Books like The Salt Fix: Why the Experts Got it All Wrong and How Eating More Might Save Your Life

I've decided to emulate the author and repeat important information by re-wording it slightly. One Nine of his sources are from Wikipedia.He cites articles he's written at least 17 times throughout the book without disclaiming that he's citing himself.This is completely different from what I normally read, but my mom had read it recently and it was still checked out from the library, and it looked interesting, so...I gave up about halfway through. It's not an especially difficult read, but Dicnicolantonio repeats himself SO MUCH that after wading through the repetetive first half, I skimmed the second half and saw...more repetition.There's some good info in here, but I can summarize it thusly (so you don't have to read it): *Salt is actually really healthy for you. No, like, SUPER healthy.*It's really difficult to eat so much salt your body can't deal with it.*The upper limit prescribed by the FDA (?) is actually on the low end of how much salt you should probably be consuming every day. *Here's a summary of how the healthiest countries in the world (Japan, France, South Korea, Scandinavia) consume a bunch of salt but have low blood pressure and very low instances of heart issues. *A low-salt diet might reduce your blood pressure by a point or two, but it wreaks havoc with the rest of your body, so it's actually kinda terrible to do (and isn't effective). *Sugar is actually really bad for you, and you should stop eating any. (Quote: "Get your sweet tooth hooked on just barely ripe fruit." (page 166))*Increase your salt intake to help with a myriad of health problems. *Here are some tips for who should increase their salt intake (basically everyone). *Also here's an autism nod because that's popular right now. *And in case you thought we forgot about you, low salt diets can cause obesity. You should lose weight (footnote: no indication of how or why to lose weight) and also eat more salt. *Salt is a magic bullet that will cure you of a bunch of issues. If you have a problem, you should eat more salt so your problem will be solved.*Eat more salt today! Issues I had with this book (still bulleted, because why not?):*Because this book kinda falls into the diet book category, here's a nice huge (salty?) helping of Guilt™ if you don't eat the way this doctor tells you you should.*Dinicolantonio also tells you why your current meds are Bad for You (page 161-2--take note that if you are taking SSRIs or antipsychotics, he'll tell you that you should try other things because they worsen insulin resistance.) he also gives you a medical regimen for kicking your sugar addiction (page 116--I have no idea why this is included in his book, as you can't get these meds unless your doctor is really willing to work with you. You'd need a prescription for both of the meds he suggests.). *He uses medical terms here and there, like he wrote it for the layperson and his editor was like 'nope, add some of those Big Fancy Medical Words back in or people won't believe this is a Medical Diet book. DO IT.') *The low-carb diet is something he talks about all over the place in his book, but the most healthy countries he mentions over and over (Japan, S Korea, France, Scandinavia, Italy) love their carbs. Idk.*One Several of his sources (2.54, 3.23, 3.141, 4.5, 4.7, 4.13, 7.7, 8.9, 8.17) are Wikipedia. Another is the Daily Mail (2.29).*His online sources just have a web address, without a date accessed, a date published, a title for the page, an author, or any of the other things that are generally recommended for citations. Is this a different style of citation? If so, can I cite this guy as the reason for why my citations are just a long-ass Google Books URL?*Also he cites himself multiple times (that's fine) without disclaiming that he's citing himself. That's kinda weird, imo. He cites himself at least 17 times and never mentions that he's citing himself once. Wouldn't it make more sense to say "I did this study, and it said X, and I also did a lit review, which supported that conclusion in three other blind studies"?I don't doubt that there's good info here. But it's hidden under repetitive, misleading information. And this book doesn't seem to know who its audience is, which makes it a weird read.