Jump to content

Talk:Salt/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Quadell (talk · contribs) 19:54, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator: Cwmhiraeth

Round 1

Salt is a tremendous topic that everyone knows something about, but few are experts on. It will be a large undertaking to get an article on salt both complete and balanced. I'll level with you: the article will need a lot of work before it attains GA status. But if anyone's up to the task, I figure it's you, Cwmhiraeth. I can't promise to be an easy reviewer for this article, but I can promise to be fair, patient, and consistent. I'll start with the largest issues that will take the most work, and go back through for details once these are addressed. If you disagree with any of my recommendations, let me know and we'll discuss it. I'm not inflexible; like you, my main concern is making the Salt article the best it can be.

  • The lead section will probably need some work, but I don't want to even worry about that until it looks like the article is reasonably complete and the organization is reasonably correct.
Lead rewritten. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:35, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Salt has so much history that it's impossible to cover everything here. Still, there are some important aspects of the history of salt you might want to include.
    • First, the most recent Encyclopedia Britannica claims that for nomadic or hunter/gatherer peoples, salt supplements are not necessary, and they even bluntly claim that "nomads ... never eat salt with their food". People tend to need supplemental salt when they live on cereal, veg, or boiled meats, according to EB. "The habitual use of salt is intimately connected with the advance from nomadic to agricultural life." I don't know how reliable this is, but it is the EB... and if it's true, it's worth a mention (in one's own words).
Added. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:17, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, salt has been important in pacts and covenants for as long as there's been recorded history, (EB claims "in all ancient civilizations", which can't be right), but this article doesn't mention covenants or contracts at all. It's related to salt in religion, but it's not the same thing.
Added. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:17, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • When you mention salt caravan routes, you might want to mention that Herodotus described these routes across Libya back in the 5th century BCE.
Added. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:17, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • You mention salt as currency in ancient Rome, but it might help broaden the scope of the article to mention that salt has also been used as money in Ethiopia and Tibet. Further, EB claims that salt is still a luxury available only to the rich in many parts of central Africa. If true, it could be worth mentioning.
Added. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:17, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "Forms" section is very long and has a lot of sub-levels, and I think a reorganization is needed. Current problems include: "Refined" and "Table salt" are separate subsections, but table salt is a form of refined salt; the "Unrefined" section contains information on unrefined edible salts, but not on unrefined industrial salts; the "Refined" section is mostly information on salt production; etc. In my opinion, there should be a dramatic reorganization. Both "Edible salt" and "Non-dietary uses" should be top-level sections. "Edible salt" can be broken into "Sea salt" (since the current "unrefined" subsection is really about sea salt), "Table salt" (including additives), and "Salt in food" (which would contain salty condiments). (Since the article currently does not mention that salt naturally occurs in many foods, the "Salt in food" would be a good place for that.) There's no need for "Refined" and "Unrefined" sections at all; refinement information belongs in "Production". The "Non-dietary uses" section can also mention that refined salt is used for many purposes (chemical manufacture), though unrefined is used for others (road salting).
Done. I have added a bit about the salt present in foods. I would advocate getting rid of the "additives" section heading except that that would lead to a difficulty about where to put "main->Iodized salt". Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:23, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent. You can continue to have an "additives" subsection, or you could merge it into "table salt" and put {{see also|Iodized salt}} at the top there, if you want. Or if there's a link in the text, that would be good enough, in my opinion. – Quadell (talk) 16:53, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many additive subsections are just a few sentences. I would recommend subsections of just "Iodine and iodide", "Anti-caking agents", and "Other additives".
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:03, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "History" section summarizes the History of salt article. This is exactly appropriate. I'm surprised that there is no "Health effects of salt" article (it's currently a redirect to "Salt"), but the "Health effects" section is long and detailed, and is the most likely section to suffer controversy or edit wars. A new Health effects of salt article should be made that contains all this information. It can link to related articles such as Salt and cardiovascular disease and Salt therapy (neither of which is currently linked from the "Salt" article), along with Low sodium diet and Iodine deficiency (the latter of which is only mentioned in the "Forms" section of "Salt", not in the health effects), and it can go into as much detail as people will want to add. Then it can be effectively and appropriately summarized in this article, without going into unnecessary detail. That will improve the organization of the article a lot.
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:03, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's an excellent summary. – Quadell (talk) 18:28, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "Production" section should contain the information on salt manufacture and refinement currently in the "Refined salt" section. This section should also link to, and use information from, Salt mining, Salt evaporation pond, Alberger process, and Open pan salt making. It's probably worth noting that sea water is 3% salt, which I'll bet you know a lot about at this point. Also, the "Production" section gives information about which countries produce Sodium Chloride, but not edible salt, which is what most of this article is about. (For instance, the U.S. is the largest producer or salt, but produces very little of the world's edible salt.)
