Photo by Donna Turner Ruhlman

Photo by Donna Turner Ruhlman

You’d think a health news piece in the venerable NYTimes questioning a NYTimes op-ed linking illness and salt would make me happy, but it only makes me angry. What is the media’s problem?

Nobody knows anything for certain—that is the only possible story. Nobody really knows anything for certain. Not your doctor, not your nutritionist, not ABC News, not the Times, and, for sure, not me.

Today’s op-ed by Nicholas Bakalar questions an earlier op-ed by Dr. Thomas A. Farley, former commissioner of health for New York City (both articles linked above), who wrote that excess salt is killing 40,000 to 90,000 people a year (according to “best estimates”—what exactly does this mean?). Think about this number. It accounts for more deaths than breast cancer. If he is right, shouldn’t we all be wearing little anti-salt-shaker pins on our lapel? Shouldn’t we start national movements to raise money to prevent salt intake? I do not mean to belittle breast cancer, only Dr. Farley’s claims.

Last September the elegant and intelligent Diane Sawyer sent dire warnings from her seat on high at ABC Nightly News announcing a “new” health crisis: “The threat is salt,” she intoned ominously. As far as I could discern, and I was listening carefully, she and the reporter (as is common) said only “studies show” or words to that effect, without naming the actual study or source (Dr. Farley perhaps?).

The Centers For Disease Control says consuming more than 2300 mg per day is harmful. How did they come up with that? Who determined that magic number and how? I called their press office. They said they’d get back to me.

As for Mr. Bakalar, his op-ed says that the study Farley relies on is substandard and flawed. Here is what Bakalar also suggests: that the studies show that salt is bad for you; that studies show that salt is good for you; that salt has no relationship to illness whatever; that too little salt is bad for you; that eating more salt than is recommended by the CDC isn’t bad for you at all and may even be good for you.

Search the NYTimes for “health and salt” and all you get is disagreement.

In fact, the only thing we know about salt and health, the one known fact is this: if you consume no salt at all, you will die.

Other than that, it’s anybody’s guess.  Should you listen to Dr. Farley? No. Should you listen to Mr. Bakalar? No. Times health reporter Gina Kolata? No.

Me? For God’s sake, no! I’m a salt proselytizer, for crying out loud! Two of my books, Charcuterie and Salumi, are worthless if you remove salt. In Ruhlman’s Twenty, the second most important cooking technique is how to use salt.

Know what the number one cooking technique is? Think. And that’s what I recommend you do for yourself where salt is concerned. The person you should listen to is you and your own body.

When my mom visits and I cook as I normally do, her ankles swell up with water. She doesn’t need the salt. When I cut back, she’s fine. During the last year of his life, my father began to complain that my food was too salty. His body was telling him that it didn’t need so much salt. I dramatically reduced the salt when I cooked for him. Our body is highly attuned to salt because we need it to survive. If you cook and eat your own naturally occurring food—that is, food that isn’t heavily processed—you can and should salt your food to taste, meaning salt it so that it’s flavorful without tasting salty.

In my opinion.

Do I have to end every rant with “God, this shit drives me crazy”? Apparently.

 

If you liked this post, take a look at these links:

© 2014 Michael Ruhlman. Photo © 2014 Donna Turner Ruhlman. All rights reserved.

Share

61 Wonderful responses to “The Lesson of Salt”

  • Emliza

    I don’t completely disagree with you. However, you sound a bit like Jenny McCarthy and autism. You don’t really know either.

    • Mantonat

      Notice that Ruhlman makes only one – exactly one – claim about salt and health. Please re-read with a little more attention.

  • Joel

    Something will kill you one day. You are going to die.

    Are you going to enjoy the journey until then or be a miserable worry-wart with bland food?

  • Michael Trippe

    Excellent piece Mr. Ruhlman. My wife is an RN and agrees fully – you NEED salt to survive. Salt imbalance (Hyponatremia – not enough salt – and Hypernatremia – too much salt) are always a concern. Electrolyte imbalances are delicate – but the body does have a way of telling you what it needs.

    Couldn’t agree more… Cook with food that’s not processed and season to taste. Think.

    MT

  • Jeannie

    The direction the health care system is going or perhaps where it is in terms of health is very upsetting to me. Doctors, and I think it is driven by insurance companies are all about “don’t eat, drink…..” but then they prescribe a drug for every potential ailment. I think a lot of writers, not all, pick up on this and write from this perspective.

