Water’s Counterintuitive Properties

10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.

It’s Q&A Day at 10almonds!

Have a question or a request? We love to hear from you!

In cases where we’ve already covered something, we might link to what we wrote before, but will always be happy to revisit any of our topics again in the future too—there’s always more to say!

As ever: if the question/request can be answered briefly, we’ll do it here in our Q&A Thursday edition. If not, we’ll make a main feature of it shortly afterwards!

So, no question/request too big or small

❝Why are we told to drink more water for everything, even if sometimes it seems like the last thing we need? Bloated? Drink water. Diarrhea? Drink water. Nose running like a tap? Drink water❞

While water will not fix every ill, it can fix a lot, or at least stop it from being worse!

Our bodies are famously over 60% water (exact figure will depend on how well-hydrated you are, obviously, as well as your body composition in terms of muscle and fat). Our cells (which are mostly full of mostly water) need replacing all the time, and almost everything that needs transporting almost anywhere is taken there by blood (which is also mostly water). And if we need something moving out of the body? Water is usually going to be a large part of how it gets ejected.

In the cases of the examples you gave…

  • Bloating: bloating is often a matter of water retention, which often happens as a result of having too much salt, and/or sometimes too much fat. So the body’s homeostatic system (the system that tries to maintain all kinds of equilibrium, keeping salt balance, temperature, pH, and many other things in their respective “Goldilocks zones”) tries to add more water to where it’s needed to balance out the salt etc.
    • Consequently, drinking more water means the body will note “ok, balance restored, no need to keep retaining water there, excess salts being safely removed using all this lovely water”.
  • Diarrhea: this is usually a case of a bacterial infection, though there can be other causes. Whether for that reason or another, the body has decided that it needs to give your gut an absolute wash-out, and it can only do that from the inside—so it uses as much of the body’s water as it needs to do that.
    • Consequently, drinking more water means that you are replenishing the water that the body has already 100% committed to using. If you don’t drink water, you’ll still have diarrhea, you’ll just start to get dangerously dehydrated.
  • Runny nose: this is usually a case of either fighting a genuine infection, or else fighting something mistaken for a pathogen (e.g. pollen, or some other allergen). The mucus is an important part of the body’s defense: it traps the microbes (be they bacteria, virus, whatever) and water-slides them out of the body.
    • Consequently, drinking more water means the body can keep the water-slide going. Otherwise, you’ll just get gradually more dehydrated (because as with diarrhea, your body will prioritize this function over maintaining water reserves—water reserves are there to be used if necessary, is the body’s philosophy) and if the well runs dry, you’ll just be dehydrated and have a higher pathogen-count still in your body.

Some previous 10almonds articles that might interest you:

Would you like this section to be bigger? If so, send us more questions!

Don’t Forget…

Did you arrive here from our newsletter? Don’t forget to return to the email to continue learning!

Recommended

  • Study Tips for Exam Season?
  • Hazelnuts vs Chestnuts – Which is Healthier?
    Hazelnuts trump chestnuts in protein, healthy fats, and vitamins, sporting a low glycemic index of 15 for better nutritional value.

Learn to Age Gracefully

Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails:

  • Water Water Everywhere, But Which Is Best To Drink?

    10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.

    Well Well Well…

    In Tuesday’s newsletter, we asked you for your (health-related) opinion on drinking water—with the understanding that this may vary from place to place. We got the above-depicted, below-described, set of responses:

    • About 65% said “Filtered is best”
    • About 20% said “From the mains is best”
    • About 8% said “Bottled is best”
    • About 3% said “Distilled is best”
    • About 3% said “Some other source is best”

    Of those who said “some other source is best”, one clarified that their preferred source was well water.

    So what does the science say?

    Fluoridated water is bad for you: True or False?

    False, assuming a normal level of consumption. Rather than take up more space today though, we’ll link to what we previously wrote on this topic:

    Q&A: Water Fluoridation

    You may be wondering: but what if my level of consumption is higher than normal?

    Let’s quickly look at some stats:

    • The maximum permitted safety level varies from place to place, but is (for example) 2mg/l in the US, 1.5mg/l in Canada & the UK.
    • The minimum recommended amount also varies from place to place, but is (for example) 0.7mg/l in Canada and the US, and 1mg/l in the UK.