Mostly done, but not the last point yet. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:17, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "Non-dietary uses" section (Main article: Sodium chloride) is far too short, given salt's importance. I've already mentioned ways information can be brought here from other sections. (It should also be moved up to go immediately after "Edible salt".) But further expansion is appropriate. Salt is extremely useful worldwide in preservation, curing, and melting ice, and is used in the manufacture of baking soda, caustic soda, and other chemicals. This section should be greatly expanded from a mere three sentences.
Expanded somewhat. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:49, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "Usage in religion" section feels like a list. Ideally, it should start with some overall statements about salt's use in religious contexts, in a way that feels comprehensive, and yet can be supported factually. Then, examples are very appropriate, but should be given in a way that feels less "listy". Try to focus on a worldwide context, but ignore the less important examples (such as sumo wrestling). By the way, there is already a Salt in the Bible article which may be useful and which probably should be linked.
I've added a single introductory sentence and could combine the present short paragraphs into a more coherent whole. However I don't see how the section can fail to be listy if it attempts to be even moderately comprehensive. It doesn't currently include Buddhism, Pueblo or Hopi culture and adding these will make the problem worse. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:03, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it won't ever be perfect. Just put in whatever information you think is most important, and I'll see if it can't be organized in a pleasing way. (I could imagine, for instance, one paragraph about how many cultures use salt in religious rituals, with examples; then one paragraph about how many religious texts mention salt, with examples; and then a final paragraph about "Many religions use salt in other ways", with miscellany. Just one example of organization that might be more appealing.) So add what you think should be added, and I'll have a go at organizing. – Quadell (talk) 18:28, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have rewritten/rearranged the "Usage in religion" section. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:00, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reference formatting is a bit haphazard, currently. When listing the page of a source that supports a given claim, some references (e.g. 4) use the colon notation right there in the footnote. Others (e.g. 1) give the colon notation in the notes section. And others (e.g. 10) give the page number with a "p." specifier. Also, some books and newspaper articles are described in full in the notes, while others are described in full in the references. There are other similar issues. Any standard is fine, so long as the article is consistent. (References are kind of my specialty, and I'll willing to help format them if you like.) Also, although some of the sources are very high quality, others (e.g.) are more questionable.
Any help with improving the formatting of references would be splendid. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:03, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm on it. – Quadell (talk) 18:28, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let me know how you wish to proceed. All the best, – Quadell (talk) 19:54, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking this on. I spent some time back in March making various changes and improving the referencing but I didn't really consider the organisational matters you mention above. Coming to an article as an outsider, it doesn't seem quite right to start mauling it around and reorganizing its structure, but now, as part of a GA process, it seems quite appropriate. I'll make a start on the creation of "Health effects of salt", leaving a summary section on its place. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:37, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm starting to think this could work! I look forward to seeing how you handle "Forms". – Quadell (talk) 18:28, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is going so well, that I'm going to start mentioning more minor concerns below. The points above should probably be addressed first, however. – Quadell (talk) 16:53, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • We're probably going to have to be more selective about which pictures to include, and where to include them. (They're all legitimately free, it seems.) Which should be the "main" image?
I have removed, added and rearranged the images. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:35, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't like the Onbekende Wereld ref. I think it refers to this book, though it's not clear. Anyway, I think it's a written mention of a TV show. Is a better source available?
Replaced. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:17, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 21 is a dead link. Google returns no hits for "particle density" or "bulk density" at the Salt Institute website. Since the information is very technical and probably not very useful to the reader, I suspect it would be best to simply remove the sentence (and ref).
Removed. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:49, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "See also" section is for links to related articles that are not linked in the body. If any of the links are already in the article body (or can be incorporated into the article body), that would be better than having them in See also. (I'm a minimalist when it comes to "See also" and "Further reading" sections.) Speaking of which, are the three "Further reading" listings useful?
Removed both. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:35, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "Edible salt" supersection would be improved by a short introductory paragraph of a couple sentences. Maybe move the current first sentence of table salt (or some variant) to here? Also, would it be better to have "Health effects" as a subsection of "Edible salt", do you think?
I think Health is better kept as a separate section. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:17, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. – Quadell (talk) 19:39, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Introductory sentence added to "Edible salt". Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:35, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like once the images are selected and the lead is improved, we'll be ready for round two! (Unless there are a few stragglers above that I missed.) – Quadell (talk) 12:10, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The images are done and I have rewritten much of the lead. How is it now? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:35, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent, and ready for Round 2. – Quadell (talk) 14:39, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Just to let you know what to expect, once the "course grained" issues have been dealt with above, I'll go through for a more "fined grained" review. I expect round 2 will be easier than round 1, and I won't put you through a third round.)