    Salt is just one example, did they consider there are different types of salt, how salt is different depending on how it is processed.

    Look at bacteria, there are a lot of good bacteria in our bodies. Yet everyone is afraid of bacteria. When bacteria are a good thing.

    Look at the benefits of lard versus all the manufactured sweeteners.

    We are heading in a direction where the doctors are fearing people so much, that is why there are so many restricted diets of so many things. I am surprised they haven’t looked at the air we breath and tell us that it is bad for us….

    I am going to continue to “eat away from the food grid”, I like bacteria, I like lard and I like salt, I like gluten, hum bug…

  • Michael McCullen

    I love when you rant. There is so much truth to the statement that nobody knows anything for sure. Comparing MR To Jenny McCarthy is absurd. She is a bubblehead who has spread misinformation that has caused children to become ill when that illness is preventable thru vaccination.

  • Amanda

    I agree that health journalism is a mess but this article does nothing to help the cause. And I agree with your premise, that by cooking our own food and listening to our own bodies, we don’t need to worry about our salt intake.

    But I urge you to leave the study of the impact of excess salt on health ad the interpretation this to epidemiologists – people who have devoted their lives to determining how things like salt impact our health. People who know what they’re doing when they use “best estimates” to determine the number of deaths each year that can be attributed to salt intake. How does the CDC determine how much salt is too much? Well they have medical doctors and nutritionists and epidemiologists examine the entire body of evidence and use mathematical models to settle on a number. As new data becomes available, they periodically reevaluate this number.

    Like I said, I agree with your overall point – cook your own food and avoid all the processes stuff and you’ll be just fine. But leave the science to the scientists instead of just promoting the spread of ignorance.

    • Michael Ruhlman

      all i was saying was that nobody knows for sure and I’m waiting to hear back on how the cdc arrived at the 2300 mg per day for everyone of normal good health.

    • Anna

      Epidemiologists CAN’T determine the optimal salt amount for anyone. Ever. Period.

      NO ONE should ever make a change for health reasons based on epidemiological studies. Ever. Period.

      Epidemiology is the study of correlations. Just because something correlates doesn’t mean it causes. First rule of “real” science – correlation is not causation. Rinse & repeat.

      At best, epidemiological correlations can be used to generate a hypothesis, but real science must be used to test the hypothesis, such as a Randomized Controlled Test (RCT). Maybe, just maybe, if multiple well designed, RCTs over the years continue to support the hypothesis and none disprove the hypothesis (no black swans), then causation may be assumed.

      The health & nutrition field relies far too much on epidemiological studies because they’re cheap and easy compared to RCTs. Government health agencies, the medical industry, and journalists eat it up; the public health suffers because the advice they spew out is based on statistical correlations, not proven science.

      And so it goes with salt. RCTs haven’t been able to prove anything with regard to salt intake, other than without some, we will die.

      P.S. MR, I think this is one of your best “rants” ever! This shit drives me crazy, too.

      • Amanda

        I’d like to take this opportunity to inform you that RCTs are a type of epidemiological study. They are the gold standard. And epidemiologists are the scientists who design RCTs and analyze the data collected during RCTs. You mistakenly believe that epidemiology involves only observational studies, not experimental studies. And if you never want to rely on information determined by epidemiologists, then good luck. Epidemiology discovered the source of cholera. Epidemiology conquered tobacco companies. Epidemiology controls the spread of polio and eradicated smallpox. Epidemiology prevents you from getting salmonella, campylobacter, and listeria. Epidemiology gets your drugs approved. And I know you will probably say you don’t want drugs but maybe some day you or someone you love will need medicine for cancer. Or HIV. Or asthma. Or just plain old allergies.

        And by the way, studying nutrition through RCTs is very difficult and often unethical – that is why it is not done. How can you randomize one group of people to a high salt diet for 30 years and one group of people to a low salt diet for 30 years and even hope to have quality results? Never mind the ethical and logistical difficulties…

  • Adi

    On the new design, the pic at top appears twice on an Android 4.4.2 tablet.

    • Peter

      Also on the new design. The number of characters per line is at a glance double of what is comfortable to read. I suspect that it is a very effective way to discourage people to read your posts.

      • Carol Melancon

        I’ll still read the posts, but I agree that the line lenght is uncomfortable. That’s the first thing I noticed about the new design. In the text design references I’ve been able to find 50-60 (or some say 70) cpl is preferred.

  • Maurine Fischel

    I, too, love when you rant. I find that I have forsaken most all news coverage, and certainly all television news. What this means is that I am probably less informed on a range of topics, but certainly better informed on those I care about. And I’m definitely less panicked about the world around me. Call me the happy myopic.

  • Jules

    I second Amanda. It’s all very well and good to say, “Listen to your own body” but there’s a reason why people make their living crunching large quantities of numbers.

    I personally love salt. I have to remind myself not to use too much of it, because I have a 17-month kidlet who eats what we do.

  • Mantonat

    I read the NYT piece the other day and immediately hoped you would respond. Thanks for the rant! I’m definitely on the more sensitive side of the salt intake scale, which means that I can add reasonable amounts of salt to the foods I cook and eat at home with no problems whatsoever.

  • Barbara Christensen

    So totally agree. I have two elderly friends who claim to be salt sensitive. They eat out a lot at chain restaurants and suffer the consequences of swollen ankles and fingers often. When I cook for them, always with fresh ingredients and no processed foods, I salt freely as I usually do. They never have a problem after my meals. I don’t sling around the salt quite like Ann Burrell, but I don’t skimp either. On the other side, when I have to eat at those same chain restaurants, my ankles are usually swollen the next day. Salt is not the problem IMO, it all the garbage preservatives, hidden MSG and heavens knows what in the processed restaurant pack food.

  • Annie

    Haven’t they been touting and then rescinding this same nonsense for years? And IIRC, the problems with salt in the diet are for people whose blood pressure is already too high, or who have pre-existing heart problems. Since that doesn’t apply to me, I decided long ago that the sensible course of action is to avoid processed foods, including fast foods, eat most meals at home, and salt to taste. Sugar is much more of a problem in the diet, from what I have seen in studies.

    I think you can’t go to far wrong if you stick to Michael Pollan’s rules to Eat (Real) Food; Not too Much; Mostly Plants. In fact, since I began following the last two rules I’ve lost 70 pounds without dieting at all.

    And yes, the real problem with a lot of these news stories is that they are looking for “news.” I stopped watching that circus years ago, and even the print/online journalism I take with a large grain of….SALT!

  • Lissa Guillet

    Thank you! That’s all I’m saying. The great salt scare makes me insanely crazy. Some people actually have medical problems with salt. That’s cool but don’t throw everyone else under the bus just because one study somewhere did bad science to show that something was unhealthy.

  • Darcie

    To those who are saying that Ruhlman should, in essense, listen to the experts, you are rather missing the point. There is no consensus. Furthermore, a person is far more than some statistical data point. Even if there is some “magic number” (and there isn’t), it would be different for different people. It’s clear Ruhlman isn’t offering any medical advice, just his opinion. Chill out (maybe with a margarita featuring a salt-rimmed glass?).

  • Tim

    Very few media outlets have science journalists any more.that is to say the people they have reporting on science have no back ground in the subject. Therefore they wouldn’t know a flawed study if it bit them.

  • Gwyn

    First, i LOVE the photo. especially the rogue grains escaping the confines of the letter borders. nicely done, donna.

    Second. i want to put my head down. i want to call the studies a bunch of tripe–but that gives offal a bad name. no. one. knows. period. how could they? i appreciate the fact that very concerned, intelligent, well-meaning people devote their lives to the study of things like this. but how in the world can they say definitively the numbers are directly related to that one specific, isolated cause? can’t. no one seems to argue that processed foods are not at the heart of the problem–so what else is in processed foods? it isn’t the chemicals or fats or other synthetic crapoids sitting there canoodling happily with the salt crystals? it’s JUST the salt, eh? and i, too, want to know about the 2300 mg per day. and don’t get me started on the class issue. wanna compare the sodium levels in a meal from the golden arches and le bernadin? done now.

    more happily, it was a treat to hear you and meet you in seattle. my copy of Egg is already a little spattered.

    Cheers!

  • Greg

    A good post and fair criticism of “over active” journalism. I am not a physician but have a lot of experience in lab testing in endocrinology and hypertension. A good rule of thumb is that if you don’t have hypertension you do not need to obsess about sodium intake. Period. If you have hypertension and it is due to excess fluid from impaired renal or adrenal function then you need to have a discussion with your physician about salt balance as part of an overall treatment plan.

  • KimNB

    Hear, hear on salting for flavour not saltiness – too many, far too many, restaurant chefs have a pretty heavy hand with the salt.

  • Ben

    This is a long profile of John Ioannidis, “one of the world’s foremost experts on the credibility of medical research” called “Lies, Damned Lies and Medical Science.” They address the level of contradiction in various studies. The author writes “How should we choose among these dueling, high-profile nutritional findings? Ioannidis suggests a simple approach: ignore them all.” In other words, one of the world’s greatest biostatisticians agrees: Nobody knows anything for certain. http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/11/lies-damned-lies-and-medical-science/308269/

    • Anna

      I’m so glad you posted that link. It’s excellent. My husband is a research scientist; he convinced me years ago to ignore the studies, too, ESPECIALLY the studies that make it to the media headlines.

  • Adam

    I work a very labour intense job, outside all day with heavy lifting and a lot of sweating. On the way home I have almost painful craving for chips or french fries or something delicious and salty. When I get laid off for the winter and my days are spent walking and exercising like a normal person, those chips just don’t seem so necessary. I can FEEL my body telling me in no uncertain terms how much salt I need.

  • Saffoula

    As you point out, there are benefits to salt. Processed foods contain salt that is not iodized. We need iodine in our diet. I use organic iodized sea salt. It can help the thyroid and gastro esphogeal reflux disease to name a few. My naturopath has actually recommnded that I eat MORE salt. Keep on ranting, Ruhlman!

  • Clinton

    The CDC recommendations are the same as those put forth by the Food and Nutrition Board of the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences. They are part of the Daily Reference Intake values and are meant to provide a guideline for the appropriate intake of the various macronutrients, vitamins, and minerals necessary to sustain health. Some of these values are based on reasonably good data, and others are not, but reflect a consensus of the nutrition experts on the Board.

    While it may be true that one can listen to one’s body to determine what it needs, there are millions of obese, diabetic, hypertensive Americans with significant cardiovascular disease out there that prove that these instincts are easily overridden.

    The problem isn’t really with the science or the data or the statistics. It is the media’s never ending use of this or that isolated study to grab a headline and generate fear, dissent, outrage, etc., in an attempt to get people to watch the news or read the paper or create traffic to a website. Looks like they succeeded.

  • Jennifer

    So here’s some additional fuel for the fire. Sodium and potassium are both critical to the proper function of the body, and they are like opposite sides of a teeter totter (actually the sodium potassium ion pump found in cell membranes). So, I’ve always wondered, is it that we eat way too much sodium (possible, given the general over consumption of processed foods by most Americans), or is it that we consume too little potassium (especially given the amount of sodium we eat). I’ve suffered from low blood pressure and head rushes my whole life. I remember hearing the term “head rush” as a kid, and knowing instinctively what it meant, since I’d often get light headed standing up. I completely ignore the “stop eating so much salt” warnings. I figure my blood pressure could use the boost. But then again, you’d be hard pressed to find processed food in my house, with maybe the exception of crackers. So my salt intake is probably low compared to most Americans. And, and, and, maybe its not the salt at all. Maybe its the inflammation caused by the glycemic sugar spike happening a half dozen times a day for most Americans as we eat processed white food (sugar, white flour etc.). And they are attributing it to the salt intake when the cause is actually something else in the high salt foods. The ONLY answer is listen to your own body.

    • Michael Ruhlman

      glad you brought up along with others the potassium part of the equation.

  • Katie

    Your rant about chicken and germs is what led me to your site in the first place….and while I love your posts about food and drink and cooking, your finest work really is done when you’re peeved and frustrated.

    It is so nice to hear a voice of reason and ration questioning the “experts” of the popular press, who wouldn’t know a fact from a frog if their life depended on it.

    Rant on.

  • Mary

    I would like to put the health issues, or lack thereof, aside and ask you to comment about something I’ve noticed over the last couple years in many “fine dining” establishments, which is the gross over salting of the food.
    I have had expensive meals ruined by salt. My brother, a fellow foodie and I, (CIA ’88), with experience as a line cook and caterer, along with many friends have all noticed a rampant over use of salt.
    So, what is happening? Are we aging and as a result our palettes are becoming more sensitive to sodium? Are restaurant kitchen staffs too rushed to taste the food? Or, as I suspect, are there too many tobacco smokers in the pro food world and it is THEIR pallets that have been desensitized to salt. I would love to know your thoughts on this.

  • rachele

    I once read about a proven-flawed study that stated that coffee was harmful. I think the study was from the 70′s or something. I don’t have a source to point to, but what i do remember is that it helped me start to take all of these “studies” with a grain of salt (pun intended) So when they reexamined the study, they realized that those who participated enjoyed their coffee with cigarettes and enjoyed neither in moderation because that’s how people rolled during that time. They didn’t take lifestyle into consideration in the study.

    My point here is this…if most of us constantly eat out, eat processed etc where sugar, and especially salt are added to excess and we don’t even realize it. Our taste buds have become desensitized, and like junkees, we need more and more to get our fix. We don’t know what we are eating.

    So who is being tested in these studies? People who crack open boxes and cans of things and then salt on top of that because they can’t taste the added salt anymore?

    Since my husband and I have changed our habits, we realize we can enjoy the so called “no no” foods because we make them at home and from scratch as much as is reasonable. We salt. We butter. WE ENJOY! And we try to eat at restaurants that cook the same way.

    I know there is something to what I am saying because processed foods and most chain restaurant foods taste TOO salty to me now. Pop tastes TOO sweet to me now. And all i taste in processed food is the salt, the sweet, etc. It all tastes the same. And in the same spirit, I can very quickly tell by taste if I have gone overboard when I am cooking.

    And by the way…Our blood pressure, cholesterol, sugar levels, and weight have all improved since our behavior change. So thats proof enough for me.

    I listen to my body. And I salt when it tastes like the food i am cooking needs more salt.

    Moderation + whole foods. It works for us. And if salt is bad, I don’t want to be good.

    Ruhlman…you rock.

  • Noel Raskin, MD

    The problem is that a certain percentage of the population has a sensitivity to salt. The exact percentage has not been accurately defined. The individuals who are sensitive develop hypertension(high blood pressure) and all the complications associated with it.

    As always moderation….except moderation. Only joking.

  • kaela

    “The dose makes the poison.” ~Paracelsus

    Yes, we need salt. We will die without sodium, in fairly short order. We would also die without water, but guess what? Too much water can kill you as well.

    There is a peculiarly American sentiment that a thing – salt, fat, kale, TV movies – has to be all-good or all-evil. Must be characterized, pigeon-holed, as BAD or GOOD, and never the twain shall meet. Chocolate cake is BAD despite containing protein, complex carbohydrates, anti-oxidants. Kale is GOOD despite high levels of oxalic acid and potential hypothyroidism.

    The dose makes the poison. There is a sweet spot – for kale, for salt, for chocolate cake – that is perfect for your particular body’s health. Too little is not good for you; too much is not good for you; in the Goldilock’s zone, you feel great.

    As someone who spent four years developing a drug for congestive heart failure, a disease that has everything to do with salt intake, I’ve seen first-hand the impact of sodium dose on health. To say that medical science “just doesn’t know” whether or not salt is good or bad for you: that just isn’t true. There are reams upon reams (upon reams) of data on dietary salt and its affect on health & disease. But the American public doesn’t want a nuanced answer, doesn’t want to hear “enjoy salt in moderation;” they want a categorical GOOD or BAD. Biology just doesn’t work that way.

  • Don

    My brother and his wife never used salt until my nephew passed out and was rushed to the hospital when he was 8 years old. True story.

    In the U.S. I find a lot of people misuse salt. There’s just no reason to have a salt shaker with iodized salt on your table. Those are the people that end up in the hospital. The people that occasionally sprinkle a little fleur de sel on a poached egg or asparagus will hopefully live forever or at least they’ll die happy (look for my obit).

    We don’t keep salt on the table because we’ve learned how to salt to taste. That was actually a very hard thing to learn but it was worth it because everything tastes better when properly seasoned. For me, the secret was letting what I was tasting cool down enough to be able to properly taste without burning my tongue. I suggest that you learn how to do this if you don’t. Only use the cheap salt to make bread.

  • Brian

    Salt and fat are often made the villain in the war against obesity and bad health and folks eat it up. At the same time, sugar, which is the biggest culprit, often gets overlooked. No one ever seems to bring up how overloaded with sugar the “fat free” and “low fat” items are. People are encouraged to eat these items in bulk and are fooled into thinking they are eating healthy.

    Salting your food is not the problem. There is a huge difference between heavily salting your pasta water and the movie theater dumping 3 tablespoons of salt on a bucket of popcorn. As Don said above, it’s the salt shaker on the table and not in the kitchen that is the problem.

    It’s amazing how healthy people were before we had so many “experts” running around claiming to know what is healthy and what is not. The best piece of advice in Michael’s post is that your own body will tell what is required or not. People need to listen to their own body far more often than some so called “expert”.

  • Carolyn

    My comment is not related to this post, but I wanted to let you know how much I’m enjoying Egg. It’s a cookbook I will keep and reference for years to come.

  • Bob

    A colleague used to approach these kinds of stories by saying, “Oh, look. It’s a New Study!” And it’s not just salt. One week, coffee is good for you. Then it’s bad for you. Wine is good, then bad.

    And all of these inevitably come with a dire, “… increases your risk of (ailment) by 50%!”

    Except it’s helpful to know what that risk is in the first place. If the risk is 1%, a 50% increase is not 51% (50x), but 1.5% (an increase by half).

    • BJ

      Agreed. Isn’t everything bad for SOMEONE, SOMEWHERE, in SOME AMOUNT ?

  • BJ

    Michael, thanks for posting this story. Just lets everybody realize the extent of media corruption and sensationalism. Not only are you influenced by the regular news (liberals vs. conservatives) regarding politics, Nike, Gatorade, even the beautiful woman selling beer on TV! Well, I guess I do get a bit parched after watching that. But people are trying to influence you right down the the amount of salt you intake. If my memory is correct wasnt Salt more powerful than Gold at one point in our history? If you don’t have the scientific proof, then stories such as these are best left to the National Enquirer, or the bin. What is next, we are taking too deep of breathes and depleting the world Oxygen supply? They are counting on us to be stupid!

  • JW

    Michael,

    First of all, I’m a big fan! I have occasionally commented on health-related issues in the past, as in addition to being a foodie, am triple board certified in Internal Medicine, Nephrology, and Hypertension and am the nephrology training program director at the Medical College of Georgia.

    I think it is important to remember that the recommendations for sodium intake are public health issues and therefore cannot be applied directly to individuals. The body of literature currently supports lowering sodium intake, as sodium restriction lowers blood pressure in most. In the DASH diet study, lowering sodium intake to 2300 mg daily reduced systolic blood pressure by 7 mmHg in normotensive individuals and 11.5 mmHg in hypertensive individuals. In clinical trials, every 10 mmHg drop in systolic blood pressure achieved in treatment groups has been associated with a 25% reduction in cardiovascular disease related events and a 40% decrease in strokes. Recently in the “Trials of Hypertension Prevention (TOHP), there was a linear increase in cardiovascular events of 17% for every increased gram of sodium intake.

    As you are aware, ~75% of sodium consumed by Americans comes from processed foods. The majority of Americans do not have the resources or “where-with-all” to control their own sodium intake. The potential benefit of government regulation of sodium in processed foods could potentially save lives, decrease suffering, and save our bankrupt healthcare system 10s of billions of dollars annually.

    To answer your question re: CDC recommendation of 2300 mg – I believe it comes from the Institute of Medicine paper establishing dietary reference intakes –

    http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/DRI/DRI_Water/water_full_report.pdf

    This is an exhaustive paper that uses modeling to determine the “safest” lower and upper limits for water and associated ions. The section that highlights the adverse effects of sodium begins on page 323.

    Hope this helps.

  • Susan

    Glad to see this post. I’ve always taken issue with your promotion of salting foods so liberally because they TASTE better. I’m sure they do taste better to some, especially to those who were raised on liberally salted food and have established a flavor preference based on it. Too many people eat and prepare food according to a lifetime’s influence of how things should taste and do not listen to their bodies response until forced to deal with the ramifications of an illness directly effected by it. We need to pa

    • Susan

      Sorry, I thought I wasn’t finished but I guess I really am. No need to over season it!…

  • Lisa

    I remember learning in middle school (and continuing throughout high school and college) the importance of naming your sources, and qualifying yourself to talk/write/theorize about the subject on hand. Reporters don’t do that nowadays. I want to know how, why, and who, just like everyone else. It’s highly frustrating and dumbs down our society.

  • Tom

    It drives me crazy too. A couple of years ago my wife was saying it should be yogurt and orange juice for breakfast as that was the healthy option. Now I read that most brands of yogurt and orange juice have way too much sugar. Makes me want to go back to a bacon sandwich with loads of butter (well it would if I could be sure the pig had been reared organically and was not shoved full of antibiotics and growth hormones.

    So I feel I want to eat healthily but every year what is considered healthy seems to change. There don’t seem to be any hard facts to back these claims up.

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1.  Mother’s Day Kitchen Tools Sale(with Eggs Florentine For My Mom) | Michael Ruhlman
  2.  A Few Links To Share | Cooking With Bells On
  3.  On Seeing “Fed Up” | Michael Ruhlman