or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Natural Living › Nutrition and Good Eating › Is Himalayan salt a scam???
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Is Himalayan salt a scam??? - Page 2

post #21 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichelleZB View Post

What? Yes it is.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinct_language

 

LOL Sorry, but... Wikipedia is hardly a respected source. My kids both took Latin in HS. Within the past 6 years. Latin is used in all medical fields, much science, etc. It is also a significant basis for English and Romance Languages. You may not understand it, but that doesn't mean it's dead. Sorry.

post #22 of 39

I thought "dead language" referred to the fact that there are no societies that speak latin as their typical way of speaking, not that it's not used in other ways (which of course it is).

post #23 of 39

I just wanted to say that this thread is awesome! Nutrition, cell biology, biochemistry, linguistics, geography and a sprinkling of geopolitics for depth of flavour. luxlove.gif Awesome, I say. Kudos to you all. 

 

For the record, I'm with those who point out that

-human bodies contain lots of chemicals, including Na and Cl, but DNA has a specific chemical composition that doesn't include Na or Cl or NaCl.  

-Latin is not a native language used in ordinary, everyday spoken or written communication within a community and thus, it's considered "dead" even though it is studied and persists in many different ways

- salt, including Himalayan pink, is delicious. 

post #24 of 39

Yes, way awesome! I just turned off the Kardashians to fully enjoy this thread!

post #25 of 39

Never tried Himalayan salt - it reminds me of the "Himalayan ketchup" on The Regular Show. Oops, back to popular culture.
 

post #26 of 39

I apologise for bringing up this thread, but it is one of the TOP results when searching for "himalayan sea salt" on Google.  It would be a shame if people are only getting poor information.

 

If you look on Google, the majority of search results are as follows:

  • Amateur marketing web pages that try to SELL YOU THE PRODUCT.
  • Forum posts with many people unsure of what to believe
  • Bigger name, alternative health websites that try to SELL YOU THE PRODUCT

 

Look at 90% of the "informational" web pages - they either have links to sell you the product, OR they are created by people with NO formal education on this matter (who likely have monetary reason to create these web pages).  Yes, Dr. Mercola does have a web page that features this product - but guess what?  It's a product page that sells you the product.

 

A normal family only has so much income.  Are you seriously going to pay a premium for this marketing sham, when you could be spending that on food products that are scientifically proven to be healthier for your family?

 

Let's take organic produce for example.  There is plenty of scientific literature that suggests a variety of pesticides are harmful to animal and human health.  You can make good health choices that are backed by evidence and fact, rather than believing the typical lies (or stretched facts) of marketing webpages and salesmen.

 

Please start thinking by yourselves, not believing what alternative health salesmen want you to believe.  They want you to buy their product just as much as the conventional "bad guy" big name companies.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by gemini20 View Post

Actually the human body is made of over 60 different chemical elements. Salt roughly being one of them. All though about 96% (roughly) is made of just 4 ingredients; oxygen, carbon, hydrogen and nitrogen, with a lot of the in the form of water.

So I'm nearly positive that salt (or at least the stuff that makes up this salt) is part of our DNA!

 

When someone says your information is incorrect, the respectable thing would be to actually spend 5 minutes to read up on the topic and see if (s)he is actually correct.  It is simply irresponsible if people continue to push on their wrong information as fact; this is even more of an issue if your children gain this habit.  It's not a personal attack against this person or people who have this habit - do you REALLY want your children thinking in this manner?  

post #27 of 39

So at the end of the day it's still "he said, she said" and no one knows for sure if the Himalayan Sea Salt has any merit or not.

But that's ok, I will continue to use it because I like it better, and it is one of the changes I have in the past few months, that seem to be making a difference in how I feel, and it is helping to detox my body.

Jon Gabriel doesn't sell salt (that I know of), but he lost 200+ lbs and one of the things he did was switch to Himalayan salt.

While that doesn't guarantee that the stuff is good, I'd rather follow his steps, based on evidence :)

The thread is about Himalayan salt being a scam or not. There was no need to have to read through a whole university curriculum, to end up back at square one 2 pages later.

But that's just my opinion :)

post #28 of 39

And, the winner of the mostest smartest person on the Internets is....  :mischief

 

Anyhow, I recently purchased this because I was curious about it.  I don't think it will make any difference, but I was curious enough about the claims to try some. 

post #29 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by mtiger View Post
 

 

LOL Sorry, but... Wikipedia is hardly a respected source. My kids both took Latin in HS. Within the past 6 years. Latin is used in all medical fields, much science, etc. It is also a significant basis for English and Romance Languages. You may not understand it, but that doesn't mean it's dead. Sorry.

 

I missed this before, but you are incorrect. You can still learn a dead language in high school. I took it too. You can study all sorts of dead languages, like Ancient Greek and Old English and Occitan. Latin words are indeed a significant basis for later languages, and we still use Latin to name things in certain academic fields, like biology. That doesn't mean it is in common fluent use amongst populations, which is the requirement for a living language.