Round 2

Regarding my reviewing style, issues I identify below will be prepended by the number of the relevant GA criterion. As they are resolved, I will cross out the issue number. Comments that are not actionable requirements are not prepended.

  • 6b Although not strictly a GA requirement, it's customary to have a "main image" in the upper right. Would you object to the halite image (or some other image) being moved up?
  • 1b The lead should not include information not present in the body of the article. But these two introductory facts are not mentioned outside the lead: that salt is an "ionic salt" (salt (chemistry)), and that saltiness is one of the basic tastes. I'm not sure where to put this. Would it be best to create a short section called "Chemistry" (main article: Sodium chloride) which summarizes that article in a paragraph and includes these facts? Or would it fit better in an existing section?
  • 1b Rock salt redirects to the halite article, not the salt article, so it should not be bolded. Since the "also known as" clause in the first sentence could be confusing, I would suggest the following for the lead's first sentence. (Feel free to alter as you see fit.)
Salt is a chemical substance composed primarily of sodium chloride (NaCl), a chemical compound belonging to the larger class of ionic salts; salt in its natural form as a crystalline mineral it is known as halite.
  • 1b You sometimes use the serial comma (e.g. "across the Mediterranean Sea, along specially built salt roads, and across the Sahara in camel caravans" or "Salzburg, Hallstatt, and Hallein lie within") and sometimes do not (e.g. "in the manufacture of polyvinyl chloride, plastics, paper pulp and many other products" or "such as meat, blood and milk"). I like the serial comma, but opinions vary. In a global article like this, either is fine, so long as the choice is consistent throughout the article. If you let me know which you prefer, I can help standardize this.
I started going through the article adding serial commas because there were quite a lot there already, but I hate them really and think I will start over again early tomorrow morning (when I will probably avoid edit conflicts) and omit them. As regards consistency, at least some of the article is in American English but I notice that yesterday, Snowmanradio changed "edema" to "oedema". My spellchecker is for British English so any variations from this show up on my edit screen and I am not necessarily aware of American versions of words. Any comments? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:04, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In an article as universal as this, there's no inherent reason to prefer one version of English over another. Since you're the main contributor at this point, if you prefer British English then that's what the article should use. – Quadell (talk) 13:30, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The history section is particularly well-organized. I can think of no improvements to suggest.
  • I boldy reorganized the "Edible salt" section. I felt something about kosher salt should be added, but I couldn't find a place for it, so I made the subsections "table salt", "other forms of salt", and "salt in food". (I also made other, more minor changes.) Just because I'm reviewing this GAN, that doesn't give my edits any special authority, so feel free to disagree... but I think this best conveys the different aspects of edible salt. Let me know if you think a different organization would be more effective.
  • 1a The production section has a sentence beginning "A few common examples include ...", but all this information is above in the "Non-dietary uses" section. I don't think it's needed here too.
  • 1a The final paragraph of "Production" feels like a separate mini-"Production"-section. Some of the material in the final paragraph can be omitted (where it is redundant, e.g. "may be mined conventionally or through the injection of water"), while other facts can be integrated into the other paragraphs. The purification information could be its own paragraph, I suppose, but perhaps it would be best integrated elsewhere in the section.
  • I have made fixes throughout the article for wording and grammar, ranging from extremely-minor to almost-noteworthy. I don't expect any of them to be controversial, but let me know if I'm wrong.
  • 1a In the "Usage in religion" section, the sentence beginning "In Shinto" has an opening parenthesis, but not a closing one. I would fix it myself, but I'm not sure where the closing parenthesis should be.
  • 1b Please check the categories. I'm not sure they're the best ones to use. The categories of Halite and Sodium chloride might be useful.
  • I think I have dealt with the above matters. With regard to the "Health effects" section, I have asked Zad68 for help, but if that does not materialise, I propose to rewrite the section from scratch in my userspace. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:34, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2b and 4 (late addition): Some medically-knowledgeable editors have raised concerns about the "Health effects" section, below. We need to make sure that (in the words of the criteria) the text "represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each", and that it cites "reliable sources" for statements "likely to be challenged", following "scientific citation guidelines" where appropriate. I will not, however, "[demand] the removal of dead links", "[demand] compliance with [my] favorite MoS pages", or "[require] that all viewpoints be presented as equally valid".
Resolved nicely. – Quadell (talk) 18:21, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    All issues resolved.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    All issues resolved.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
    All issues resolved.
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    All issues resolved.
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    I am quite impressed with how this article turned out. It passes all our GA criteria, and I'm happy to promote it. – Quadell (talk) 18:21, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your very thorough review. The article has changed quite a bit under your guidance and I learned quite a lot, especially during the last part when we were working on the health effects section which was quite an eye-opener to me. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:06, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Additional input regarding health effects

