Mind and Motor

From the headlines this week,

Footprints to Cognitive Decline and Alzheimer’s Are Seen in Gait

We've long known that motor activity and cognition are married together.  They are both heavily dependent on the frontal lobe.  Also, we know that motor activity is often used to help us think.  For example, there has been research that shows that gesturing while speaking facilitates our thoughts.  While we once thought that it allowed us to communicate more clearly with a person across from us, we know that it goes deeper and revs up or cognitive engine.

In this article, we see yet another example of the marriage between motor activity, in this case gait, and cognition.  We see that the studies, "provide striking evidence that when a person’s walk gets slower or becomes more variable or less controlled, his cognitive function is also suffering."

While this research is fascinating, in some ways, it shouldn't come as a surprise.  There is lots of research that shows that physical exercise improves cognitive function and can slow the progression of degenerative conditions.  In other words, the mind and motor marriage has been speculated upon and elucidated over the past 2 decades.

Even so, this article gives non-physicians a clear symptom to watch for in their loved ones.  When the gait begins to change, there may be degenerative changes beginning in the brain.

More than Calories

A new study demonstrates that patterns of weight gain are not simply about calories.  Certainly calorie intake does matter.  But the method in which you consume those calories also makes a difference. 

In short, the overall metabolic activity of organs does operate in a time dependent manner.  We've had examples of this for years.  It's long been understood that melatonin production increases as the sun goes down and serotonin production increases as the sun comes up.  We've also understood that long term night workers suffer from more chronic disease and die earlier than people that follow a traditional schedule (work during the day and sleep at night).  Cortisol rhythms have been understood for many years in that cortisol peaks in the morning and depresses as you approach evening.  Certainly there are many other timing patterns of physiology of which we are unaware. 

While the study doesn't give specifics on the best hours to eat food, it is probably safe to say that since we are wired to work during the day and sleep at night, we should probably be eating regularly throughout the day rather than gorging at night.

Teens Aren't Eating Veggies!

As a follow up to the obesity post, this was a curious piece of news published late last year.  In November, a CDC report stated that US teens are eating less than the recommended amount of fruits and vegetables.  On the surface, one could have a gut reaction, "Well duh- teenagers are teenagers.  French fries and Big Macs are the norm!" 

But lets keep in mind that these teens will go on to become unwell.  You can't run a car without the right fuel.  Our sophisticated bodies have a demand for the right fuel as well.  Because our bodies are so resilient, it can go a long time with lesser quality fuel.  But only at a cost.  There is always a cost.  

These teenagers may not know it, but they are slowly incurring a physiological debt that they may never be able to repay.  Systems decline, blood sugar is dysregulated, the bacteria in the gut are destroyed, hormones shift the wrong way and eventually, a state of sickness emerges. 

Unhealthy teenagers usually grow up to be unhealthy adults.  A reminder;  36% of American adults are now obese and at least 34% of us are overweight (not obese).  All these adults were teenagers at some point.  Will the current generation of teenagers  push these figures up?  Remember that experts anticipate 42% obesity rates by 2030.  They are counting on teenagers who currently don't eat fruits and vegetables (and presumably fill up on other nutrient poor, calorie rich foods) to either stay fat or get fat. 

Uh oh- Obesity!

In the news today:  Within the next 18 years, obesity rates will continue to rise steadily.  Currently, 36% of Americans are obese.  That alone is a staggering number.   But the numbers will continue to rise and experts predict that by 2030, 42% of Americans will be obese.  

It is universally understood that obesity is a disease where multiple systems in the body degrade and function declines.   In other words, there's no positive "spin" to obesity.  The science has clearly shown that obesity is incompatible with good health.  We're not talking about someone who carries an extra 15 pounds but can still crank out a 10K run.  This is obesity with all its debilitating consequences.  

I've written in the past about the crushing health care costs of obesity and its accompanying disorders.  Obesity related disorders burden the health care system and threaten to destroy it.  As we all know from the lively debates surrounding Obamacare, if health care melts down, the entire economy melts down.  The "new" cases of obesity are projected to cost an additional $550 billion over the next 20 years.

The good news is that obesity is entirely a preventable disease.  Some diseases happen and we don't know why.  There is no cure, only management (and even that is sometimes poor).  But in the case of obesity, we know the cause and we know the cure.  I don't mean to oversimplify it.  Once obesity happens, the physiology changes entirely and the "rules" of weight loss/gain change.  Appetite regulation is altered, sense of satiety is compromised, overall metabolic rate changes, hormones are disrupted, inflammation confuses the whole issue.  There is no doubt that fixing obesity is not an easy task.  But still, we know how to do it.  It may be incredibly difficult, but it can be done.  

