• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Himalayan salt

empeake

Critical Thinker
empeake
Joined
Apr 18, 2006
Messages
478
I would appreciate your comments and help on the "Himalayan salt" fad. It came to my attention when someone offered it to my wife and claimed, among other things, that "it was the purest salt on Earth...", "it contained the 84 natural elements that the body needed, in the same proportions as present in our blood...", etc. What really set off my alarms was the following claim: that Himalayan salt was a "safe" alternative to common salt and "did not cause high blood pressure"! Of course, no factual evidence was presented, but only the usual answers about "body energy", "natural wonders vs. man-made poisons", "so-called experts (?) have said...", "studies (?) have shown...", and all sort of pseudoscientific and pseudomedical explanations.

All this seems like nonsense to me, but I'm not a doctor, biologist, biochemist or expert on the human body, and don't have the knowledge or tools to refute these claims.

I tried searching the major skeptical sites for information, to no avail. However, I did come across a web site that includes a woo-woo-wonderful testimonial by an "Aurora Colour Magnetic Crystal Sound Practitioner & Teacher, Reiki Master" (this title alone is worth the visit). Needless to say, few sites display the amount of quackery that this one does. What really concerns me is that people are believing this to be a cure for cancer and high blood pressure, as I found out in some "alternative medicine" websites.

(Since I'm new to the forum, I can't post the URL. However, do a Google search for "Himalayan salt" and visit the "magmed.co.nz" site at the top of the list.)

The wondrous claims for Himalayan salt are many and you can find them at the same site, under ""Salt for life" (just try not to hurt yourself laughing when you read the page). However, what I really need right now is information to refute the following:

1. "Table salt" is sodium chloride to which sometimes fluorine and iodine are added. Therefore it is not the kind of salt the body needs. I know that fluorine and iodine are added to prevent certain diseases, such as goiter. However, what about the claim that sodium chloride is not the salt we (and other living things) need?

2. Natural crystal salt contains the same 84 elements that form human blood in the exact same proportion. As I see it, if it has exactly the same element in exactly the same proportions, it wouldn't be salt, but human blood! Any comments?

3. Contains no heavy metals, therefore helping avoid body fluid retention. This contradicts the claim that is has 84 elements, since mercury, arsenic, cadmium, and chromium are heavy metals and are also in the list of 84 elements. My question is, what causes fluid retention and why?

4. Crystal salt is better than ordinary table salt, since table salt has preservatives and additives that the body doesn't need. There are basic three types of "salt": seawater salt, rock (crystal) salt, and refined salt. Is any of one these actually or inherently better than the others?

Sorry for the long post, but I really want to put this matter to rest the way it should be.
 
Here's the linky.

1. Salt is salt is salt. The body fills its needs for minerals not just from salt, but from all the foods we eat. This assertion is just a circular arguement.

2. Not everyone has the exact same blood chemistry so the claim is false on its face. But, theoretically, a substance could have all the trace minerals found in blood and not be blood because, for example, red and white cells would be missing. As well as water.

3. Not a MD so I can't answer with authority. But water retention by women during portions of their cycle is certainly not caused by heavy metals so I wouldn't put much stock in this claim.

4. Salt is salt is salt. Commercial products may have other elements added, but that is just icing on the cake.

This site is pure woo. Ignore it.
 
Clearly, the claims about purity and containing 84 elements are contradictory. Same goes for no heavy metals and 84 elements. How can you have 84 elements and no heavy metals?

That said, a number of elements that are pretty toxic are needed in trace doses. The best example I can think of is selenium. There were a few cases of selenium deficiency in China, which were quickly rectified by government-provided supplements. Selenium is toxic above 400 micrograms though.

I can't imagine the world at large is in any danger of missing out on trace elements though.

I also can't imagine that sea salt is any different than refined salt to several decimal places.

Blast, it's getting late here, but I'll see what I can turn up on this OK?
 
Wow, excellent questions.

What they are selling is a supplement with the usual claims. A body needs the "additive" iodine to avoid a deficiency. Does this supplement not contain it?

Unless the body lacks the "84 elements", then there really is no need to take the supplement.

Our regular table salt is not over priced, and does contain essential nutrition for our body. The lie about preservatives is hilarious. Since when does salt go bad or stale??

NaCl (sodium chloride) is salt. Anything you call salt will inevitably contain it.

http://www.saltinstitute.org/15.html
http://206.191.51.240/Resources_Salt_TowardUSI.html

I haven't heard of flourine being added before, so am trying to look that up.


This is a typical smear campaign in order to create demand for a more expensive alternative. I hope others can address your great questions in more detail, but I've got to get my silly @ss to bed.
 
I concur with SezMe and Eos. Woo, to the core.

Except for one nitpick: Table salt, Sodium Chloride, is vastly different from many other salts, like Sodium Carbonate, Calcium Carbide, and Magnesium Sulfate.
I would say that one table salt is probably very much the same and any other table salt.
 
1) Sea salt does have components in trace amounts that are similar to human blood.

2) Mined salt is pretty much the same as sea salt, because most of it comes from salt from dried-up seas anyway.

3) There's nothing special about the Himalayas that makes this much different.

4) Sea salt and mined salt suck because of a lack of iodine, mostly because near the surface the iodine gets snarfed up by sea creatures.
 
I wonder if the wonderous substance comes from this mine:
The salt mined in Khewra - which is often called the biggest or second biggest salt mine in the world - is primarly used for industrial purposes. More than half of the production, 200,000 tons per year, are sold to Imperial Chemical Industries ICI Soda Ash Khewra. Other customers are Ittehad Chemical Limited at Kala Shah Kaku and various tanneries. A certain amount of salt of the purest quality, called rock salt, is sold as table salt in the country and abroad, especially to India. A small amount is used to produce fancy goods like salt lamps, vases, and ash trays. They are sold at the tourist mine, but also exported in large quantities. The Himalayan Rock Salt Crystal Lamps are somewhat notorious.
Click to expand...
(My bolding)
 
clarsct said:
I concur with SezMe and Eos. Woo, to the core.

Except for one nitpick: Table salt, Sodium Chloride, is vastly different from many other salts, like Sodium Carbonate, Calcium Carbide, and Magnesium Sulfate.
I would say that one table salt is probably very much the same and any other table salt.
Click to expand...


Ah, I was looking for those. Na & Cl are necessary for many bodily functions. I don't see any other noxious chemical make ups for the other salts. Basically, nothing in the salts could make one better for the body than another. Eat too much of any, and you'd encounter problems though. I think 3/4 cup of NaCl could potentiall kill somebody, but I'd like to see someone eat that much in one sitting.
 
Fluoride and iodine are necessary for normal function but not necessary in salt if you are getting it elsewhere.
The claim that is has minerals in the exact proportions as the human body is probably not true but I will withhold judgment till I see data. Regardless of that if it did then it would not be the perfect source of these things since the absorption and metabolism is likely different for many of them.
The claim about fluid retention doesn't make sense to me. Fluid is retained because you have too much sodium which causes an osmotic force pulling water into the sodium rich environment. As far as I know people are not dying from heavy metal contamination of salt.
What preservatives and additives are they saying salt contains and what is the harm caused by them?
 
Table salt generally has iodine and anti-clumping agents added, but if that's the issue, it's sold without additives as "pickling salt" in most U.S. groceries at least. It has some impurities up to an allowable level, whatever the government requires for "food grade" purity, but of course the Himalayan salt also has impurities in it--in fact they seem to be its main selling point, assuming it's primarily sodium chloride plus extra trace elements that aren't removed.

For the necessity of sodium chloride to the human body, try a google for "hyponatremia," a potentially fatal condition that can occur in otherwise healthy athletes who lose large amounts of salt in sweat, without replacing it.

Quick-and-dirty answer on the fluid retention question: It's caused by the body trying to balance its osmolarity. More salt requires retaining more water to balance it; less salt requires less water to be retained. Thus the body needs sodium chloride in the right amount, but can cope with a reasonable excess or lack by retaining or excreting water. Again, a google on something like salt, "retain water" and osmolarity should bring up a variety of articles, and you can pick how technical you want to get.

So plain sodium chloride is necessary in reasonable amounts, and readily available without additives in grocery stores. The other elements found in this Himalayan salt may have benefits, but they'd need to be examined on a case-by-case basis, since trace minerals will also be coming from other parts of a person's diet, and a person may already be getting enough or too much of any of them.

My two cents on the topic anyway.

Edited to add: looks like the pup and the dogdoctor were typing similar things at the same time!
 
Last edited:
84 elements is too many by the chemical meaning of elements, unless we are going to include heavy metals such as lead, uranium, plutonium, mercury and arsenic. There is no good reason to think these merchants have found the optimum ratio of elements needed by average persons. Worse there is a strong possibility that the Himalayan salt will be injurious to some people at one gram per day and injurious to most people at 20 grams per day. We do vary considerably in our ability to dispose of an excess of many elements and compounds. The molecular structure of the compounds also affects the toxcisity and/or benefits in some cases. Neil
 
Thank you

Just a quick thank you to everyone that posted a reply. You've been very helpful.
 
Eos of the Eons said:
NaCl (sodium chloride) is salt. Anything you call salt will inevitably contain it.
Click to expand...

One smallish thing. Besides the chemical definition of salt, there are compounds that are salt-like but not NaCl. The most common is probably KCl, which is sold in grocery stores as sodium-free salt. If I remember correctly (from this book), magnesium salts were also occasionally used as salt, but NaCl tastes better and is so inexpensive nowadays that there's little reason to use other types.
 
Thanks Dilb.

It would be interesting to try KCl, since potassium is quite beneficial. I think though, and please correct me if I'm wrong, we need more amounts of sodium than potassium in our diet?
 
Dogdoctor said:
Fluoride and iodine are necessary for normal function but not necessary in salt if you are getting it elsewhere.
Click to expand...

That's true, but my ancestors (and I'm only talking three generations here) generally expected to have goiters by the time they were 45. Adding iodine to salt was a great benefit early in the 20th century.
 
It cannot be the purest salt on Earth and have any detectible elements/ions except those in the salt (presumably sodium chloride) that it is (sodium + and
chlorine - bound in a crystal lattice. It could, in theory, be the purest dry sea salt if there was such a standard (no bio/organic contaminants, no elements/molecules/ionic compounds not in seawater and in the same proportions as seawater for those legitimately present. No way could it be healthier than any other pure salt or pure sea salt regardless.
 
fuelair said:
It cannot be the purest salt on Earth and have any detectible elements/ions except those in the salt (presumably sodium chloride) that it is (sodium + and
chlorine - bound in a crystal lattice.
Click to expand...

I doubt anyone has ever made copletely pure soudium chloride. Even the very purest reagent have impurities.
 
neil said:
Worse there is a strong possibility that the Himalayan salt will be injurious to some people at one gram per day and injurious to most people at 20 grams per day. We do vary considerably in our ability to dispose of an excess of many elements and compounds. The molecular structure of the compounds also affects the toxcisity and/or benefits in some cases. Neil
Click to expand...
Another page of the site recommends taking the salt by drinking a teaspoon of 26% solution of it. The perentage is their own figure, with no explanation of how they measured it - their method for making the solution involves putting the salt crystals in water until they stop dissolving.
So that's a daily quarter-teaspoon of salt, which by my reckoning is over a gram. And as far as I can tell, they don't say anything about not adding it to food as well. So you can bet that the fruitloops who believe this stuff will be putting it into everything they eat.
 
Eos of the Eons said:
It would be interesting to try KCl, since potassium is quite beneficial. I think though, and please correct me if I'm wrong, we need more amounts of sodium than potassium in our diet?
Click to expand...

Not really. Off the top of my head, I believe the recommended amount of sodium in the US is no more than 2500 mg a day, and the recommended amount of potassium is no less than 3500 mg a day. Someone who sweats a lot in their daily activities could need more sodium than the maximum, I'd guess. The main difference, as you implied, is that we tend to get enough sodium in an average modern diet, but not enough potassium.

I've tried KCl salt, and it's got what I'd subjectively describe as a slightly bitter taste. Some "lite" salts are a mix of sodium and potassium salt, and I find them much closer to the taste of sodium salt.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom