SALT [REPOSTS] (WAS: raw children)

August 31, 2007

Hi Scott, people who remove salt from their diet are ALWAYS glad they did! Following are two posts I wrote about a year ago.In the first of these 2 posts, , I respond to various claims people are repeating about the virtues of this or that salt (Himalayan, Utah, schmootah, I cannot remember which one was being pushed at the time.) In the second, I respond to someone who disagreed at that time, introducing some discussion about retracing and about the nature of "deficiencies". Enjoy!!

Elchanan

REPOST #1: Salt: It does a body no good [Raw Food #24804; PathOfHealth #90]

Please please please ... don't be taken in by this material.

It is true that sodium chloride is one mineral salt, and that there are many other substances in chemistry called "mineral salts". But sodium chloride is sodium chloride, the body cannot digest it regardless of where it comes from or what else is in the mixture. The fact that sodium chloride is accompanied by 1-2% of other materials that MAY be useful does not changed the terribly harmful nature of the sodium chloride itself. The authors of this (and other) articles cannot, for all their wishful thinking and marketing zeal, change the laws of physics, nor the fundamental designs of plants and animals, respectively.

Suppose I were to say to you, "Here is a wonderful product. True, the medium, 98% of the product's material, is caustic to your system and will have serious "side effects". But the other 1-2%, wow, what a find! You've just gotta eat this to be healthy!" Any sane person would immediately realize that no matter what is in the 1-2%, consuming 98% caustic material is not a good idea at all.

If salt products -- any salt products -- substance were sold as a drug, the FDA would require a "side-effects" warning! But because the same substances are sold as food, no such warning is required. This is actually true. Example: acetic acid is sold to chemistry labs in a jug labeled with a skull and cross-bones: DANGEROUS!! But in a 5% solution with water, it is renamed "vinegar" and considered food! So as the entire population suffers from acidosis -- overwhelming the body with acid-forming substances, we all collectively take a substance that contains NOTHING other than acid and water, and label if food!

So it is with all the "wonderful" salt products -- sea salt, Celtic salt, "Himalayan" salt, and so forth. When one adds sodium chloride to water, the water becomes heavier . For example, sea water is heavier than fresh water -- always -- at any given altitude (atmospheric pressure). This is why ANYONE can float in the Dead Sea.

When we add salt to the blood (roughly 85% water):

- the blood literally becomes heavier, and a bit thicker

- the burden on the heart increases 24x7 to move the same volume of blood the same distance

- the pressure in the circulatory system rises, at least a bit

- the blood becomes more abrasive against the walls of the blood vessels

- the capacity of the blood to absorb other genuinely necessary materials -- including usable minerals!!! -- into solution is diminished. A given volume of water can only hold so much material in solution, period.

and many, many other immediate, unavoidable negative effects. These are not "side-effects", they are direct effects, occurring in 100% of cases. The laws of physics so mandate. And as I've written previously, the body simply cannot digest (break down) nor make other constructive use of ionically bonded salt. The correct quantity of ionically bonded salt in the human diet is zero.

The minerals you seek are found in adequate quantities AND in a digestible form in fruits and greens, particularly if these foods come from decent sources. An excess of any material, minerals or otherwise, constitutes foreign matter and places an additional eliminative burden upon the body.

And going a step further, what has let you into a self-diagnosis that you are deficient in this or that mineral? And even if you are, do you understand the cause of the deficiency?

In almost every case when someone does turn up deficient in some mineral, the first cause is not diet. Rather, the first cause is leaching from the body. When we consume primarily acid-forming foods (as most Westerners do), the body MUST "lighten" or "weaken" the acids before the residue can be safely eliminated. To accomplish this, and in the absence of a RELATIVELY insufficient supply of alkalizing minerals, the body draws against its own mineral reserves -- primarily calcium stored in the bones and in other lean tissue, but also magnesium and other substances.

By "relatively insufficient supply of alkalizing minerals", I mean, in proportion to the volume of acid-forming material consumed. Once we go raw, or even low-fat vegan, we dramatically reduce the volume of acid-forming material we introduce into the system, and this leaching process rapidly dissipates. Then, and ONLY then, can the body begin to rebuild its mineral reserves. Until the leaching stops, there is NOTHING one can eat that will enable the body to replenish its reserves, the metabolic capacity simply cannot keep pace with the rate of use of the minerals.

Example: menses. Western women dump enormous quantities of minerals during menses. This occurs, not because this phenomenon is biologically "normal", but because it is ubiquitous -- women's bodies are so filled with foreign matter, their bodies use any available avenue for dumping the trash. And as a result, most women are iron deficient. Now, mainstream thinking would have us believe that the answer is to consume more, or "better", or "different" iron sources.

But the body can NEVER metabolize enough iron to offset the ongoing loss in menses. The ONLY viable solution is to stop the loss, the leaching of these essential minerals and other resources from the body. And this can be accomplished ONLY by reducing (or stopping) the ingestion of trash in the first place.

In other words, the solution lies at its cause, not in any form of treatment. The mindset that we must "take" or eat extra minerals or vitamins or whatever the "deficiency of the month" may be, always leads to treatment -- the sale of useless and indeed counterproductive products to a terribly uneducated population. (No insult intended, but when was the last time YOU took a math, physics, or chemistry course -- and understood what was being taught?)

Other factors are also important WRT mineral utilization and construction of healthy tissue:

- Inadequate sunshine adversely effects metabolism of calcium (and therefore many subsequent metabolic activities). There is no food that substitutes for sunshine, though many would advocate otherwise.

- Physical activity -- load-bearing and/or impactful activity in particular -- stimulates the body to construct bone, muscle, and other lean tissue. NOTHING ELSE STIMULATES THE BODY TO INCREASE SUCH LEAN TISSUE.Example: 100% astronauts experience bone density loss, even though they may be in space for only a few days. Why? In a "zero-gravity" environment, there is no "natural resistance" when we perform normal human activities. So not only does the body not construct NEW lean tissue, it actually loses lean tissue, and quickly. Pertinent to our discussion here, no food or other ingestible substance substitutes for such physical activity.

From my own experience working with people, salt may very well be one of the most challenging food habituations in modern society. Why? Salts in any quantity -- and here I DO mean ionically bonded mineral salts in general -- overwhelm the taste buds; the tongue and taste buds become inflamed and swollen, and the taste buds become relatively ineffective. We lose at least a portion of our capacity to use our sense of taste distinguish the best foods for us, to distinguish satiation, to distinguish thirst from hunger. People experience a "need" for more spices and other condiments in order to "enjoy" the foods they consume. The mouth becomes dry (relatively) and no longer produces well balanced saliva or metabolizes carbohydrates properly.

Further, the thermal capacity of the blood itself -- the capacity of the blood to heat and cool the body -- is adversely effected by the presence of even a minute quantity of salt in the blood. And the list of adverse effects goes on. Consuming sodium chloride, regardless of what may be mixed in with it, is a VERY expensive proposition.

So to create health:

1. Stop performing uninformed self-diagnosis. 2. Eat primarily fruits and greens. Cut the fat and the protein; cut the salt and the spices/condiments. 3. Get plenty of sunshine and fresh air. 4. Become physically active, at whatever your present capacity may tolerate. 5. Sleep and REST well. 6. Seek the best relationships you can imagine. 7. Laugh out loud whenever possible -- no matter who else is present. 8. Enjoy life!

