SEARCH VEGSOURCE:
Custom Search

 


Reply To This Post         Return to Posts Index           VegSource Home


From: Salty (118.208.78.237)
Subject:         The Massive Danger of Dougs anti-salt, and Durianrider's drink all the water you want low sodium plan
Date: August 27, 2014 at 9:42 pm PST

This is a re-post of the valid scientific request of Doug
Graham to explain his anti-salt paradigm back in November
2013.

Of course, when confronted with such line of question,
especially that he has cited no credible scientific evidence
to back up his claims in his book, Doug initially responded
to this thread with his defensive curtness before being
probed for more answers and then ignoring before finally
deleting this thread and the many like it have been
systematically deleted from this board.

Durianrider also promotes a low sodium plan (although he has
regular high sodium soy sauce based asian dishes now ---
anyone wonder why???) that is an extremely dangerous
practice. His belief system of drinking excessive water will
kill extremely dehydrated people as noted by the efforts in
the third world to help rehydrate chronically dehydrated
children ,...read below.


Here is a re-post of the discussion that was deleted.

From: Trevor Lockwood (99.33.251.123)
Subject: Question about Salt
Date: November 29, 2013 at 10:00 pm PST
Hello there,
I came across this diet recently and I have just finished
reading the 80/10/10 book.
I am open to the idea of this diet and whilst I cannot
really argue with the logic being presented, I am requiring
some more scientific basis behind some of the more "less-
mainstream" topics discussed. Naturally I began looking at
the references. The book presents a large number of
references to support the conclusions, but there is no
references to support the notion that salt is a toxic
poison. Why are there no references to back up this very
crucial and critical aspect of this diet? If there are
references that I have missed, please can you let me know
what they are?
Surely we cannot simply choose to base the idea of toxicity
on the fact that if we drink sea-water we die, because this
is very much an overdose of salt. We can also overdose on
anything, including water. This doesn't make water toxic.
If salt (sodium-chloride) was toxic then it would kill the
most weak and ill of health individuals. Yet it actually
appears to do the opposite to those in such perilous
conditions when they are placed on a 0.15% sodium chloride
and 0.09% potassium chloride saline drip in hospital.
Wouldn't it make the condition worse rather than improve if
sodium-chloride was inherently toxic regardless of dose?
The reason I ask this question is that I have background in
the World Health treatment of the third world, one of which
is the rehydration projects to treat severe dehydration due
to illnesses that lead to diarrhoea. Up to 1.2 million
children die a year of dehydration, where simply consumption
of water has been not sufficient since it doesn't "hold" in
their bodies. This is why Oral Rehydration Solutions are
given. Rehydration is the replenishment of water AND
electrolytes lost through dehydration, not water alone.
The options given for treatment is use with either: Half
(1/2) teaspoon Salt and Six (6) teaspoons sugar or 1 packet
of Oral Rehydration Salts (ORS). The ORS solution consists
of 75 mEq/l of sodium, 75 mmol/l of glucose, 65 mEq/l
chloride, 20 mEq/l potassium, and 10 mEq/l citrate. Without
the use of salt solutions millions upon millions in their
most weakest conditions are saved instead of perishing. To
call Salt a toxic poison is actually crucially careless
advice to those who may be dehydrated and choose to not
rectify their electrolytes correctly. Perhaps this should be
clarified that over-consumption of salt is toxic, and this
could be said of anything. But it is my opinion from reading
his book that he advocates zero consumption of salt, advice
which goes against the grain of any real scientific logic
and research. I am seeking Dr Graham's clarification on what
he believes as the tipping point where we draw the line on a
toxic dose of sodium chloride?
I understand that their will be view that sufficient
electrolytes will be consumed through adequate fruit
consumption. The proof is in the people who survive and
potentially thrive without salt consumption. Yes, this is
possible. But correlation does not imply causation when it
comes to the sodium-chloride toxicity level.
Sodium and chloride are simply ionic minerals, and they are
crucial within the body as are all the other minerals. They
are not toxic in and of themselves, but they are when
overdosed, just like any other mineral or substance can be.
I understand that over-consumption of salt is a true and
real problem in our society. But I honestly feel that salt
is not toxic as of itself, only when over-consumed. If Dr
Graham feels differently, then I would like to hear his
views and if possible the scientific research to back his
statements since the book did not have references to this
very crucial health issue.
My ultimate and only concern in asking this question is that
if someone who embarks on this diet finds themselves in a
situation where they require emergency rehydration whether
through a hospital drip or ORS they may choose to forgo
proper treatment because they hold onto this ideal that salt
of any form or dose is toxic. When in a weakened state of
health, such an ideology will only strengthen their desire
to resist proven rehydration treatment since in a weakened
state themselves they will believe that the salt will make
them worse, rather than better.


