Bonjour,
>- Seule une petite partie de la population (environ 30%) augmente
>sa TA tension artérielle) avec des apports de sodium importants.
>La part génétique, comme pour la TA en général, est
>importante. Pourquoi alors inciter l'ensemble de la population à baisser son apport en sel?
Pourquoi les recherches sur ce thème aboutissent-elles à des conclusions contradictoires?
http://www.junkscience.com/jan01/saltwars.htm
The salt controversy is the "number one perfect example of why science is a destabilizing force in public policy."--Sanford Miller.
After decades of intensive research, the apparent benefits of avoiding salt have only diminished. This suggests either that the true benefit has now been revealed and is indeed small, or that it is nonexistent, and researchers believing they have detected such benefits have been deluded by the confounding influences of other variables. (These might include genetic variability; socioeconomic status; obesity; level of physical exercise; intake of alcohol, fruits and vegetables, or dairy products; or any number of other factors.)
The controversy itself remains potent because even a small benefit--one clinically meaningless to any single patient--might have a major public health impact. This is a principal tenet of public health: Small effects can have important consequences over entire populations. If by eating less salt, the world's population reduced its average blood pressure by a single millimeter of mercury, says Oxford University epidemiologist Richard Peto, that would prevent several hundred thousand deaths a year: "It would do more for worldwide deaths than the abolition of breast cancer." But even that presupposes the 1-millimeter drop can be achieved by avoiding salt. "We have to be sure that 1- or 2-millimeter effect is real," says John Swales, former director of research and development for Britain's National Health Service and a clinician at the Leicester Royal Infirmary. "And we have to be sure we won't have equal and opposite harmful effects."
Decades have passed without a resolution because the epidemiologic tools are incapable of distinguishing a small benefit from no benefit or even from a small adverse effect. This has led to a literature so enormous and conflicting that it is easy to amass a body of evidence--what Stamler calls a "totality of data"--that appears to support a particular conviction definitively, unless one is aware of the other totality of data that doesn't.
Ce n'est qu'un court extrait de cet article qui reprend 30 ans de recherches sur ce sujet. Si j'ai bien compris: on conseille un moindre apport car peu de sel=pas de conséquences négatives vérifiées, alors que beaucoup de sel=suspicion d'HTA?
Envoyer ce sujet à un(e) ami(e)
Format d'impression
Mettre en signet (membres seulement)
Forum :
Recherche d'informations sur une maladie (Protected)