Best to all,

Elchanan

REPOST #1: Salt: It does a body no good (continued); Retracing; Deficiencies [Raw Food #24873; PathOfHealth #125]

Cindy

Monday, August 14, 2006 9:07 PM

rawfood

[Raw Food] Re: Salt: It does a body no good (WAS: Unrefined sea salt v. refined

Hi Elchanan,

I don't agree with your 'logic' with regard to something being toxic no matter what it's concentration. If you followed your theory through to it's logical conclusion most compounds in the human body are doing it harm????? Hydrochloric acid is a harmful substance but without it we cannot digest food. Too large a dose of potassium is fatal but so to is too little. Large doses of sodium chloride acidify the body but too little leads to metabolic alkalosis, low fluid volume and urinary potassium loss. Just because a substance is toxic in a certain dosage dose not follow that it is toxic in all doses - in fact the very same substance could very well be therapeutic in a certain dose. I also do not understand your reasoning that an ionic bond in of itself is a 'bad' thing. (I do have a chemistry back ground and am married to a Chemistry Professor). Obviously sodium chloride is an ionic bond and this occurs naturally within our bodies when the chloride anion and the sodium cation join and is vital for our metabolic function (and therefore survival). How is this a 'bad' or undesirable thing? How do you suppose you would make a mineral salt if not by ionic bonding???? Cindy

______________

Greetings Cindy, and thanks so very much for responding to my post. I enthusiastically welcome your input, and I hope that together, we might turn this dialog into a nice learning experience. First I'll respond on several specific points you've raised, then I'll make a request to continue the conversation. I hope you'll choose to participate!!

You write: "I don't agree with your 'logic' with regard to something being toxic no matter what it's concentration.... Just because a substance is toxic in a certain dosage dose not follow that it is toxic in all doses..." As a generalization, I agree completely, and if I have given the impression otherwise, then I have communicated unclearly.

You continue: "...in fact the very same substance could very well be therapeutic in a certain dose." Here I sense that we hold different perspectives. I believe in Nature's design, that is, I believe the body monitors, cleanses, and restores itself. Except in cases of trauma (and a few other very rare circumstances), I do not use nor recommend treatments of any kind; these only serve to block the body's own, natural processes.

We may observe evidence that this is so, for example, when people experience "retracing" of old symptoms. This term was first used, to my knowledge, by Samuel Hahnemann, originator of homeopathic. Basically, whenever the body has begun a cleansing / restoration process, and that process is blocked from completion (whether by trauma, therapeutic intervention, poor diet and lifestyle), then eventually, given the opportunity, the body may reproduce the original symptoms, to a degree, as it completes the restoration process.

Almost all reported deficiencies in western societies are a myth. For it is not from a dietary deficiency, but rather from endless leaching out of valuable material faster than the body can ever possibly replace that material, that causes what are perceived as "deficiencies". The term "deficiency" implies that the solution lies in "taking something". But if we understand that the process is really one of excessive loss, and not one of insufficient gain, then we may take steps to remove the cause of the loss. In general, this means that we must stop ingesting something, or change some aspect of our behavior to reduce stressors in our lives, etc.

Such a shift occurs, for example, when people switch from eating largely cooked to largely raw foods, and particularly if they choose foods that are highly alkalizing to the body and well-matched to its digestive capacities. These include primarily fruits and greens, which are high in water and therefore oxygen, high in fuel (simple sugars), high in vitamins and minerals, etc. AND low in proteins, fats, and hard indigestible fiber.

Anyway, my point here is simply that I do not seek nor recommend anything for its "therapeutic" properties; I believe that all such interventions (except in cases of trauma, as I stated above, and occasionally with the exception of certain energetic modalities), are directly counterproductive.

Returning to the salt topic ... you write: "Obviously sodium chloride is an ionic bond and this occurs naturally within our bodies when the chloride anion and the sodium cation join and is vital for our metabolic function (and therefore survival." Are you suggesting here that our bodies create sodium chloride internally? If so, then I'd surely love to know where in the body this occurs, and under what circumstances, and I'd be truly grateful if you would share that information.

All of which leads me to my request: Would you be willing to share exactly where in the body, and by what process, sodium chloride is broken apart, such that the sodium ion and the chloride ion become permanently separated and indecently available? For if I am incorrect, then I would truly love to know!

Thanks,

Elchanan