 

And Wikipedia is a respected source, especially for something as simple as the definition of "extinct language". You seem to think that a language is considered living if root words from it still exist and you can take it in high school. That isn't right.

post #30 of 39

"Latin is a language

As dead as dead can be

It killed the ancient Romans

And now it's killing me."

 

-My venerable father, who as far as I know never studied Latin at all.

 

Also, this whole 'Pssh, Wikipedia' thing has got to stop. The merits and flaws of Wikipedia are widely known by now. I wouldn't use it for a source on, say, philosophy - the philosophy pages are highly incomplete and biased. But it's excellent for matters that are well-known-well-documented and less theoretical/arcane. It's a great place to look up historical facts, information about animals, statistics about countries... Yes, you wouldn't reference it in an academic paper, but that doesn't mean it's wrong or stupid. If Wikipedia says Latin is a dead language, chances are very high that it's correct. (And it is. I've studied a touch of Latin too, and that doesn't make it a living language. You can, very rarely, have a dead language revived - Hebrew, for instance, though modern Hebrew is different from ancient in many respects - but being spoken semi-fluently by a tiny handful of obsessives and used in poetry, medical terms and papal documents does not count. Rule of thumb - has Latin naturally and organically evolved words for refrigerator, automobile, internet and so on? No - because it's dead.)

 

Not super relevant to Himalayan salt, of course. :p

 

I used Himalayan salt for ages - simply for cooking, not for soaking. It was delicious. I eventually stopped because the grains were the wrong size. I like to sprinkle coarse salt on my flatbreads, but the chunky bits were getting chunkier and chunkier, until you were ending up with a gag-worthy mouthful of salt. And the fine grains weren't suitable for sprinkling, because they were just like regular table salt. So I switched to other brands. I've since tried a plain-jane iodised rock salt and a flaky Marlborough sea salt. The flaky salt has a beautiful texture for sprinkling, but both salts taste very harsh and... well, over-salty! If the Himalayan salt people were somehow able to manufacture a flaky version, I'd buy it. I suppose that'd contradict their 'barely touched, roughly hewn out of the ground' thing, though....

post #31 of 39

To DoubleDouble

 

DoubleDouble says that "Salt is Natrium and Chloride".  OMG 11th grade chemistry comes to mind and Na stands for Sodium NOT Natrium.  Maybe he/she never got that far.  Please all readers skip this persons post because he/she is uneducated at best and an unkind word at the worst.  Other posts are good but not that one.

post #32 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikepidd View Post

To DoubleDouble

DoubleDouble says that "Salt is Natrium and Chloride".  OMG 11th grade chemistry comes to mind and Na stands for Sodium NOT Natrium.  Maybe he/she never got that far.  Please all readers skip this persons post because he/she is uneducated at best and an unkind word at the worst.  Other posts are good but not that one.

[sigh] I'll say it again, shall I, sodium and natrium are two words for the same element. Natrium is Latin, sodium is Greek but both refer to the same element.
post #33 of 39
Lol. The shortcut for sodium is.... Drumroll.... Na. Natrium. Natrium= sodium. Many languages use Natrium. Eg Germans call salt Natriumchlorid.
What English speakers call potassium is called Kalium in German. Hence K=Kalium = potassium. Neither word is wrong.
post #34 of 39

The Himalayas are in Pakistan.

post #35 of 39

It seems as though this conversation about Himalayan salt (and other unprocessed kinds of table salt) is intended to be useful for people who want to decide what to buy, and people do ask for real information here periodically.  But it also seems as though the conversation gets derailed by arguments that aren't relevant to those concerns.  Also: when people become too intent on discrediting one another, the subject is in danger of becoming someone's tone or state of mind rather than any concerns they've raised and whether they're worth considering.

 

At this point, I don't know that *extremely unlikely* claims about noncommercial table salts are useful to explore.  "It's in our DNA" is a cliche that most of us don't need to think about beyond noting that saying so on a health forum is like saying "It's all relative" to a physicist. 

 

What I'd find more useful personally is information on claims that one of my doctors made -- claims that don't address the virtues of Celtic sea salt and Himalayan salt *separately* but put them in a better category than standard iodized salt *generally*.

 

My doctor says that the standard table salt we buy at the grocery store is refined, bleached and coated with a chemical that keeps the granules separate, and that those are the problems with standard table salt:  fewer minerals, more processing and more chemicals. 

 

The aim of using Celtic and Himalayan salts, he says, is not to offer miraculous health results (though he claims anecdotal results with high blood pressure, which I happen to have) but to reduce exposure to chemicals and include more natural mineral content.  He also says that using powdered kelp instead of salt is a good idea.

 

Has anyone proved or disproved his claims?  Are these benefits demonstrable or not?  That's what I'd like to know.

 

People have talked about pseudo-blog pages which are commercial and extol the virtues of Himalayan salt.  That is absolutely true, as five minutes' Googling or Duck Duck Going will prove. 

