included in any mineral supplement
I've seen! Not that it's necessarily good for you, but apparently a lot of
trace elements are.

>> Certain vitamins yes, but I don't believe that's the case with
>> minerals. Which could be a bad thing with some minerals of course.
>> Zinc, iron and copper need to be eaten in the correct relative
>> quantities for example, if you eat too much of one then it inhibits
>> the absorbsion of the others. But how do you know how much you're
>> getting anyway?
>
> Are you exhibiting symptoms of deficiency? If not, you're probably
> getting enough.

What are the symptoms anyway? There are so many vitamins and minerals and so
many symptoms, it would be hard to tell. And we all know the dangers of
self-diagnosis, don't we? It's all too easy to discover that you're
suffering from some rare disease...

>> I don't know. I'm just trying to get to the truth of the matter here.
>
> You need to separate useful and useless truth though.

True.

> Unless you happen
> to know quite a lot about the physics and chemistry of salt crystals
> and how they change with heat then knowing to within half a degree
> how hot it got just isn't useful information.

True. I've just read that it's a bad thing, but I don't know whether that's
true or not.

> Since official sources, e.g. the Department of Health, are doing their
> damnedest to get us to cut down I don't see why affecting sales would
> bother them. And I can't see any particular reason why they wouldn't
> say sea salt was healthier if anyone genuinely thought it was.

Fair point, but some people clearly think it is.

> As it
> is, I suspect you're getting a lot of touchy-feely speculation and
> little to none in the way of real evidence.

True.

> I think the wiki is a good place for this sort of info, because it
> tends
> to end up effectively peer reviewed into something approaching a
> pretty good consensus. For sea-salt it doesn't note any particular
> health benefit, though it does note an iodine deficiency which can be
> problematical with it.

Unless you eat a lot of fish, which I do.

> It does bear out the different taste, mind.

There's no doubt about that.

> I think the salient point is I can't find any government/NHS health
> advice saying it's better for me, and the consensus case that is the
> Wiki doesn't claim it or point to good evidence either.

Perhaps they don't know enough about it yet? Wouldn't be the first time
incorrect assumptions were made about food.

>> It's a well known fact that processed foods aren't as healthy as
>> foods in their natural state, so why would salt be any different?
>
> Because most of what you get in sea salt is NaCl crystals, while most
> of what you get in table salt is NaCl crystals.

Fair point.

> Impurities in the
> supporting cast aside, the NaCl crystal is what meets the digestion
> process, and I doubt that it'll make much difference to it where it
> came from. The processing doesn't really alter the fundamental thing
> much, just makes it a bit easier to package.

But then there's the additives.

> In summary, if you prefer the taste is a pretty damn good reason, but
> any health benefits are arm-waving speculation AFAICT.

Maybe, maybe not, but thanks for your reasoned argument. I'll keep an open
mind about this. My natural inclination at the moment though, is to avoid
any kinds of food processing if possible.

The bottom line though, is that I eat very little salt anyway. The last
packet I bought must have been bought at least 10 years ago, and it's still
over half full. The new one I've bought will probably last at least 5 years,
if not longer. I just don't eat much salt, so it's not likely to make much
difference either way.

Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk/
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk/weblog/
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk/w...y/comet-holmes/