[risto1]

You can't rely on single studies to come up with conclusions, if you want to play that game you can literally prove or disprove anything you want to.

The whole picture can and does look very different than any single study. Studies vary a lot in quality, and there are tricks that are done to fudge with the conclusions. See:

https://www.youtube.com/user/NutritionFactsOrg

He very clearly points out exactly how people screw with the data on a large number of studies. That's why I listed all those sources from credible organizations from conclusions drawn by actual dietitians, not me or you or joe 'nutritionist' randomly trying to come up with our own conclusions.

Also, any reasonably intelligent random person can attack any studies pretty easily and make it look credible. Example: The first one is a meta-analysis of observational studies, one of the weakest forms of evidence, and other meta-analyses came up with the exact opposite conclusion. The second one's conclusion is obviously flawed, since salt without a shadow of a doubt increases blood pressure, so salt intake definitely does matter for older populations which almost always have a compromised cardiovascular system, so it definitely matters to them. The third isn't really saying anything except that they aren't successful at reducing salt consumption.

I'd rather trust experts to do their work, but you can do what you want it's your health. I bought all this crap for a few years until I suffered health problems from eating tons of dietary cholesterol and saturated fat with theoretical benefits. I could literally see my intake of saturated fat and cholesterol turning my blood cholesterol (total and LDL) and triglycerides on and off like a light switch. I did this several times. It was SO cut and dry. I kept all other variables the same. And I've always eaten tons of really health foods, a ton of plants, I just bought into the hype that butter and eggs are suddenly 'healthy', according to magazines and 'nutritionists'. Even blood work doesn't stop some people -- I remember reading a HN post of someone who started eating tons of eggs and had absurdly high levels of blood cholesterol, but his conclusion was that it's 'not a concern' and he 'feels fine' -- The doubt that was introduced already got to him and he just doesn't care anymore.

Cigarette companies played this exact same game for years btw, introducing doubt as to whether cigarettes caused cancer and lung disease. All you have to do is introduce doubt. It doesn't even have to be a strong argument towards experts, as in experts don't think there is any doubt. It's targeted towards just the lay person who doesn't understand the science