Have you seen the movie Wall-E? It is an animated film where all humans are obese and out of shape.  There is humor to it.  It offended some.  But it was a typical Pixar movie; entertaining and brilliant.  It looks like we are moving closer and closer to that reality.  Remember that 42% are obesity rates.  At least another 35% of Americans are not obese; just overweight.  

Canned Foods and BPA

A few years ago, manufacturers of baby bottles made an aggressive effort to eliminate bisphenol A (BPA) from their products.  The effort was widely hailed as an excellent, pro-health, consumer-friendly move and parents across the country rejoiced.  BPA is a known endocrine disruptor.  This means it changes the way that hormones function in the body.  While minute amounts to an adult may not be very disruptive, no one really knows how much is safe.  The impact on children; we know even less.

While BPA has been removed from many children's products, it is still widely used in other areas.  The inside of canned foods is known to have BPA.  A study reported in the Journal of the American Medical Association examined adult volunteers who ate one can of soup per day for 5consecutive days.

Researchers found that his lead to BPA levels in the urine that were 1,221% higher than people who did not eat soup out of cans during that time frame.  That is not a type.  It was 1,221% higher!

The only way to show up in urine is if BPA was absorbed into the blood in the first place (presumably from dietary intake).  While this research isn't damning of BPA in and of itself.  It does indicate significant exposure to BPA to the average American.  It's is not uncommon to open a can of tuna, soup or other food product.  If you buy much of your food, you must realize that quite a bit of restaurant food also comes out of a can (depending, of course, on where you choose to dine).

There is quite a bit of research showing the potential of BPA to be harmful to our health.  The fact that exposures are this high is very alarming.  Remember this as you open your next can of beans.  That low glycemic, high protein, high fiber treat may come along with a spoonful of endocrine disruptors.

Mom's diet during pregnancy

Parents have enormous influence over what their children eat.  In the early years, children eat only what they are given.  As time goes on, they begin to make their own food choices; largely shaped by parents.  It turns out that the influence (specifically from mom) may begin much earlier than initially thought.

Children may actually have their flavors sculpted while still inside the womb!   This is an idea that has been spread through folklore from one generation to the next.  But a new study in Current Diabetes Reports seems to confirm this idea.

The concept is called "prenatal flavor learning."  The study found that:

"the flavors of the foods in the maternal diet are found in the amniotic fluid swallowed by the fetus, with the fetus developing a preference for those flavors that is shown to persist in infancy."

In other words, the baby could taste what Mom tasted and preferred those tastes even as an infant.  I especially appreciate another line from the authors,

"This is an empowering concept for a pregnant woman."

It shows that developing a child's taste for healthy foods begins with Mom when she is pregnant.  It certainly continues after birth as the parents model healthy eating and behavior.

Mom's healthy pregnancy diet has a dual benefit.  It provides bountiful nourishment to the developing child and programs his/her taste buds to continue that healthy trend after birth.

More good news for fruits and veggies

A new study out of Loma Linda University shows that people who follow a vegetarian diet had a "substantial and independent reduction in diabetes incidence." 

Researchers found that among the black population, a vegan diet lead to a 70% reduction in diabetes risk.  A vegetarian diet was also impressive and cut the risk of diabetes by 53%.

The study examined over 41,000 people (7,172 black) Seventh Day Adventists.  While the results were similar among white participants, it is important to note that Seventh Day Adventists generally abstain from alcohol and tobacco. 

The study also found that exercising 3x per week decreased risk of diabetes by 35%.   This is another win for people advocating a plant based diet and regular exercise... in other words; a healthy lifestyle.

Fruits, veggies and sperm

Your diet clearly influences your heart health.  It definitely influences liver health.  It certainly influences brain health.  Without a doubt, it influences your bone health.  Diet influences muscle health.  Now- there is compelling research that suggests that it also influences sperm health.  

After studying 188 men between ages 18-22, researchers found that those men who ate a healthy diet had sperm that were better "swimmers."  The sperm count and shape did not vary depending on the diet, but sperm from poor eaters moved around much less.  In other words, their motility was compromised.  

