Originally Posted by BonnieDundee:
This is not accurate mate. They are good in moderation but in the levels alot of people are getting them today can be very bad.

Lack of salt will make you go into a comma. Too much is bad for you as well and can be just as dangerous. That's why the tongue is very sensitive to the salt content of the food you are eating. Too much and it tastes repulsive and too little and it tastes horrible as well (no wonder kids are voting with their feet/mothers passing meat pies through the school fence etc.).

It's hardly surprising considering food is one of the primary drivers of evolution. The fittest survive; those who can taste how good the food is have an evolutionary advantage. We are the product of that natural selection process.
[Rep]

Originally Posted by :
Lack of salt will make you go into a comma. Too much is bad for you as well and can be just as dangerous. That's why the tongue is very sensitive to the salt content of the food you are eating. Too much and it tastes repulsive and too little and it tastes horrible as well (no wonder kids are voting with their feet/mothers passing meat pies through the school fence etc.).

Too much over a lifetime is also very bad for you and the tongue is unlikely to pick up on this. In fact the large amounts of salt become addictive.

I don't think it is always as simple as tasting something to decide whether it is bad for you.
[Rep]

Originally Posted by The Nationalist:
It is far easer to look at the political compass than for me to explain where parties stand as there is a good chance I will favour one over the other in my description.

You can also do a test on this site to see where you stand politically although the test normally puts you closer to the centre than you are likely to be.

UK Parties 2008

The advantage of this site is you can see where famous people stand and other political parties around the world.

I was just astounded you were proudly supporting authoritarian.
[Rep]

Originally Posted by The Nationalist:
It is far easer to look at the political compass than for me to explain where parties stand as there is a good chance I will favour one over the other in my description.

You can also do a test on this site to see where you stand politically although the test normally puts you closer to the centre than you are likely to be.

UK Parties 2008

The advantage of this site is you can see where famous people stand and other political parties around the world.

Interesting graph, but I was suprised to see Labour and the Tories the wrong side of the "communist" area.

Though I'm not entirely au-fait with the politcal definitions - what is "neo-liberal" for example ?
[Rep]

The BNP is not much higher than New Labour and the restriction of certain freedoms can actual benefit more people if used correctly.

Nationalist ideology puts the community first rather than individuals so as long as your actions don’t damage the community you actually end up with more personal freedoms. Promotion of difference fractures a community so will be restricted or given as little promotion as possible. Liberal government can just as easily be authoritarian and it is clearly the direction that it is heading when you look how the parties have changed over time. Enforcing fracture is far worse than promoting communities and common beliefs in my opinion.

Labour was on the left when it started as it used to put the workers before the rich companies but now it is extremely right wing and far past the BNP.

Would you prefer the promotion of difference and fractured community as done by liberal ideology or the promotion of the community and common belief restricting fraction such as Nationalist ideology?

It is as simple as that individual over community or community over individual.
[Rep]

Originally Posted by BonnieDundee:
I don't think it is always as simple as tasting something to decide whether it is bad for you.

Not always, when there are foods with artificial flavourings then that can trick us, they can even over stimulate and hence desensitise the taste buds, but for natural food it is generally the case. I'm living proof of it, I have ignored all the dodgy advice on healthy food and have always eaten what I like eating. That includes chips, full fat milk, butter, white bread, sugar and all the rest of it. My weight is exactly what it should be for my height. I measured it ten years ago and it is, to the nearest kilogram, exactly what it was. The body is a very sophisticated system, it knows best what to eat. That is providing the food is natural but of course our hypocritical Nazis have allowed catering firms to install junk food vending machines in schools because that is how they make their profit apparently. So they are two-faced as per usual.
[Rep]

Cholesterol

Originally Posted by :
MYTH: All cholesterol is bad for you

FACT: Not necessarily. 'We need some cholesterol to ensure the body functions properly,' says Dr Rob Hicks, a London-based GP and author of Control Your Blood Pressure. 'It is needed to insulate nerve fibres, to ensure nerve signals travel properly and to make the hormones that carry chemical signals around the body.


Fat or fiction? We crack the myths about cholesterol | Mail Online

And with hormonal imbalances and nerves that don't function correctly, especially the neuron nerves that exist in the brain it would be quite possible to sell any old government policy to the masses. Even rubbish like global warming.
[Rep]

Life is bad for you - we all die
[Rep]

Originally Posted by :
Mother-of-two Dawn Page has won more than £800,000 in damages at the High Court after a radical new detox diet left her brain damaged and epileptic.


The 52-year-old was told to drink an extra four pints of water per day and reduce her salt intake "

She began vomiting uncontrollably within days of going on 'The Amazing Hydration Diet'

Mrs Nash even urged her to increase the amount of water she drank to six pints per day and eat fewer salty foods.

But Mrs Page - who weighed just 12 stone - suffered a massive epileptic fit brought on by severe sodium deficiency less than a week after she started the diet in 2001.


She was rushed to intensive care, but doctors were unable to prevent permanent brain injuries.

Mother wins £800,000 payout after 'four pints of water a day' detox diet leaves her brain damaged | Mail Online

As I was saying, this is what happens when you don't eat salt.
[Rep]

As she drank too much water she effectvely reduced the amount of salt in her bloodstream. You should have about 0.92% salt in your blood as Na+ ions.

What she did meant that water in her plasma went down it's concentration gradient and into her red blood cells, which then balooned and in all likelyhood popped. This is very bad news as the haemoglogin which is nornaly safely contained in red blood cells is released into the plasma. It is exactly the right (wrong?) size to block up the filtration mechanism of the kidneys. In severe cases it can stop the kidneys from working altogether, which will obviously result in death. It is why a severe crush injury to a limb often results in amputation, even if there is hope of saving the limb because there is still some circulation. The doctors cannot risk all that free haemoglobin getting to the kidneys.

The brain damage almost certainly came about as a result of swelling of the neurons in the central nervous system, IE brain and spinal cord. Neurons are particularly suseptible to swelling in such circumstances. The problem is obviously exacerbated by the fact that tissue surrounded by unyielding bone, IE the brain, has nowhere to expand to, and in effect crushes itself.

It is what killed the "ecstacy victim" Leah Betts. Nothing to do with ecstacy, just good old fashioned water intoxication.

There's a link here:

Water intoxication - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Too much salt is unquestionably bad for you. It raises blood pressure, and unfortunately it often causes the body to reset the regulatory mechanism for blood pressure to a new and higher level permanently. Withdrawing the excess Na+ from the diet will not cause the blood pressure to drop.

It's a well topical subject at the minute it seems.

Cutting daily salt intake to six grams could save 14,000 lives, says food watchdog - Times Online
[Rep]