From: Randall (67.142.182.26)
Subject: for those extenuating
circumstances...
Date: November 30, 2013 at 1:16 am PST
In Reply to: Question about Salt posted by Trevor Lockwood
on November 29, 2013 at 10:00 pm:
The work to help the less privileged is a noble cause;
thanks for being involved in trying to make conditions
better for them.
I don't have the studies you request but I respond anyway
because I think you're missing a bigger point.
80/10/10 is about optimal diet under optimal conditions.
Most of us that have circumstances that allow the reading of
the 80/10/10 book or browse here and learn have luxuries
beyond bare survival. To address your stated concern, Dr. D
has frequently stated very clearly that no ideology or
philosophy is worth dying for. Under conditions where ideal
foods are not available or in medical emergencies, people
must do what they can to survive. Ideally, we would consume
neither inorganic salt nor plain water nor the two mixed
together. But, if the choice is between nothing and saline,
I'm first in line for the saline in that emergency
situation. Anyone who fears a little salt in a saline drip
while dying of dehydration has had a complete breakdown in
common sense. Hopefully, someone like you will be around to
help them through.


From: Trevor Lockwood (99.33.251.123)
Subject: Re: for those extenuating
circumstances...
Date: November 30, 2013 at 1:41 am PST
In Reply to: for those extenuating circumstances... posted
by Randall on November 30, 2013 at 1:16 am:
Hi Randall,
Thank you for your reply. I understand your points, but it
still remains that if this is the position, then similar
statements should also have been stated clearly in the book
so that no one carries a pre- conceived notion. Of course no
one would willingly die for an ideology, but can you
consider that people have died or will die because they
didn't believe their ideology would actually kill them? I
would suggest that the majority of readers of the 80/10/10
book would never stumble across the subsequent clarifying
statements of Dr Graham in this forum if they have been
made.
If what you state is actually the prevailing view of Dr
Graham then it would also then entail the belief that salt
is only toxic in overdose, and it therefore has as a
beneficial remedy use and is not in of itself toxic as the
book suggests.
My concern remains that by making a blanket statement that
salt is toxic without scientific reference and also without
clarifying the position regarding its ability to be a life
saving remedy that has been proven and has saved millions of
lives from cholera and other illnesses that lead to
dehydration, then the statements/advice in the book are at
best careless, and at worst deadly.
Having read through some forums I am not filled with
confidence that advocates of this diet would believe that
salt could and would be a life-saving remedy in an emergency
situation. I have also seen a general theme from some posts
of the difficulties people are experiencing on this diet who
appear to exhibit some symptoms of dehydration, but of
course many of these symptoms are so broad it is
circumstantial and could be for many reasons. I think
genuinely this could be a promising diet; however, there are
thousands upon thousands of scientific studies about
electrolytes and their role in human health. It seems that
this diet can meet those electrolytes but at times with a
level of difficulty that could simply be met through
supplementation with a small amount of sodium- chloride. It
does not make any real sense to me to throw the baby out
with the bathwater in this situation regarding salt when
there has been no scientific research or evidence regarding
its toxicity at therapeutic dosage. I stand corrected if any
can be supplied.
Thanks in advice,
Trevor.


From: I agree (76.29.162.55)
Subject: Re: for those extenuating
circumstances...
Date: November 30, 2013 at 2:48 am PST
In Reply to: Re: for those extenuating circumstances...
posted by Trevor Lockwood on November 30, 2013 at 1:41 am:
Your educated and astute replies are accurate, Trevor. The
no salt theory is based on a nearly century and a half old
natural hygiene belief that has since been proven false by
actual science. This statement about salt being toxic is
only a belief, hence why there is no reference.

From: Dr. Doug Graham (DrGraham.vegsource.com)
Subject: Re: for those extenuating
circumstances...
Date: November 30, 2013 at 1:48 am PST
In Reply to: for those extenuating circumstances... posted
by Randall on November 30, 2013 at 1:16 am:
Randall,
Thanks for this rational post. I agree completely.
Trevor,
You missed the point, and I understand that your own
background caused you to do so. What I said in The 80/10/10
Diet is that adding salt to your food is counterproductive,
that we can get exactly the correct quantity of sodium and
chloride from our food. At that point, any additional salt
is toxic. As you are undoubtedly aware, many people die
every year from dehydration resulting from the over-
consumption of salt. Many of these deaths are suicides, btw.


From: Trevor Lockwood (99.33.251.123)
Subject: Re: for those extenuating
circumstances...
Date: November 30, 2013 at 2:53 am PST
In Reply to: Re: for those extenuating circumstances...
posted by Dr. Doug Graham on November 30, 2013 at 1:48 am:
Hi Dr Graham,
Thank you for your time in addressing my concerns. Here are
three quotes from your book: "Plain table salt is so toxic
that even when extremely diluted, as it is in sea water, it
is still deadly"
"Extracted sodium chloride, in any form is an irritant and
is toxic to the body."
"We must take care to distinguish here between extracted
sodium chloride "salt" (which is deadly), and the sodium and
other salts that occur naturally and abundantly in whole
plant foods"
These are statements that do not entirely fit your
explanation that: "What I said in The 80/10/10 Diet is that
adding salt to your food is counterproductive, that we can
get exactly the correct quantity of sodium and chloride from
our food."
I would certainly address the fact that "counterproductive"
does not equate to your more actual and somewhat extremist
statements about deadly toxicity.
I agree that many people indeed die from salt related over
consumption. Again we are talking over consumption, not
straight out toxicity as you are actually stated.
Nonetheless, I wish to re-direct closely to the second
quote: "Extracted sodium chloride, in any form is an
irritant and is toxic to the body." This is not true in
practice, and I am attempting to find the basis for your
claim. Extracted sodium chloride is not an irritant and
toxic, if it was then a saline drip or ORS solutions would
kill people in their most weakest and ill state. In practice
this statement simply does not add up to what is occurring
in hospitals and other places of health based assistance
throughout the world. In my experience anyway.
This is why I have my overall concern. Someone who reads
your statement that "Extracted sodium chloride, in any form
is an irritant and is toxic to the body" may possibly choose
to deny themselves life saving treatment involving this
substance in the event of taking your book's statement
literally. Perhaps you were not attempting to be literal,
but whilst you suggest I am missing the point, I am not
actually. You agreed with Randall's post, therefore you do
agree that in an emergency situation sodium chloride in its
extracted form is beneficial. This is in complete contrast
to that quote in your book that "in any form" it is toxic
and irritating. Thanks for further consideration of my
concern.


From: Dr. Doug Graham (DrGraham.vegsource.com)
Subject: Re: for those extenuating
circumstances...
Date: November 30, 2013 at 1:27 pm PST
In Reply to: Re: for those extenuating circumstances...
posted by Trevor Lockwood on November 30, 2013 at 2:53 am:
I am not really sure what you are looking for.
Are you looking for me to be wrong, and you right?
Can you show me an example of people eating healthy foods
(say, low-fat raw vegan) who would not be harmed by the
addition of salt?
You continue to use IV drip as an example, but most people
on drips are not also eating food, the drip has replaced
their food.
Sorry, I just don't see what you are hoping for, in terms of
the outcome of this conversation.
One ounce of salt will kill a person not attenuated to
eating salt, and two ounces will kill the attenuated
individual. That seems pretty darn toxic to me.