"The main overall finding of our work is that a healthy diet seems to be beneficial for semen quality," said Audrey J. Gaskins, lead author of the first study.  USA Today

While this research has been lacking previously, it should come as no surprise  Did we really think that nutrition could be vital to so many other cells and tissues in the body, EXCEPT for sperm?  

This research simply adds onto the millions of other reasons we should be eating well.

Good news for Fruits and Veggies

What causes disease; bad genes or bad environment (diet, exercise etc.)?  This has been the age-old question that has actually already been answered.  The answer is, "both."  The more nuanced perspective questions the relative influence of both of those variables.  We all know that genes don't change; that is basic biology.  However, the expression of those genes is known to be modifiable.  

A recent study suggests that fruits and vegetables may actually play a significant role in modifying the expression of a genetic profile that promotes heart disease.  When a group of people with that high risk genotype ate lots of raw fruits and vegetables, they had a much lower risk of having a heart attack.  In fact, the people (with the same high risk genotype) who did not eats lots of produce had 2 times the risk of having a heart attack.  This article in TIME magazine reviews the research and states,

That suggests that diet can make a real difference in heart disease risk, even when that risk is genetically based. "It means that perhaps our family history, or genetic risk, is modifiable," says Anand (one of the co-authors of the study)  "Despite not being able to change our genetics, if we are able to modify the effect or expression of our genes. That's exciting."

It is great to see science validating the effects of a healthy diet.  A healthy diet has the real potential to modify the expression of your genes.  I wonder what a bad diet does to the expression of those hazardous genes.

Good bacteria

I opened up the paper today and right there on the front page of the Washington Post (Oct. 11, 2011) was the headline that screamed, "'Good bugs'  may be the key to staying healthy."

What a way to start the morning... good news all around!  For years, clinicians have been touting the significance of the beneficial bacteria in the body.  We are still very far from knowing the details and all the benefits they bring, but it was so good to see a very main stream outlet think this news worthy of the front page.  Not that long ago, the folks that advocated probiotics and yogurt consumption were thought of as grungy, granola-loving, hippie health nuts.  In less than a decade, that has turned around to the point where there is genuine interest from conventional health care professionals, doctors and researchers alike.  The article quotes Rob Knight, a professor at the University of Colorado as saying,

"In terms of potential for human health, I would place it with stem cells as one of the two most promising areas of research at the moment."

The author of the piece, Rob Stein, writes,

"Moreover, scientists are becoming more convinced that modern trends — diet, antibiotics, obsession with cleanliness, Caesarean deliveries — are disrupting this delicate balance, contributing to some of the most perplexing ailments, including asthma, allergies, obesity, diabetes, autoimmune diseases, cancer and perhaps even autism."

These bacteria are so important.  It leads to the question, what is causing a disruption in the balance, health or functionality of these populations of bacteria.  If these bacteria are potentially involved in all these diseases, then what causes their dysfunction?

When you take a step back from this piece and assess it in its entirety, it paints a very clear picture that most chronic diseases process are multifactorial. If most chronic diseases have a multifactorial origin, then shouldn't the therapeutic effort also be multi-pronged? 

To say it differently, while many pharmaceuticals have enormous potential, doesn't it stand to reason that in the absence of healthy lifestyle, even the most powerful drug will be handcuffed in terms of efficacy.   If Mr. Stein is reporting accurately and many scientists are concerned that diet and other variables are disrupting the delicate balance, then how can we restore health in the absence of a healthy diet?

Science will always reveal greater insight into the mysteries and complexities of our physiology.  But while we are waiting for more and more truth to emerge, let's also keep in mind that science also often validates "common sense" principles as it pertains to health.

Is Junk Food Cheaper

There was a great piece in the New York Times this week asking the question, "Is Junk Food Really Cheaper?"  The author, Mark Bittman, is a strong advocate of common sense nutrition.  If you read through his books, you'll see that he doesn't advocate extremely strict diets and generally takes an enormous amount of pleasure in food.  So of course, I'm a fan.

In his current piece, he argues that a family of 4 could reasonably spend $28 at McDonalds for a single meal while a much healthier meal of chicken, veggies and salad would put the family back a mere $14.  He quotes Marion Nestle (another person I admire):

“Anything that you do that’s not fast food is terrific; cooking once a week is far better than not cooking at all,” says Marion Nestle, professor of food studies at New York University and author of “What to Eat.”

In a statement that smells of "tough love", he tells us:
The real challenge is not “I’m too busy to cook.” In 2010 the average American, regardless of weekly earnings, watched no less than an hour and a half of television per day. The time is there.

It's clear that we need to spend more time in the kitchen.  That means all of us...men, women and children.  We all have busy lives.  If you have kids, then your life is even busier.  But the only way to combat epidemic levels of chronic disease in the U.S. is one bite at a time.  You always knew that eating healthy was important.  But isn't it nice to read that junk food is just as damaging to your wallet as it is to your waistline. 

More on Junk Food

Are your tax payer dollars partially responsible for the fattening of America?  The California Public Interest Research Group released some alarming numbers this week in a report titled, ""Apples to Twinkies: Comparing Federal Subsidies of Fresh Produce and Junk Food."  They state, "from 1995-2010, $16.9 billion in federal subsidies went to producers and others in the business of corn syrup, high fructose corn syrup, corn starch and soy oils."

"If these agricultural subsidies went directly to consumers to allow them to purchase food, each of America's 144 million taxpayers would be given $7.36 to spend on junk food and 11 cents with which to buy apples each year — enough to buy 19 Twinkies but less than a quarter of one Red Delicious apple apiece," CALPIRG officials said in a statement.

I don't want to get into the discussion (for the moment) about whether or not high fructose corn syrup is a bad as we've heard.  In fact, the corn syrup industry has done a fine job introducing doubt (concerning corn syrups risks/benefits) into the public eye.  But let's realize that the vast majority of products containing these products are not healthy.  Are they incredibly bad?  Some are, some probably are not.  But they certainly are not health-inducing.  

The politics of these subsidies is enough to make your head swirl.  So let's dodge that debate and re-frame this information.

Many people have said, "If you want to know a man's priorities, watch where he spends his money."  In general, this will tell you what he prioritized; fun, scholarship, television, social activities, kids activities etc.  If we place this same question in the context of federal spending, is it fair to ask, "Uncle Sam- where are your priorities when it comes to food and health?"  The answer is disappointing and discouraging.

Soda and sweet drinks

The leading sentence in this article from U.S. News and World Report says it all.

"On any given day, half the people in the United States guzzle a sugary beverage like soda, sports drinks, or sweetened bottled water."

This leads up to nearly 175-273 extra calories per day.  To be clear, these are calories that you don't need.  There is no nutritional value and absolutely no positive health impact that these calories bring.  No vitamins, no minerals, no phytonutrients, no benefit.

As the article states, it's easy to dismiss this as a mere 175 calories.  But understand that when we talk about "empty calories" that is really a misnomer.  Those words mean the calories are empty of nutrients.  But it doesn't mean that those calories have no effect.  Actually, rather than saying "empty calories", we should call them "harmful calories."

There is a significantly increased risk of diabetes and metabolic syndrome in people that consume these sugary drinks regularly.  To put this in perspective, there are 26 million American diabetics and almost 80 million with metabolic syndrome.  That's over 100 million Americans with a significant blood sugar problem.  With a population of about 310 million (about 1/3 kids and 2/3 adults), that means about 1 in 2 American adults has a blood sugar problem.

So look around you.  In a football stadium filled with 80,000 screaming fans.  About half of them currently suffer from a blood sugar disorder that could have been easily prevented. This will lead to fatigue, some cancers, heart disease, mood disorders, chronic pain and a lot more.  

I suppose from a certain point of view, you could still argue that the 1 can of sugar soda per day is not a dealbreaker.  Maybe... maybe not.  But imagine if your childing is failing out of school because he is having a hard time keeping up.  Then he argues, "Mom- I just want to watch 30 minutes of TV after dinner.  What's wrong with that?"  Most of us could agree that for a straight A student, perhaps it's no big deal.  But when you're coming from behind, every moment counts.  Once you fall further behind, it becomes even harder to catch up.  Most of us has experienced this at some point in our life; in school, at work, with debt.

One out of 2 Americans are "behind" when it comes to their health.  That sugar soda a day is certainly not the sole determining variable.  But it certainly doesn't help matters.

Breaking news! Eating food can lower cholesterol!

A paper was recently published in the Journal of the American Medical Association showing that foods can lower cholesterol levels; specifically... LDLs (the so-called "bad cholesterol").  The foods that were used in the experimental group were:

- margarine enriched with plant sterols

- viscous fibers such as oats and barley

- soy protein from soy milk, tofu or soy “meats”

- peanuts and nuts from trees

- peas, beans and lentils

That doesn't mean you should go out and stock your fridge with only these items.  In fact, any well balanced plant-based diet will do.  

