Kevin Klatt, PhD, RD

The obsession with sea salt, and subsequent demonization of iodized salt, has gotten out of control. Articles like this - see   here - from the less than credible OrganicAuthority lead one to believe that not using Himalayan salt is having consumers miss out on a "full spectrum" of 84 minerals and trace elements, and that consuming refined salt, like iodized table salt, is somehow toxic. To quote OrganicAuthority (OA), "The final product is virtually lifeless, because the lack of active, living enzymatic and nutritional properties ensures a longer shelf life." Because minerals are full of life? The first thing that should set off your quack-dar is that there are 16 essential minerals for humans, and only 28 elements essential for human life (see   here ) - what are those other 50some doing? Another incredibly inaccurate write up can be found   here   at Natural News. I can't seem to find scholarly sources on this, but SaltNews lists their data from a spec...

The DRI for potassium(K) is 4.7g/day for men and women ages 14 and up - this recommendations is set as an Adequate Intake (AI), because an RDA (meeting 99% of the population needs) could not be established. The official recommendation is as follows: "Adults should consume at least 4.7 grams of potassium per day to lower blood pressure, blunt the effects of salt, and reduce the risk of kidney stones and bone loss. However, most American women 31 to 50 years old consume no more than half of the recommended amount of potassium, and men's intake is only moderately higher." The reality is much dimmer than this - less than 2% of the population is reaching the potassium DRI, as of 2003-2008 NHANES data (5). This is likely exacerbating the issue of hypertension in America, where 1/3 of Americans have high blood pressure. Worse than not getting enough potassium is the unbalanced potassium:sodium ratio, which should be kept around 2:1 (2). Leving's had a really great di...

The ever growing focus on industry influence on the scientific method certainly fits the modern focus distrusting anything associated with big business. I am far from totally okay with how much money plays into politics nowadays, and Capitalism + Science isn't a love story for the ages. However, I believe, in science, we should be thorough in calling out all biases, and not let our own concern around industry funding transform into its own bias. Google Images provides some Gems I have long followed Marion Nestle's Food Politics - see here - and have always enjoyed her commentary on the food industry, though I often find myself seeking out the reasoning of the alternative position without blindly following her opinions. One of her recent posts on "Guess Who Funded the Study" was particularly problematic to me. You can find the post here . Dr. Nestle notes that two conflicting studies came out about the relative content of fructose in drinks -if you're inte...

With the growing research surrounding fructose consumption, I thought it'd be a interesting to discuss the role of fructose consumption throughout human evolution, and address of some of the theories surrounding it. Chimpanzees, our closest living primate relatives, are considered ripe-fruit specialists, even more so than other primate species (1). Studies of the feeding ecology of wild chimpanzees report varied percentages of the diet coming from fruit, varying from 40-90% (2). The amount and type of fruit consumed is widely variable among different populations of chimps of observed, and particularly effected by seasonality of fruits. Dietary Diversity varies inversely with fruit availability (3). Chimpanzees, getting a large percentage of their calories from fruits, were getting a large percentage of their calories from fructose. It's difficult, as is always the case with plant foods, to understand fruit consumption throughout the rest of the hominid timeline - it's hig...