Supplements with a U-shaped benefit/​harm curve like that and different effects in different subgroups aren’t appropriate for universal supplementation. This is not that different to trying to add antihypertensives to the water supply.
Like most antihypertensive treatment, potassium supplementation needs to be implemented case-by-case and on a voluntary basis so that the subpopulation that needs less potassium aren’t involuntarily harmed.
Supplements with a U-shaped benefit/​harm curve like that and different effects in different subgroups aren’t appropriate for universal supplementation.
Is this a like a medical rule of thumb?
I’d just imagine that all the other commonly fortified minerals and vitamins are u-shaped in outcomes. Calcium, iodine causing hyperthyroidism. It’d just depend on the risks.
I did already glance at how likely potassium would harm others and you might find the current information interesting:
The studies suggest that so far it seems quite safe. However there could be a mild (1-2) point increase in blood pressure at the low doses for people who aren’t hypertensive, which shouldn’t impose much risk.
I think that U-curve is narrower with potassium than with iodine, calcium, or fluoride. The consequence of severe hyperkalemia is cardiac arrest so it’s quite serious. Most people would have to consume a lot of potassium to get to that point but certain subgroups—people with kidney failure for example—would be susceptible.
And many patients don’t listen or they make mistakes. In an opt-in system that is considered their responsibility, but in an opt-out system like you’re proposing, bad outcome will be blamed on the potassium fortification program. Not politically viable
Supplements with a U-shaped benefit/​harm curve like that and different effects in different subgroups aren’t appropriate for universal supplementation. This is not that different to trying to add antihypertensives to the water supply.
Like most antihypertensive treatment, potassium supplementation needs to be implemented case-by-case and on a voluntary basis so that the subpopulation that needs less potassium aren’t involuntarily harmed.
btw I’m a fan, your vid helped get me sign the pledge last year!
Is this a like a medical rule of thumb?
I’d just imagine that all the other commonly fortified minerals and vitamins are u-shaped in outcomes. Calcium, iodine causing hyperthyroidism. It’d just depend on the risks.
I did already glance at how likely potassium would harm others and you might find the current information interesting:
https://​​examine.com/​​supplements/​​potassium/​​#what-are-potassiums-main-drawbacks
The studies suggest that so far it seems quite safe. However there could be a mild (1-2) point increase in blood pressure at the low doses for people who aren’t hypertensive, which shouldn’t impose much risk.
I think that U-curve is narrower with potassium than with iodine, calcium, or fluoride. The consequence of severe hyperkalemia is cardiac arrest so it’s quite serious. Most people would have to consume a lot of potassium to get to that point but certain subgroups—people with kidney failure for example—would be susceptible.
Definitely an assumption of mine: but those with kidney issues would already have to be educated on what foods/​minerals to avoid I had imagined.
Would you happen to know any other subgroups?
And many patients don’t listen or they make mistakes. In an opt-in system that is considered their responsibility, but in an opt-out system like you’re proposing, bad outcome will be blamed on the potassium fortification program. Not politically viable
I see, appreciate the responses