Carbonfiberboy 

New study published in JAMA yesterday: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jam...ticle/2608221?
We started with the low sodium thing a few decades ago. We kept lowering it until we started getting cramps. About then, the sodium study came out which showed a bell curve of sodium intake vs. heath effects, 1500mg being the sweet spot. So we increased it and now we try to get 1/4t. of salt each at every meal, or thereabouts. We mostly eat plants and know that plants have some salt, but it can't be much or herbivores wouldn't seek out salt licks. So we figure we're OK there. We know we need electrolytes when we ride, but don't need much since we're low sodium. We use Endurolytes, but never more than 1/hr or 80mg/hr. on the bike, seldom that much.

I was surprised to see that we don't eat enough fruit of all things. Their table wants >300g/day. For sure a handful of walnuts/day is good for you and easy to implement. We eat lots of veggies, no meat, and a fair bit of olive oil. So that's all to the good.

This study is only about CVD, stroke, and diabetes, so doesn't cover cancer risk, from fruit juice, sunlight, or whatever

For current topical interest, I'll append a WP story about our new governmental dietary guidelines, noting that they do not reflect the above study: https://www.washingtonpost.com/busin...ry-guidelines/

Machka 

https://www.heartfoundation.org.au/n...-to-your-heart

https://www.heartfoundation.org.au/healthy-eating

wolfchild

Nutrition studies are entertaining to read but I would never base my eating habits on some study and I would also never base my eating habits on government recommendations. Studies done on a handful of individuals for a short period of time is not a representation of majority...and how the heck does government know what my personal nutritional needs are ??...the last thing I need is for the government telling me how to do my grocery shopping ....Nutrition studies are notorious for contradicting themselves. Every few years they backtrack to what they told us and come up with something new...I learned to listen to my body and I eat whatever makes me feel good and whatever makes me function at optimal levels.

Carbonfiberboy 

You really might try reading the studies or articles on which you are commenting. Or perhaps you mean that you ignore all studies and articles and simply eat what you want. Which is fine, but you must realize that many, many people out there feel just like you do, and say just what you do, including those who get diabetes, heart disease, and have health issues or die after 20-30 years of doing exactly what you recommend. The point of reading long-term longitudinal studies is to give one a window on the future. As I've often pointed out, the trick with decision making is to see what the result of that decision might be 20-30 years down the road, not its result now.

The point of the article on USDA recommendations was to cast doubt on current governmental nutrition recommendations. It's pretty interesting, sort of seeing how sausage is being made these days, which not that way it's always been made.

As every good scientist says, "The thing I would most like to see happen with my research is to be proven wrong." IOW science advances. That's the whole point. Seeing old suppositions overturned gives me more confidence in the new science, not less.