Pam, a.k.a. Petra-neferu-nu-nebt-s <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>        I think that people are much too afraid of salt these days. The
>most recent study shows that salt intake has little to no correlation
>with blood pressure.

That is just one aspect. Our paleo ancestors didn't have salt shakers.
Here's an article excerpt from Staffan Lindeberg on the PaleoDiet list:

From:
http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/CGI/wa.exe?A2=ind9706&L=paleodiet&O=T&P=2282

3       Calcium LOSSES are apparently less when salt intake is low. A high
sodium intake increases urinary losses of calcium (Evans C, Eastell R.
Adaptation to high dietary sodium intake. In: Burckhardt P, Heaney RP, ed.
Nutritional aspects of osteoporosis '94.  Rome: Ares-Serono Symposia, 1995:
413-8. vol 7; Shortt C, Flynn A. Sodium-calcium inter-relationships with
specific reference to osteoporosis. Nutr Res Rev 1990; 3: 101-15; Schaafsma
G, van BE, Raymakers JA, Duursma SA. Nutritional aspects of osteoporosis.
World Rev Nutr Diet 1987; 49: 121-59) and one study suggests that this may
increase the risk of osteoporosis (Devine A, Criddle RA, Dick IM, Kerr DA,
Prince RL. A longitudinal study of the effect of sodium and calcium intakes
on regional bone density in postmenopausal women. Am J Clin Nutr 1995; 62:
740-5).

Several studies suggest that bioavailability and urinary losses of calcium
are more important than intake (Nordin BEC, Need AG, Morris HA, Horowitz M,
Chatterton BE, Sedgwick AW. Bad habits and bad bones. In: Burckhardt P,
Heaney RP, ed.  Nutritional aspects of osteoporosis '94.  Rome: Ares-Serono
Symposia, 1995: 1-25. vol 7).