Multiple articles on this site point toward better health from reducing intakes of sodium and refined sugar. They are well referenced and well supported by scientific data. Recently Consumer Reports, an outstanding purveyor of unbiased information to US consumers has summarized contemporary scientific opinion in a more fluent and convincing way than I or Jill Harris could achieve.
Their recommendations align with ours concerning sugar, and sodium. Likewise, they offer, as we do, tips on how to read often misleading package labels.
Being a popular magazine they do not consider bone effects of sodium, as we do, nor – of course – our unique issues about kidney stones.
Even so, they have put their weight and reputation on the scale against salt and sugar. If our stuffy science has not convinced you, read their far more capable writing and make the changes you need to make.
8 Responses to “Consumer Reports Recommend Low Diet Sodium and Sugar”
Kisan Pratham
Lot’s of health magazines like-
1. Health
2. Psychology Today
3. Men’s Health
4. Women’s Health
5. Shape,
etc.
supports the benefits of reducing the intake of sodium and sugar in a daily diet but I personally feel to consider doctor’s opinion first.
Thanks, MD Fredric Coe for sharing this knowledge!!
Regards,
Kisan Pratham
Justin designer
Grate Article:-
Robert R. Hill
Hi Doc,
Since all the trouble last year, I’ve been doing the low sodium/sugar thing. Also drinking lots of fluid every day. Renal scan shows my right kidney lagging behind my left, 63% to 37%. Probably due to scar tissue in the right ureter from all the stones I’ve passed through the years. Good news is that a CAT scan in January and x-ray in September show no new stones have developed. Just 12 or 13 tiny upper pole stones. My doc says it’s entirely up to me if we should remove them. I’ve opted to do one more SWL, sometime this month, to be completely stone free. Then go from there.
Thanks for all your help last year, when I almost lost my right kidney. Although it’s a bit sluggish, it’s still there. 😉
Fredric Coe, MD
Hi Robert, I am happy for you that no new stones have occurred. As for the remaining stones, given you have some kidney loss already does your physician prefer ureteroscopy as opposed to SWL. The latter, while reasonably benign, does cause some kidney damage acutely and you do not have anything to spare. Ask him/her about the matter. Regards, Fred Coe
Robert R. Hill
He wants to do SWL. He has said nothing about ureteroscopy. He said there was no problem leaving the stones in, as they are all 2 to 4 mm. I’ve actually passed one or two since that CAT scan in January with no pain, only reason I knew is I saw them on the bottom of the bowl and kept them for my collection. LOL
But, any stone can drop down out of the upper pole, and once that happens, can grow to become a problem. He feels it’s best to get them out, even though he’s said he doesn’t have a problem leaving them. What’s your opinion?
Fredric Coe, MD
Hi Robert, Surgery is for surgeons to decide about and I would always do as your surgeon recommends. My only concerns is that you tell me you have reduced kidney function – kidney mass in fact – so everything has to balance risk of damage against risk from the stones. Your surgeon is the only person who can actually do that for you in this instance. As for the stones in your collection get them analysed; things can change and you always need to keep an eye on stone composition. Regards, Fred Coe
Dave Monk
Excellent article – thanks for posting, Dr. Coe!
Fredric Coe, MD
Thanks, Dave; Hope things are going well with you. Fred