I find this claim a bit weird considering that only a very small minority of my patients (geriatric, often poor nutrition) are hypokalemic while not receiving any supplements.
Who’s RDA is that and how was it determined? How strong is the evidence for it?
The fact that you have patients means you might know more about this than me.
That said, Wikipedia seems pretty confident that we’re not meeting the DRI, states that increased potassium intake improves health, and says only that the correct intake is “debated”. It’s important to distinguish between inadequate intake and suboptimal intake. I’d wager the medical establishment only refers to the former as hypokalemia.
There’s also a good argumentum ad savannam africanus that can be made here. Plants contain lots of potassium and little sodium. (If you put plant matter in a pot and burn it, you’ll be left with a white layer of “pot ash”, hence “potassium”.) Nowadays, people don’t eat many plants, and we pour sodium on everything.
It’s important to distinguish between inadequate intake and suboptimal intake. I’d wager the medical establishment only refers to the former as hypokalemia.
Yes. It could also be that the potassium and sodium concentrations don’t vary much no matter what your consumption, but your kidneys have to work harder to maintain the balance which could have health effects. I don’t see much hypernatremia either although sodium is way overconsumed. I think this is because water follows sodium and therefore as you retain sodium you retain water in the extracellular volume. Therefore the measurable concentrations don’t change although you have excess sodium in your system. I think potassium and water don’t interact the same way because potassium is mostly intracellular and cells can’t stretch arbitrarily whereass the extracellular volumes can.
Optimal potassium intake probably varies hugely depending on your sodium intake since they interact inseparably in the human body.
africanam, surely? (I’m assuming savanna is feminine, as 1st declension Latin nouns generally are. Actually it appears that in the 16th century there was a Latin word zauana with that meaning, but sticking with a more recognizable form is probably better.)
I find this claim a bit weird considering that only a very small minority of my patients (geriatric, often poor nutrition) are hypokalemic while not receiving any supplements.
Who’s RDA is that and how was it determined? How strong is the evidence for it?
The fact that you have patients means you might know more about this than me.
That said, Wikipedia seems pretty confident that we’re not meeting the DRI, states that increased potassium intake improves health, and says only that the correct intake is “debated”. It’s important to distinguish between inadequate intake and suboptimal intake. I’d wager the medical establishment only refers to the former as hypokalemia.
There’s also a good argumentum ad savannam africanus that can be made here. Plants contain lots of potassium and little sodium. (If you put plant matter in a pot and burn it, you’ll be left with a white layer of “pot ash”, hence “potassium”.) Nowadays, people don’t eat many plants, and we pour sodium on everything.
Yes. It could also be that the potassium and sodium concentrations don’t vary much no matter what your consumption, but your kidneys have to work harder to maintain the balance which could have health effects. I don’t see much hypernatremia either although sodium is way overconsumed. I think this is because water follows sodium and therefore as you retain sodium you retain water in the extracellular volume. Therefore the measurable concentrations don’t change although you have excess sodium in your system. I think potassium and water don’t interact the same way because potassium is mostly intracellular and cells can’t stretch arbitrarily whereass the extracellular volumes can.
Optimal potassium intake probably varies hugely depending on your sodium intake since they interact inseparably in the human body.
africanam, surely? (I’m assuming savanna is feminine, as 1st declension Latin nouns generally are. Actually it appears that in the 16th century there was a Latin word zauana with that meaning, but sticking with a more recognizable form is probably better.)
I stole that phrase from here, which has some discussion of the grammar. I don’t know any Latin.
Looks to me like the conclusion of that discussion, in so far as it had one, was that “africanam” is right.