    It doesn’t take grabbing a calculator to realize that if you drink twice as much water as someone else, then depending on where you are, water fluoridated to the minimum may give you more than the recommended maximum.

    However… Those safety margins are set so much lower than the actual toxicity levels of fluoride, that it doesn’t make a difference.

    For example: your writer here takes a medication that has the side effect of causing dryness of the mouth, and consequently she drinks at least 3l of water per day in a climate that could not be described as hot (except perhaps for about 2 weeks of the year). She weighs 72kg (that’s about 158 pounds), and the toxicity of fluoride (for ill symptoms, not death) is 0.2mg/kg. So, she’d need 14.4mg of fluoride, which even if the water fluoridation here were 2mg/l (it’s not; it’s lower here, but let’s go with the highest figure to make a point), would require drinking more than 7l of water faster than the body can process it.

    For more about the numbers, check out:

    Acute Fluoride Poisoning from a Public Water System

    Bottled water is the best: True or False?

    False, if we consider “best” to be “healthiest”, which in turn we consider to be “most nutrients, with highest safety”.

    Bottled water generally does have higher levels of minerals than most local mains supply water does. That’s good!

    But you know what else is generally has? Microplastics and nanoplastics. That’s bad!

    We don’t like to be alarmist in tone; it’s not what we’re about here, but the stats on bottled water are simply not good; see:

    We Are Such Stuff As Bottles Are Made Of

    You may be wondering: “but what about bottled water that comes in glass bottles?”

    Indeed, water that comes in glass bottles can be expected to have lower levels of plastic than water that comes in plastic bottles, for obvious reasons.

    However, we invite you to consider how likely you believe it to be that the water wasn’t stored in plastic while being processed, shipped and stored, before being portioned into its final store-ready glass bottles for end-consumer use.

    Distilled water is the best: True or False?

    False, generally, with caveats:

    Distilled water is surely the safest water anywhere, because you know that you’ve removed any nasties.

    However, it’s also devoid of nutrients, because you also removed any minerals it contained. Indeed, if you use a still, you’ll be accustomed to the build-up of these minerals (generally simplified and referenced as “limescale”, but it’s a whole collection of minerals).

    Furthermore, that loss of nutrients can be more than just a “something good is missing”, because having removed certain ions, that water could now potentially strip minerals from your teeth. In practice, however, you’d probably have to swill it excessively to cause this damage.

    Nevertheless, if you have the misfortune of living somewhere like Flint, Michigan, then a water still may be a fair necessity of life. In other places, it can simply be useful to have in case of emergency, of course.

    Here’s an example product on Amazon if you’d like to invest in a water still for such cases.

    PS: distilled water is also tasteless, and is generally considered bad, tastewise, for making tea and coffee. So we really don’t recommend distilling your water unless you have a good reason to do so.

    Filtered water is the best: True or False?

    True for most people in most places.

    Let’s put it this way: it can’t logically be worse than whatever source of water you put into it…

    Provided you change the filter regularly, of course.

    Otherwise, after overusing a filter, at best it won’t be working, and at worst it’ll be adding in bacteria that have multiplied in the filter over however long you left it there.

    You may be wondering: can water filters remove microplastics, and can they remove minerals?

    The answer in both cases is: sometimes.

    • For microplastics it depends on the filter size and the microplastic size (see our previous article for details on that).
    • For minerals, it depends on the filter type. Check out:

    The H2O Chronicles | 5 Water Filters That Remove Minerals

    One other thing to think about: while most water filtration jugs are made of PFAS-free BPA-free plastics for obvious reasons, for greater peace of mind, you might consider investing in a glass filtration jug, like this one ← this is just one example product on Amazon; by all means shop around and find one you like

    Take care!

    Share This Post

  • For Many Rural Women, Finding Maternity Care Outweighs Concerns About Abortion Access

    10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.

    BAKER CITY, Ore. — In what has become a routine event in rural America, a hospital maternity ward closed in 2023 in this small Oregon town about an hour from the Idaho border.

    For Shyanne McCoy, 23, that meant the closest hospital with an obstetrician on staff when she was pregnant was a 45-mile drive away over a mountain pass.

    When McCoy developed symptoms of preeclampsia last January, she felt she had the best chance of getting the care she needed at a larger hospital in Boise, Idaho, two hours away. She spent the final week of her pregnancy there, too far from home to risk leaving, before giving birth to her daughter.

    Six months later, she said it seems clear to her that the health care needs of rural young women like her are largely ignored.

    For McCoy and others, figuring out how to obtain adequate care to safely have a baby in Baker City has quickly eclipsed concerns about another medical service lacking in the area: abortion. But in Oregon and elsewhere in the country, progressive lawmakers’ attempts to expand abortion access sometimes clash with rural constituencies.

    Oregon is considered one of the most protective states in the country when it comes to abortion. There are no legal limits on when someone can receive an abortion in the state, and the service is covered by its Medicaid system. Still, efforts to expand access in the rural, largely conservative areas that cover most of the state have encountered resistance and incredulity.

    It’s a divide that has played out in elections in such states as Nevada, where voters passed a ballot measure in November that seeks to codify abortion protections in the state constitution. Residents in several rural counties opposed the measure.

    In Oregon, during the months just before the Baker City closure was announced, Democratic state lawmakers were focused on a proposed pilot program that would launch two mobile reproductive health care clinics in rural areas. The bill specified that the van-based clinics would include abortion services.

    State Rep. Christine Goodwin, a Republican from a southwestern Oregon district, called the proposal the “latest example” of urban legislators telling rural leaders what their communities need.

    The mobile health clinic pilot was eventually removed from the bill that was under discussion. That means no new abortion options in Oregon’s Baker County — and no new state-funded maternity care either.

    “I think if you expanded rural access in this community to abortions before you extended access to maternal health care, you would have an uprising on your hands,” said Paige Witham, 27, a member of the Baker County health care steering committee and the mother of two children, including an infant born in October.

    A study published in JAMA in early December that examined nearly 5,000 acute care hospitals found that by 2022, 52% of rural hospitals lacked obstetrics care after more than a decade of unit closures. The health implications of those closures for young women, the population most likely to need pregnancy care, and their babies can be significant. Research has shown that added distance between a patient and obstetric care increases the likelihood the baby will be admitted to a neonatal intensive care unit, or NICU.

    Witham said that while she does not support abortion, she believes the government should not “legislate it away completely.” She said that unless the government provides far more support for young families, like free child care and better mental health care, abortion should remain legal.

    Conversations with a liberal school board member, a moderate owner of a timber company, members of Baker City’s Republican Party chapter, a local doula, several pregnant women, and the director of the Baker County Health Department — many of whom were not rigidly opposed to abortion — all turned up the same answer: No mobile clinics offering abortions here, please.

    Kelle Osborn, a nurse supervisor for the Baker County Health Department, loved the idea of a mobile clinic that would provide education and birth control services to people in outlying areas. She was less thrilled about including abortion services in a clinic on wheels.

    “It’s not something that should just be handed out from a mobile van,” she said of abortion services. She said people in her conservative rural county would probably avoid using the clinics for anything if they were understood to provide abortion services.

    Both Osborn and Meghan Chancey, the health department’s director, said they would rank many health care priorities higher, including the need for a general surgeon, an ICU, and a dialysis clinic.

    Nationally, reproductive health care services of all types tend to be limited for people in rural areas, even within states that protect abortion access. More than two-thirds of people in “maternity care deserts” — all of which are in rural counties — must drive more than a half-hour to get obstetric care, according to a 2024 March of Dimes report. For people in the Southern states where lawmakers installed abortion bans, abortion care can be up to 700 miles away, according to a data analysis by Axios.

    Nathan Defrees grew up in Baker City and has practiced medicine here since 2017. He works for a family medicine clinic. If a patient asks about abortion, he provides information about where and how one can be obtained, but he doesn’t offer abortions himself.

    “There’s not a lot of anonymity in small towns for physicians who provide that care,” he said. “Many of us aren’t willing to sacrifice the rest of our career for that.”

    He also pointed to the small number of patients requesting the service locally. Just six people living in Baker County had an abortion in 2023, according to data from the Oregon Department of Public Health. Meanwhile, 125 residents had a baby that year.

    A doctor with obstetric training living in another rural part of the state has chosen to quietly provide early-stage abortions when asked. The doctor, concerned for their family’s safety in the small, conservative town where they live, asked not to be identified.

    The idea that better access to abortion is not needed in rural areas seems naive, the doctor said. People most in need of abortion often don’t have access to any medical service not already available in town, the doctor pointed out. The first patient the doctor provided an abortion for at the clinic was a meth user with no resources to travel or to manage an at-home medication abortion.

    “It seemed entirely inappropriate for me to turn her away for care I had the training and the tools to do,” the doctor said.

    Defrees said it has been easier for Baker County residents to get an abortion since the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade.

    A new Planned Parenthood clinic in Ontario, Oregon, 70 miles away in neighboring Malheur County, was built primarily to provide services to people from the Boise metro area, but it also created an option for many living in rural eastern Oregon.

    Idaho is one of the 16 states with near-total bans on abortion. Like many states with bans, Idaho has struggled to maintain its already small fleet of fetal medicine doctors. The loss of regional expertise touches Baker City, too, Defrees said.

    For example, he said, the treatment plan for women who have a desired pregnancy but need a termination for medical reasons is now far less clear. “It used to be those folks could go to Boise,” he said. “Now they can’t. That does put us in a bind.”

    Portland is the next closest option for that type of care, and that means a 300-mile drive along a set of highways that can be treacherous in winter.

    “It’s a lot scarier to be pregnant now in Baker City than it ever has been,” Defrees said.

    KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.

    Subscribe to KFF Health News’ free Morning Briefing.

    This article first appeared on KFF Health News and is republished here under a Creative Commons license.

    Share This Post

  • Policosanol: A Rival To Statins, Without The Side Effects?

    10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.

    Policosanol (which can be extracted from various sources, but is mostly made from sugar cane extract) is marketed as lipid-lowering agent for improving cholesterol levels, but its research history has not been without controversy:

    2001: it works!

    After a lot of research in the 1990s, it came out of the gate strong in 2001, with:

    ❝Policosanol (5 and 10 mg/day) significantly decreased LDL-cholesterol (17.3% and 26.7%, respectively), total cholesterol (12.9% and 19.5%), as well as the ratios of LDL-cholesterol to high-density lipoprotein (HDL)-cholesterol (17.2% and 26.5%) and total cholesterol to HDL-cholesterol (16.3% and 21.0%) compared with baseline and placebo❞

    This, by the way, is comparable in efficacy to the most powerful statins, but without the adverse side effects.

    Source: Efficacy and tolerability of policosanol in hypercholesterolemic postmenopausal women

    Furthermore, its effects were not limited to postmenopausal women, and additionally, it was found that 20mg/day was sufficient for optimal effects; 40mg worked exactly the same as 20mg:

    Read: Effects of policosanol 20 versus 40 mg/day in the treatment of patients with type II hypercholesterolemia: a 6-month double-blind study

    2006–2010: we do not trust the Cubans!

    After it had been marketed and used in much of the world for some years, extra scrutiny was brought upon it, because the initial studies had been performed by the same lab in Cuba, a commercial lab that had tested them for a private interest (i.e., a company selling the supplement):

    Heart Beat: Policosanol: A sweet nothing for high cholesterol

    And furthermore, US-based labs were unable to replicate the results:

    Policosanols as Nutraceuticals: Fact or Fiction

    The Cuban researchers countered that the composition of policosanol as produced in their lab was different than the composition of the policosanol as produced in the US labs, because of the purity of the ingredients used in the Cuban lab.

    Which, on the face of it, could be true or could just be the claim of a commercial lab with an association with a company selling a product.

    Of course, importing Cuban ingredients to test them in the US was not a reasonably accessible option for the US-based labs, because of the US’s embargo of Cuba. In principle it could be done, but unless there is already a huge clear profit incentive, research scientists are usually on their hands and knees begging for grants already, so getting extra funding for specially-important Cuban ingredients was not going to be likely.

    2012: never mind, it does work after all!