From: Trevor Lockwood (99.33.251.123)
Subject: Re: for those extenuating
circumstances...
Date: November 30, 2013 at 3:01 pm PST
In Reply to: Re: for those extenuating circumstances...
posted by Dr. Doug Graham on November 30, 2013 at 1:27 pm:
Hello Dr Graham,
I have asked you several questions that you have yet to
answer. Again you like to point out that an overdose of salt
is toxic. You use toxicity so lets scientificly approach it:
From Yale about toxicity:
"A substance can produce the harmful effect associated with
its toxic properties only if it reaches a susceptible
biological system within your body in a sufficient
concentration (a high enough dose). The toxic effect of a
substance increases as the exposure (or dose) to the
susceptible biological system increases. For all chemicals
there is a dose response curve, or a range of doses that
result in a graded effect between the extremes of no effect
and 100% response (toxic effect). All chemical substances
will exhibit a toxic effect given a large enough dose. If
the dose is low enough even a highly toxic substance will
cease to cause a harmful effect. The toxic potency of a
chemical is thus ultimately defined by the dose (the amount)
of the chemical that will produce a specific response in a
specific biological system."
According to this medical study:
http://facta.junis.ni.ac.rs/mab/mab200503/mab200503-
06.pdf
"The toxic oral dose of salt is 0.5-1 g/kg of body weight,
whereas the fatal dose amounts to about 1- 3 g/kg of body
weight, depending on the age, gender, general health state,
and other individual characteristics"
Your example used an ounce (lets say 28g) as a toxic dose of
Salt. Typically, a very saltly meal may be 1000mg, but a
therapeutic dosage of salt will be much less. But anyway
lets use a magnitude of 28:1 that would be considered toxic,
a fatal dose would have to be around 65g for a 65kg
individual making it a 65:1 ratio.
One girl died from excessive water consumption from drinking
six litres of water. People will not die drinking six litres
of water spread over time, but the fatal aspect happened
because it was consumed at one time. It is not uncommon for
people to drink 1L of water at one time. Here we have a
fatal dosage of as little as 6:1 not even encroaching on the
65:1 ratio of salt fatality.
The only reason either salt or water is toxic because it
disturbs the delicate balance of normal serum sodium levels
that are between approximately 135 and 145 mEq/L (135 - 145
mmol/L).
Excessive salt consumption leads to hypernatraemia and
excessive water consumption leads to hyponatraemia.
Hypernatraemia is considered when plasma sodium
concentration are above 157 mEq/L and values above 180 mEq/L
are associated with a high mortality rate. Hyponatremia is
generally defined as a serum level of less than 135 mEq/L
and is considered severe when the serum level is below 125
mEq/L.
The only reason salt is toxic is because of disturbance to
the serum sodium levels. Water does the exact same thing in
excess.
In of itself Salt is no more or less toxic than water. They
just disturb this delicate balance one way or another.
In the case of Hyponatremia when sodium serum falls, then
the use of sodium-chloride is used to return balance. In the
case of Hypernatremia, the use of water is used to dilute to
the serium sodium level. That is why when an over salty meal
is consumed, thirst ensues. People only die drinking sea
water is because they also need plain water to bring the
serum sodium level back down.
If you are going to claim salt is toxic regardless of dose,
then you must also apply similar logic to water.
Salt is a combination of two minerals, it is inherit to
sustaining life since we need it in a balance. To maintain
serum sodium levels we have to replinish the supply. A diet
high in water based foods, requires an additional
corresponding level of sodium for the body to sustain this
delicate balance.
In the case of illness or any reason that this delicate
balance is altered, then the use of salt is simply a remedy,
just as water can be a remedy. Therapeutic dosage of sodium-
chloride is in mg form and are certainly nowhere near the
dosages required for either toxicity or death.
I have already pointed out an overdose of any mineral and
even water can be fatal. I'm sure in even less ounces of
weight even Zinc, Iron, Selenium, Manganese, Magnesium are
also fatal if consumed. Yet these minerals are still
essential to health. This does not make Zinc toxic in
therapeutic/health supporting doses. This does not make
Magnesium toxic in therapeutic/health supporting doses.
You seem confused about what I have asked of you, so here
are three questions. I respect your education Dr Graham and
I am attempting to have a civil and scientific based
discussion with you. I will walk away if I receive a
flippant response, but it will show you in that light.
Alternatively, you may choose to respond to my question
intelligently in appropriate fashion to that you have
attempted in trying to write a scientifically credible diet
book. In attempting to do so you must warrant and allow
scientific questioning of your claims. I have not sensed
from you an openness to do so in your short responses as of
yet, and this is disappointing. So here are my questions to
make it more easier for you.

1. Can you acknowledge that sodium-chloride is beneficial to
the human organism in therapeutic dose because it can re-
balance normal serum sodium levels?
2. I have requested any scientific sources that backup your
claim that "Extracted sodium chloride, in any form is an
irritant and is toxic to the body." From your responses this
appears to be a personal opinion, not based in any real
scientific reality. All science on salt toxicity implies
excessive dosage. I have yet to find a report that agrees
that salt is toxic regardless of dose. Should you not answer
this question once more then I will take it as tacit
agreement from you that your comments were not based in any
real scientific reality, and thus are opinion only. Then we
all know where you stand.
3. You commented: "You continue to use IV drip as an
example, but most people on drips are not also eating food,
the drip has replaced their food." The reason I have used
this as an example because it is the most extreme example of
when "extracted sodium chloride" is used in emergency
situations to help sick people get well. If the extracted
form (of any dose) was an irritant and toxic as you
mentioned in your book, then it should make sick people
worse. It appears you are accepting this is not the case,
but skirting the issue on directly saying so. I think this
is careless and possibly lacking in ethics holding onto some
outdated natural hygiene idealistic standpoint as another
person highlighted. Ultimately, science does not stand by
your claims. So it is up to you as a Doctor with an attempt
at a scientific credible book to show the alternative
science when going directly against mainstream belief. A
flippant response to valid questions shows that there is no
credibility to your claim. That is all. No personal attack
intended. I have been open trying to explore your claim with
honesty and integrity, that is why I have asked for evidence
from you in a civil fashion.
In openness and fairness
Trevor Lockwood

Reply To This Post         Return to Posts Index           VegSource Home


Follow Ups:


    


Post Reply

Name:
E-mail: (optional)
Subject:

Comments:

Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL:



See spam or
inappropriate posts?
Please let us know.
  


Want to see more videos? Subscribe to VegSource!

Every time we post a new video, we'll send you a notice by e-mail.

No spam ever and you can easily unsubscribe at anytime.

Enter your email address, your first name, and press Submit.


Your Email:
First Name:
Newsletter archive

Infomercial production direct marketing