[edit]
  • The section on the technical aspects of the health effects of salt looked amateurish to me, so I have tried to improve it with some copy-editing. Of course, sourcing for medical topics are subject to the higher standards of WP:Medicine. Apart from the higher standards of WP:Medicine, I think that batched references as used here are not suitable for WP:V, so the batch of four references for one reference point may not be suitable. I have asked on members of WP:Medicine to have a look in a message on the WikiProject's talk page. Snowman (talk) 11:16, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your valuable improvements to the "Health effects" section, Snowmanradio! You might be interested in the new Health effects of salt article, which is in a far worse condition. The bundled reference regarding national guidelines was my own edit, and I'm not terribly attached to it; if anyone de-bundles them into separate references, it won't effect the GA nomination. But I will note that the guideline Wikipedia:Citing sources recommends "A string of independent citations may also be aesthetically unappealing, so consider bundling them into one." WP:CITEBUNDLE is pretty clear that either option is fine. All the best, – Quadell (talk) 12:33, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"... although others state the risk is minimal for typical western diets." I will be grateful if you could guide me to one of the bundled references, so that I can more easily verify this part of the line. Snowman (talk) 19:29, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure. (It was originally five references side-by-side in the text, which I simply made into one. I did not read and verify each source.) The entire "health effects" section is an attempt by the nominator to summarize the more verbose information which was moved to Health effects of salt. More information is there, and that article links to secondary sources such as [1] and primary sources such as [2], which includes among its conclusions: "the long-term effects of reduced salt intake on blood pressure, mortality, and morbidity in a population with and without hypertension remain undefined". I'm not sure if that can be seen as supporting the statement or not.
Of course the article should give statements that are as accurate as possible about the most up-to-date research on the health effects of salt. Any help you would like to give would be welcome, I'm sure. – Quadell (talk) 20:41, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Behind the Headlines: Is salt good for you? by NICE explains one newspaper report. The other source is from 2009, and I would think that an newer source could be used. Salt reduction strategy could prevent thousands of deaths from CVD, says NICE, 2013, is by NICE. SIGN also has some evidence that looks convincing. Any comments? Snowman (talk) 22:02, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
NICE is certainly reliable, but the 2009 meta-analysis seems (to this layman) to be based on a wider array of data. It's pretty clear that the previous messy version of "health effects" was the result of a back-and-forth disagreement between "Should people reduce their salt?" partisans. I have no dog in that fight, but I think it's important that the brief summary here give respect to both sides (though only in so far as both sides are actually supported by RSes). I'd feel more comfortable if there were more opinions from medically-knowledgeable people here, and I thank you for leaving the comment at the wikiproject. – Quadell (talk) 22:33, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The 2009 study is a meta-analysis of 11 trials and SIGN describes a meta-analysis of 28 trials (see under "4.2 Reducing dietary salt" on the linked webpage). Snowman (talk) 23:11, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notes on health from Zad68