    An American meta-analysis of 4596 patients from 52 eligible studies (from around the world, so many of them not affected by the US’s embargo; some were from within the US using non-Cuban ingredients, though), found:

    ❝policosanol is more effective than plant sterols and stanols for LDL level reduction and more favorably alters the lipid profile, approaching antilipemic drug efficacy❞

    Those last words there, to be clear, mean “yes, the original claim of being on a par with statins is at least more or less true”.

    Source: Meta-Analysis of Natural Therapies for Hyperlipidemia: Plant Sterols and Stanols versus Policosanol

    2018: also yes, the Cuban kind does get those extra-effective results, even when tested outside of Cuba

    A Korean research team verified this; it’s quite straightforward so for brevity we’ll just drop links:

    Mystery resolved!

    Want to try some?

    We don’t sell it, but here for your convenience is an example product on Amazon—it’s not the Cuban kind, because the US’s trade embargo makes it difficult for the US to import even things that are theoretically now exempt from the embargo such as food and medicines. In principle they can now be imported, but in practice, the extra regulations added to Cuban imports make it nearly impossible, especially for small sellers.

    Still, it’s 40mg/tablet policosanol from sugar cane extract, and 3rd party lab tested, so it’s the next best thing 😎

    Enjoy!

    Share This Post

Related Posts

  • Study Tips for Exam Season?
  • Black Cohosh vs The Menopause

    10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.

    Black Cohosh, By Any Other Name…

    Black cohosh is a flowering plant whose extracts are popularly used to relieve menopausal (and postmenopausal) symptoms.

    Note on terms: we’ll use “black cohosh” in this article, but if you see the botanical names in studies, the reason it sometimes appears as Actaea racemosa and sometimes as Cimicfuga racemosa, is because it got changed and changed back on account of some disagreements between botanists. It’s the same plant, in any case!

    Read: Reclassification of Actaea to include Cimicifuga and Souliea (Ranunculaceae)

    Does it work?

    In few words: it works for physical symptoms, but not emotional ones, based on this large (n=2,310) meta-analysis of studies:

    ❝Black cohosh extracts were associated with significant improvements in overall menopausal symptoms (Hedges’ g = 0.575, 95% CI = 0.283 to 0.867, P < 0.001), as well as in hot flashes (Hedges’ g = 0.315, 95% CIs = 0.107 to 0.524, P = 0.003), and somatic symptoms (Hedges’ g = 0.418, 95% CI = 0.165 to 0.670, P = 0.001), compared with placebo.

    However, black cohosh did not significantly improve anxiety (Hedges’ g = 0.194, 95% CI = -0.296 to 0.684, P = 0.438) or depressive symptoms (Hedges’ g = 0.406, 95% CI = -0.121 to 0.932, P = 0.131)❞

    ~ Dr. Ryochi Sadahiro et al., 2023

    Source: Black cohosh extracts in women with menopausal symptoms: an updated pairwise meta-analysis

    Here’s an even larger (n=43,759) one that found similarly, and also noted on safety:

    ❝Treatment with iCR/iCR+HP was well tolerated with few minor adverse events, with a frequency comparable to placebo. The clinical data did not reveal any evidence of hepatotoxicity.

    Hormone levels remained unchanged and estrogen-sensitive tissues (e.g. breast, endometrium) were unaffected by iCR treatment.

    As benefits clearly outweigh risks, iCR/iCR+HP should be recommended as an evidence-based treatment option for natural climacteric symptoms.

    With its good safety profile in general and at estrogen-sensitive organs, iCR as a non-hormonal herbal therapy can also be used in patients with hormone-dependent diseases who suffer from iatrogenic climacteric symptoms.❞

    ~ Dr. Castelo-Branco et al., 2020

    Source: Review & meta-analysis: isopropanolic black cohosh extract iCR for menopausal symptoms – an update on the evidence

    (iCR = isopropanolic Cimicifuga racemosa)

    So, is this estrogenic or not?

    This is the question many scientists were asking, about 20 or so years ago. There are many papers from around 2000–2005, but here’s a good one that’s quite representative:

    ❝These new data dispute the estrogenic theory and demonstrate that extracts of black cohosh do not bind to the estrogen receptor in vitro, up-regulate estrogen-dependent genes, or stimulate the growth of estrogen-dependent tumors❞

    ~ Dr. Gail Mahady, 2003

    Source: Is Black Cohosh Estrogenic?