 

But I would add that there are also many pseudo-blogs and articles by the commercial salt industry as well. In one case, there's even blowback regarding an irrelevant claim for Himalayan sea salt by a pseudo-blog dedicated to discrediting people who oppose GMO.  On that site, the red herring raised by Himalania Pink Sea Salt's marketing -- that it is "non-GMO" (an amusing claim for a substance that was never a living organism and doesn't issue from one) -- is used to discredit both the nutritional value of the salt itself and masses of people who seeks to avoid GMO food generally, which the blog calls "the anti-GMO crowd" (as if there's a *grassroots pro-GMO movement* -- as if anyone uninvolved with Monsanto et al.'s marketing and lobbying campaigns ever characterized people who opposed GMO as delusional fanatics).  Yes, that's shady marketing, but the hidden claims and euphemisms used to market conventional grocery items is at least as shady. 

 

At this point, it's less useful to me to care about marketing claims made for gourmet salts -- or claims of a "scam" by alarmists and rivals -- than to acquire independent information about reasonable benefits and dangers.

 

I haven't, for example, seen anything to suggest that the radiation scare around Himalayan salt is credible.  What I'd like more information about is the circumstances and conditions under which it's harvested, and not only the same analysis of its contents linked to over and over (not only on this thread, but everywhere on the web) as much as an article by a credible independent scientist who can explain the possible benefits, dangers and placebo effect of the exact proportions shown in that table.

 

A short note about sources:

 

The reason I distrust Wikipedia on the subject of gourmet salt is because I've noticed that people from the food industry will completely rewrite entries that were originally useful in order to market the alleged benefits by promoting them pseudo-officially.  If you look at the history of the Wikipedia entry on yerba mate, for example, you'll notice that, as time goes on, the entry excludes more and more evidence about carcinogens and becomes increasingly complimentary.  You'll also notice that the objections raised to studies that find higher incidences of throat cancer are questioned in the notes in quibbling ways that suggest the writer might intend to discredit or disinclude valid research.

 

I mention the yerba mate entry because I used to love it and was originally alerted to the dangers of drinking it by a blog by a writer for Scientific American that was featured on the PLOS blogs, which are written by independent science writers who are often actual scientists. 

 

I noticed the same issue when checking the history of the entry on kombucha:  Earlier versions of the article were less complimentary and more objective.

 

When looking at an entry on any food that is marketed commercially, I think it is nearly always important to sign in to Wikipedia and look at the history of the article. See for yourself whether important information has been deleted or modified.  Decide for yourself whether, based on the nature and quality of the information, the aim was greater accuracy or better marketing.

 

And finally, one irrelevant observation:

 

It's good to know a little Latin whether or not the language is officially dead.  Since our English vocabulary contains a number of Latin-derived words, a little familiarity with the subject probably wouldn't hurt. 

 

But there's no reason to use an opponent's knowledge of Latin as proof (or Latinate prose style as disproof) of the validity of their thoughts about table salt!


Edited by Fnaphither - 2/15/14 at 6:30am
post #36 of 39
All I can say is that American store is nasty. I don't want iodine nor anti caking chemicals. I like the pink salt. I like sea salt though I'm concerned with the amount of pollution in today's world.
post #37 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by nia82 View Post

All I can say is that American store is nasty. I don't want iodine nor anti caking chemicals. I like the pink salt. I like sea salt though I'm concerned with the amount of pollution in today's world.


I have those same concerns, nia82.  I'm looking into this because my doctor has said that Himalayan salt is free of those problems (as is Celtic sea salt). He mentioned the absence of added fluoride as a virtue as well. 

 

My question is whether these health benefits are demonstrable in terms of evidence, and whether any claims of the supposed dangers of using Himalayan salt (beyond the caveat that salt should be consumed in moderation) are supported by reasonably analyzed facts.

 

I certainly don't want to make anyone feel less happy about their purchases (or falsely reassured, for that matter).  I'm only interested in what's true.


Edited by Fnaphither - 2/15/14 at 6:59am
post #38 of 39
Meh I think it's just salt.
post #39 of 39
Quote:
 I mention the yerba mate entry because I used to love it and was originally alerted to the dangers of drinking it by a blog by a writer for Scientific American that was featured on the PLOS blogs, which are written by independent science writers who are often actual scientists. 
 
I noticed the same issue when checking the history of the entry on kombucha:  Earlier versions of the article were less complimentary and more objective.
 
When looking at an entry on any food that is marketed commercially, I think it is nearly always important to sign in to Wikipedia and look at the history of the article. See for yourself whether important information has been deleted or modified.  Decide for yourself whether, based on the nature and quality of the information, the aim was greater accuracy or better marketing.

Great post! Thanks for the links to the PLOS blogs, that's the kind of thing I've been looking for. I'm so tired of seeing misinformation everywhere. But I don't know where to look to get some real answers. In an age where we can know exactly what is in our food, you'd think it would be easier to know what to eat without so much BS. Also, thank you for the important tip about Wikipedia entry histories. That will be very interesting to read.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Nutrition and Good Eating
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Natural Living › Nutrition and Good Eating › Is Himalayan salt a scam???