For those of you who are regular readers, you know that I hate when pharmaceutical companies sponsor research that shows that their drugs are awesome.  Well, this particular study was partially funded by food companies.  And the 8 of the 20 authors received fees from these companies.  So I guess the pendulum swings both ways.  The food company Unilever provided funding (Bertolli pasta, Lipton teas, Slimfast, Hellman's mayonaisse) as did grain manufacturer Viterra.

More Good News for Vitamin D

We've heard about the wonders of vitamin D.  The list of benefits only seems to grow.  It appears that vitamin D has the potential to protect against colon cancer.  Over 142,000 Americans are diagnosed with colon cancer each year and over 50,000 Americans die from it.

New research demonstrated that activation of the vitamin D receptor protected against the development of malignant tumors.  Additionally, it protected against the development of larger and more aggressive tumors.  Keep in mind that most Americans have vitamin D deficiency (or insufficiency).  Whatever term you want to use (which depends on the actual levels), the key point here is that the vast majority of us are walking around with low levels of vitamin D. 

Consider these other risk factors from the Mayo Clinic.  Low fiber/high fat diet, sedentary lifestyle, obesity , diabetes, smoking and alcohol.  Throw in low vitamin D and you can see that many of us have colons that are ticking time bombs.

Strange Headlines

"Milk Better Than Water to Rehydrate Kids"

I just read this amazing headline and read through a piece describing this research.  It was conducted at McMaster University and followed 8-10 year old children.  The researchers found that milk led to better hydration after exercise.

The research director, Brian Timmons, states, "Milk is better than either a sports drink or water because it is a source of high quality protein, carbohydrates, calcium and electrolytes...milk replaces sodium lost in sweat and helps the body retain fluid better. The milk also provides protein, needed by children for muscle development and growth, not found in the other drinks."  

There is no doubt that hydration is important.  But from a purely physiological perspective, it just doesn't make sense that milk hydrates better than water.  Discussing the presence of carbohydrate and protein in the context of hydration is a red herring.  Extreme protein deficits can certainly impair hydration levels but after normal exercise for 8-10 year olds, it is very unlikely that there were protein-related hydration issues.

The icing on the cake here is the disclaimer at the end:

"The study is funded by Dairy Farmers of Canada."

One has to ask, "Can this research be trusted?"  The people that make milk funded study to see if milk is better than water.  Surprise!  It is better than water.  

Is this kind of terribly biased research worthy of an actual headline?  I don't want to go into a tirade on milk.  If you've read my posts on milk, you know that it deserves an objective look.  But research like this clouds the picture and is darn near propaganda.  It's marketing under the guise of research.  Ugh.

Salt 4- Sympthetic nervous system

We've previously discussed the function of the autonomic nervous system (ANS).  The ANS is fundamentally divided into the sympathetic (fight or flight) and parasympathetic (rest and digest) divisions.  As a general rule, our body is predisposed toward sympathetic dominance when we don't take care of ourselves.  In other words, when you don't eat/sleep/exercise well & carry too much stress, your body tends to become imbalanced in this department and drive toward overexpression of the sympathetic nervous system.

For example, your blood pressure tends to go up.  Your heart rate tends to go up.  Your ability to digest food goes down.  You respiration rate tends to go up.  All of these are associated and caused by the sympathetic nervous system.

As mentioned, Americans consume way too much salt.  It appears that salt drives the sympathetic nervous system towards overactivity.  A paper from the University of Texas states,

"In recent years, studies have shown that SNA (sympathetic nervous activity) can rise as a result of both acute and chronic increases of body fluid osmolality. These findings have raised the possibility that salt-sensitive cardiovascular diseases could result, at least in part, from direct osmosensory activation of CNS sympathetic drive"   J Phys 2010 Sep 15(Pt18) ;588:3375-84

Much of our brain (in its well state) is dedicated toward suppressing this sympathetic drive.  In other words, it keeps the sympathetics in check.  With excessive salt intake, we predispose toward this heightened sympathetic condition.  Remember that as you cook your dinner tonight.

Salt 3- Why we need it

Without sodium, you would die.  All cells in the body have electrical properties.  Some cells actually depend very heavily on these electrical properties in order to function appropriately.  Whenever a brain cell activates, it depends on a precise balance of sodium rushing into a cell and eventually being pumped back out.  Oddly enough, when sodium rushes into a bunch of cells in a coordinated pattern, our brain is allowed to function as it should. The same thing holds true for muscles.  Without sodium, your muscles would never have an opportunity to contract.

Sodium needs to be in a certain concentration in the blood and around your cells.  "Concentration" refers to how much sodium is present in a given volume of fluid.  For example, let's take 1 teaspoon of sodium and put it in 1 liter of water.  It will taste somewhat salty.  But if I double the amount of sodium and add 2 teaspoons, it will taste more salty because there is more sodium per any given drop of water.  This is more concentrated.

If we now take 3 teaspoons of salt and put it in 50 liters of water, we may not even taste it!  While there is more sodium, it is far less concentrated in the solution.

If we begin to mess around with sodium concentrations, then bad things will happen.  Several years ago, a woman lost her life because she diluted the sodium in her body with way too much water. She drank way too much water and experienced something called hyponatremia.  When this happened, sodium was not able to dance in and out of cells as it normally would and cells began to shut down.

Clearly, sodium is necessary to life.  But as we know, if "a drop is good", it is not necessarily true that "a cup is better."  More is not better.  Balance is necessary.

From this foundational understanding of sodium's behavior in human physiology, we can begin to explore the problems with high sodium in our diets.

Salt 2- Confusion

There was a great piece published in TIME magazine this week regarding salt.  It discussed a controversial study that suggested that sodium reduction may not be as important as once thought.  The piece in TIME also referenced a boldly written article in Scientific American titled, "It's Time to End the War on Salt: the zealous drive by politicians to limit our salt intake has little basis in science"

There's quite a bit of confusion and as discussed in the articles referenced above, there are many scientific papers that ping-pong back and forth debating the influence of salt on overall health.  Nearly all of these studies look at salt's influence on hypertension; a very well-described risk factor for cardiovascular disease.

If you read enough of these types of stories, you realize that ultimately, the conclusion is, "We don't know enough.  We have some ideas but need further research to see what bears out."  The interpreted message for some is, "Therefore, we will eat as much salt as we want since science can't prove that salt is bad."

I hate to 'cut and paste' but this last paragraph from the TIME piece is great:

In the end then, there may be no simple answers. Researchers and public health officials who support population-wide efforts to curb sodium intake have a vast body of evidence to support their point of view. For decades now, they can say, we have seen studies that suggest — but, yes, they only suggest — that salt is deadly. And those who don't support efforts to curb salt consumption can claim, often correctly, that the evidence against salt is merely suggestive.

In other words, you can interpret this particular body of science to support your views and frankly, no one can prove you wrong at this point.  While the policy wonks can have a field day debating both sides of this, where does that leave the average consumer?

So as a person who advocates for the average consumer (I am not a policy maker and have no relationship to any food companies), I'll tell you that frankly, you should eat less salt.  There is enough evidence from a physiological perspective that tells us that too much salt is bad.  Bad enough to kill you?  Maybe not- in and of itself. But certainly bad enough to contribute to several vicious cycles of physiological demise that can be very difficult to break.  

We'll explore.  But the science combined with a healthy dose of common sense will show us that we take in too much salt and that is bad. 

Salt 1- Easy Does It

Everyone has heard the concerns over salt. The health community has generally recommended that daily salt intake be restricted to 1500mg.   This is enough to cover all of our basic needs for sodium. The USDA states that even if we exceed that amount, we really should not go any higher than 2300mg daily (tolerable upper limit);  this is about 1 teaspoon of salt.   The average American consumes 3,436 mg of salt a day with the vast majority consumed through processed foods or restaurant foods. 

To give you some sense of what these numbers mean:

• 1 Big Mac and medium fries alone contain 1310 mg of sodium.
• Two slices of Pizza Hut's pepperoni pizza have 1220 mg
• 6 inch turkey sandwich at Subway has 810mg of sodium.
• One Footlong Italian Sub at Subway has a whopping 3,440 mg of sodium!   That's more than twice the sodium we need in an entire day! 

It's probably an understatement to say the American's consume too much salt.  In fact, the Centers for Disease Control estimates that thousands of lives could be saved each year if we simply cut down our salt consumption.

In the next few posts, we'll take a look at salt and whether there's enough evidence to scare us away from that shaker.