    (the abstract is a little vague, but if you click on the PDF icon, you can read the full paper, which is a lot clearer and more detailed)

    The short answer: no, black cohosh is not estrogenic

    Is it safe?

    As ever, check with your doctor as everyone’s situation can vary, but broadly speaking, yes, it has a very good safety profileincluding for breast cancer patients, at that. See for example:

    Where can I get some?

    We don’t sell it, but here for your convenience is an example product on Amazon

    Enjoy!

    Don’t Forget…

    Did you arrive here from our newsletter? Don’t forget to return to the email to continue learning!

    Learn to Age Gracefully

    Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails:

  • Easing Election Stress & Anxiety

    10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.

    At the time of writing, the US is about to have a presidential election. Most of our readers are Americans, and in any case, what the US does tends to affect most of the world, so certainly many readers in other countries will be experiencing stress and anxiety about it too.

    We’re a health science publication, not a political outlet, so we’ll refrain from commenting on any candidates or campaign policies, and we’d also like to be clear we are not urging you to any particular action politically—our focus today is simply about mental health.

    First, CBT what can be CBT’d

    Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) is far from a panacea, but it’s often a very good starting point. And when it seems the stakes are high, it’s easy to fall into such cognitive distortions as “crystal ball” and “catastrophization”, that is to say, predicting the future and feeling the impact of that (probably undesired version of the) future, and also feeling like it will be the end of the world.

    Recognizing these processes and how they work, is the first step to managing our feelings about them.

    Learn more: The Art of Being Unflappable (Tricks For Daily Life)

    Next, DBT what can be DBT’d

    A lot of CBT hinges on the assumption that our assumptions are incorrect. For example, that our friend does not secretly despise us, that our spouse is not about to leave us, that the symptoms we are experiencing are not cancer, and in this case, that the election outcome will not go badly, and if it does, the consequences will be less severe than imagined.

    But… What if our concerns are, in fact, fully justified? Here’s where Dialectic Behavior Therapy (DBT) comes in, and with it, what therapists call “radical acceptance”.

    In other words, we accept up front the idea that maybe it’s going to be terrible and that will truly suck, and then either:

    • there’s nothing we can reasonably do about it now (so worrying just means you’ll suffer twice), or
    • there is something we can reasonably do about it now (so we can go do that thing)

    After doing the thing (if appropriate), defer processing the outcome of the election until after the election. There is no point in wasting energy to worry before then. In a broadly two-party system where things are usually close between those two largest parties, there’s something close to a 50% chance of an outcome that’s, at least, not the worst you feared.

    Learn more: CBT, DBT, & Radical Acceptance

    Lastly, empower yourself with Behavioral Activation (BA)

    Whatever the outcome of any given election, the world will keep turning, and the individual battles about any given law or policy or such will continue to go on. That’s not to say an election won’t change things—it will—but there will always still be stuff to do on a grassroots level to make the world a better place, no matter what politician has been elected.

    Being involved in doing things on a community level will not only help banish any feelings of despair (and if you got the election outcome you wanted, it’ll help you feel involved), but also, it can give you a sense of control, and can even form a part of the “ikigai” that is often talked about as one of the pillars of healthy longevity.

    Learn more: What’s Your Ikigai?

    And if you like videos, then enjoy this one (narrated by the ever soothing-voiced Alain de Botton):

    Watch now: How To Escape From A Despairing Mood (4:46) ← it also has a text version if you prefer that

    Take care!

    Don’t Forget…

    Did you arrive here from our newsletter? Don’t forget to return to the email to continue learning!

    Learn to Age Gracefully

    Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails:

  • Why the WHO has recommended switching to a healthier salt alternative

    10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.

    This week the World Health Organization (WHO) released new guidelines recommending people switch the regular salt they use at home for substitutes containing less sodium.

    But what exactly are these salt alternatives? And why is the WHO recommending this? Let’s take a look.

    goodbishop/Shutterstock

    A new solution to an old problem

    Advice to eat less salt (sodium chloride) is not new. It has been part of international and Australian guidelines for decades. This is because evidence clearly shows the sodium in salt can harm our health when we eat too much of it.

    Excess sodium increases the risk of high blood pressure, which affects millions of Australians (around one in three adults). High blood pressure (hypertension) in turn increases the risk of heart disease, stroke and kidney disease, among other conditions.

    The WHO estimates 1.9 million deaths globally each year can be attributed to eating too much salt.

    The WHO recommends consuming no more than 2g of sodium daily. However people eat on average more than double this, around 4.3g a day.

    In 2013, WHO member states committed to reducing population sodium intake by 30% by 2025. But cutting salt intake has proved very hard. Most countries, including Australia, will not meet the WHO’s goal for reducing sodium intake by 2025. The WHO has since set the same target for 2030.

    The difficulty is that eating less salt means accepting a less salty taste. It also requires changes to established ways of preparing food. This has proved too much to ask of people making food at home, and too much for the food industry.

    A salt shaker spilling onto a table.
    There’s been little progress on efforts to cut sodium intake. snezhana k/Shutterstock

    Enter potassium-enriched salt

    The main lower-sodium salt substitute is called potassium-enriched salt. This is salt where some of the sodium chloride has been replaced with potassium chloride.

    Potassium is an essential mineral, playing a key role in all the body’s functions. The high potassium content of fresh fruit and vegetables is one of the main reasons they’re so good for you. While people are eating more sodium than they should, many don’t get enough potassium.

    The WHO recommends a daily potassium intake of 3.5g, but on the whole, people in most countries consume significantly less than this.

    Potassium-enriched salt benefits our health by cutting the amount of sodium we consume, and increasing the amount of potassium in our diets. Both help to lower blood pressure.

    Switching regular salt for potassium-enriched salt has been shown to reduce the risk of heart disease, stroke and premature death in large trials around the world.

    Modelling studies have projected that population-wide switches to potassium-enriched salt use would prevent hundreds of thousands of deaths from cardiovascular disease (such as heart attack and stroke) each year in China and India alone.

    The key advantage of switching rather than cutting salt intake is that potassium-enriched salt can be used as a direct one-for-one swap for regular salt. It looks the same, works for seasoning and in recipes, and most people don’t notice any important difference in taste.

    In the largest trial of potassium-enriched salt to date, more than 90% of people were still using the product after five years.

    A female nurse taking a senior man's blood pressure.
    Excess sodium intake increases the risk of high blood pressure, which can cause a range of health problems. PeopleImages.com – Yuri A/Shutterstock

    Making the switch: some challenges

    If fully implemented, this could be one of the most consequential pieces of advice the WHO has ever provided.

    Millions of strokes and heart attacks could be prevented worldwide each year with a simple switch to the way we prepare foods. But there are some obstacles to overcome before we get to this point.

    First, it will be important to balance the benefits and the risks. For example, people with advanced kidney disease don’t handle potassium well and so these products are not suitable for them. This is only a small proportion of the population, but we need to ensure potassium-enriched salt products are labelled with appropriate warnings.

    A key challenge will be making potassium-enriched salt more affordable and accessible. Potassium chloride is more expensive to produce than sodium chloride, and at present, potassium-enriched salt is mostly sold as a niche health product at a premium price.

    If you’re looking for it, salt substitutes may also be called low-sodium salt, potassium salt, heart salt, mineral salt, or sodium-reduced salt.

    A review published in 2021 found low sodium salts were marketed in only 47 countries, mostly high-income ones. Prices ranged from the same as regular salt to almost 15 times higher.

    An expanded supply chain that produces much more food-grade potassium chloride will be needed to enable wider availability of the product. And we’ll need to see potassium-enriched salt on the shelves next to regular salt so it’s easy for people to find.

    In countries like Australia, about 80% of the salt we eat comes from processed foods. The WHO guideline falls short by not explicitly prioritising a switch for the salt used in food manufacturing.

    Stakeholders working with government to encourage food industry uptake will be essential for maximising the health benefits.

    Xiaoyue (Luna) Xu, Scientia Lecturer, School of Population Health, UNSW Sydney and Bruce Neal, Executive Director, George Institute Australia, George Institute for Global Health

    This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

    Don’t Forget…

    Did you arrive here from our newsletter? Don’t forget to return to the email to continue learning!

    Learn to Age Gracefully

    Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails: