RAW-FOOD Archives

Raw Food Diet Support List

RAW-FOOD@LISTSERV.ICORS.ORG

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Don Wiss <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Tue, 19 May 1998 20:36:40 -0400
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (28 lines)
Gregg M Burton posted:

[an enormous amount of material snipped, mostly taken from a web site]

One of my pet peeves is people that post web pages to a mailing list. They
should just be posting the URL, preferably to the direct page being
discussed and not just to the top of the site.

I have looked at the various web pages on this salt on the web. Every one I
find was put up by someone selling it, and they are full of marketing hype.

I have checked with an MD that has done research into the negative health
effects of consuming salt, which was consumed in much lower quantity in our
ancestor's past. He writes there is no hard evidence in support of sea
salt. However, normal salt is 99% sodium chloride. Sea salt is 65% sodium
chloride while the rest is mainly potassium chloride and magnesium sulfate.
This is theoretically better since most evidence suggests that the sodium
ion is the main villain. He advises to eliminate normal salt and, if food
is too miserable unsalted, to use sea salt at the table in an ever
diminishing amount. Thus, to serve unsalted food and let everyone add as
much as they like (which is less than you think).

Celtic sea salt appears to just be sea salt with the marketers using
product differentiation so they can charge a higher price.

Don.


ATOM RSS1 RSS2