[edit]
section rewritten now so these notes are moot

Quadell asked me to review the health effects section. I looked through about half of it and stopped. I have significant concerns about this section. Overall I mostly do not see the kinds of sources I expect to see to support biomedical information, and I saw at least a few cases where the content was not representing the sources accurately. Salt and health is very well studied and it should be easy to locate top-quality sources. The fact that two of the refs had broken URLs (Food Safety Authority of Ireland, which I fixed, and Safety data for sodium chloride The Physical and Theoretical Chemistry Laboratory of Oxford University, which has been taken offline) made me concerned that the sources really were not checked.

  • Safety data for sodium chloride The Physical and Theoretical Chemistry Laboratory of Oxford University - Red XN - this database is shutdown and offline.
  • The effect of high salt consumption on long term health remains to be clarified.(Dumler 2009) - Red XN - Content does not appear to summarize source accurately. Dumler 2009 appears to be talking about about long-term reduced salt intake, in those with high blood pressure.
  • Health conditions associated with high salt intake include a range of cardiovascular diseases(Strazzullo 2009) - Green tickY/Red XN - Supported by the source but in my opinion understates the emphasis the source is giving. Source says "significantly increased risk of stroke and total cardiovascular disease" and "effect sizes are likely to be underestimated". The source is saying the data shows high salt intake has serious negative consequences, and the real severity is likely larger than the data shows. The source is calling for a population-wide reduction in salt intake.
  • SACN - Red XN - reference is from 2003, only used for two effects, can't something more up to date be found?
  • Food Safety Authority of Ireland 2005 - ? - It seems strange to use a food safety organization for biomedical info that should very easily be found in something produced by a national medical organization, and only to pick one fact out of it
  • Salt Australia: Better Health Channel (Australia, Victoria) - Green tickY - updated 2011, non-commercial, funded by national government, looks OK for general info
  • BBC news story "Salt raises 'stomach cancer risk'" - Red XN - popular-press report on ap primary study fails WP:MEDRS
  • Many countries recommend daily maximum and minimum intakes of salt for their citizens, and inclusion of information on the salt content of food products on labels is obligatory in many countries. - unsourced
  • A study in 2009 showed that typical sodium consumption in 33 countries ranged between 2,700 and 4,900 milligrams (0.095 and 0.17 oz) per day. - sourced to McCarron 2009 - Red XN - I don't expect to see a primary source like this to be found in the main article of a WP:SUMMARY-style article group. It might be fine in the subarticle. The main article needs to summarize the most important points, and secondary sources are needed to do that, so I can't imagine how it should be using a primary source like this.
  • At the other extreme, drinking too much water with insufficient salt intake can cause dilution of blood and put a person at risk of water intoxication. - sourced to "thedea.org" - Red XN - NO, this is not a reliable source, I have no idea what this is but it has nothing to do with the United States Drug Enforcement Administration. I also don't like how consuming too much salt--something very, very common in modern diets--is lined up as an equal problem with water intoxication, which is extremely rare. This is a WP:NPOV problem, maybe WP:GEVAL or WP:UNDUE or something like that, they should not be presented as risks of equal concern when in the sourcing they're not shown to be even in the same ballpark.

I really think this section needs to be reworked thoroughly before I'd be comfortable listing this article as GA. Zad68 02:41, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator has completely reworked several other sections from scratch, and don't doubt his willingness to do so. But summarizing medical information can be a special challenge. Adhering to the (justifiably) high standards of WP:MEDRS is not a requirement for GA status, but being reasonably accurate and neutral is. We just need to find a 2- or 3-paragraph summary that accurate and sourced reliably. I'm sure any assistance would be appreciated! (Ordinarily we would just summarize the information at Health effects of salt, which is what was attempted, but that article is in such poor state that it turns out to be nearly useless as a starting point.) – Quadell (talk) 13:09, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have responded to the above comments made by Zad68 on his talk page. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:30, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'll have a go at giving you a running start on this section, will need a bit of time. Zad68 14:14, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To be on the safe side, I have removed parts of the section, some for the second time in two days. Snowman (talk) 15:09, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Suggested sources for health update
[edit]
section rewritten now using these sources

Here are my suggestions for sources to use to update the health section. I've tried to do the legwork of identifying and linking to the the best, most up-to-date overview sources you'll need. Unfortunately there's a little bit of controversy out there right now, recently several organizations came out with reports that said there's no extra health benefit for very low-sodium diets. Popular press reports have misinterpreted or misrepresented this, basically saying "Everything you've heard about cutting salt is wrong, there's no benefit!" but that's not right. Right now the average person in a developed nation eats a very high-salt diet, and that's clearly been shown to be unhealthy. Everybody agrees that reducing from high-sodium to moderate-sodium is helpful. What the latest info about the low-sodium diets is that it's not clear there's any additional benefit in maintaining a very low sodium diet as compared to a moderate sodium diet. But as everyone eats high sodium diets, efforts to get people to eat less sodium are still well-supported by the evidence.

Overview sources:

Secondary sources:

  • Strazzullo 2009
Salt intake, stroke, and cardiovascular disease: meta-analysis of prospective studies
PMID 19934192
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2782060
Free accesss to full article online
"High salt intake is associated with significantly increased risk of stroke and total cardiovascular disease"
  • IOM 2013
Sodium Intake in Populations: Assessment of Evidence (2013)
http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=18311
Entire book free online
Overview about the dangers of high-sodium diets; surprising new conclusions about the lack of evidence of benefit for low-sodium diets (<1500 mg) ** careful to represent this one accurately
  • Graudal 2011
Effects of low sodium diet versus high sodium diet on blood pressure, renin, aldosterone, catecholamines, cholesterol, and triglyceride
PMID 22071811
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD004022.pub3/abstract
Cochrane - I have access to full article, will email it to you if you'd like
"Low salt diets reduced systolic blood pressure by 1% in white people with normal blood pressure and by 3.5% in white people with elevated blood pressure." ... "Therefore we do not know if low salt diets improve or worsen health outcomes."
  • Aburto 2013
Effect of lower sodium intake on health: systematic review and meta-analyses
PMID 23558163
http://www.bmj.com/content/346/bmj.f1326?view=long&pmid=23558163
From the WHO, free full access to article online
"High quality evidence in non-acutely ill adults ...The totality of evidence suggests that most people will likely benefit from reducing sodium intake."
  • He 2013
Effect of longer term modest salt reduction on blood pressure: Cochrane systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised trials
PMID 23558162
http://www.bmj.com/content/346/bmj.f1325?view=long&pmid=23558162
Cochrane - free access to full article online
"A modest reduction in salt intake for four or more weeks causes significant and, from a population viewpoint, important falls in blood pressure in both hypertensive and normotensive individuals"
  • NICE 2010
PH25 prevention of cardiovascular disease: quick reference guide
http://www.nice.org.uk/nicemedia/live/13024/49274/49274.pdf
NICE guidelines are well-respected, free access to full document online
"High levels of salt in the diet are linked with high blood pressure which, in turn, can lead to stroke and coronary heart disease. High levels of salt in processed food have a major impact on the total amount consumed by the population."

Why not have a go at reviewing and summarizing these sources? I'll provide advice if you'd like. Zad68 15:57, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Does it meet with your satisfaction? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:02, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Diet and health

[edit]

After some great collaboration, I'm happy with it now, except for one bit of content I could not verify against the source. I've tagged it, can you help me find that so we can clear that up and get rid of that tag? Other than that, looks good. I also moved it up to the section on salt used as food, and made some suggested changes to how the images are done. Feel free to tweak further or undo those. Let me know with a ping if you need anything else! Zad68 17:13, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So the article content is "In the United States, 77% of the sodium eaten comes from processed and restaurant foods, 11% from cooking and table use and the rest from what is found naturally in foodstuffs." sourced to www.cdc.gov/salt/food.htm... sorry I just didn't see those states located at that URL, am I just blind or something? Zad68 17:35, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I am just blind, duh, fixing... Zad68 17:36, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Done tag removed, don't mind me. Zad68 17:38, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Salt/GA1&oldid=791888986"