LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksOriginally Posted by chuckskull
Western politics seems to be getting madder by the week. The US congress declared Pizza a vegetable last week.Had a Chicago Town Pepperoni Pizza last night
Honestly but... the EU is turning into the Wacky Races...
Western politics seems to be getting madder by the week. The US congress declared Pizza a vegetable last week.
Honestly but... the EU is turning into the Wacky Races...
Not nearly enough to replace the 2.5L you shed daily.
If you drink a few cups of Coffee or Tea per day, that's gives you enough water.
If you are exercising strenuously, water on it's own may not be enough to re-hydrate you. If you're just sitting at your PC or at your desk at work - then it's fine. It's all about application - you can't just put it in a box and say that it's 'X'
Ummm...
Water is literally the only thing which hydrates you. It wont provide any sugars your body needs to keep going however, but that's another matter.In physiology and medicine, dehydration (hypohydration) is defined as the excessive loss of body fluid.[1] It is literally the removal of water (Ancient Greek: ὕδωρ hýdōr) from an object
Well the quote in question which was knocked back is as follows:
As I understand it's the "concomitant decrease of performance" which was the sticking point, but of course it suits the position of certain publications on the EU to just selectively quote.The regular consumption of significant amounts of water can reduce the risk of development of dehydration and of concomitant decrease of performance.
It's rather strange that an advisory decision (which member states are free to ignore) that was published in february is now being presented as "news". And what appears to be the main source of the story seems to be the same people who actually applied to be able to make the claim in the first place. Doesn't exactly seem to be an unbiased presentation of the actual story...
All I know is, no matter how much beer I drink in a night I always wake up thirsty the next day.
That is simply medically, or rather physiologically, not true. Look up dehydration, especially hypotonic dehydration. It's the body being short of fluids, and the imbalance of various minerals. It's an electrolyte deficiency, as well as simply a water deficiency. It can be primarily the minerals you're short of. It depends on the type of dehydration.
Medically, the problem is broader than the root of the name would suggest.
If someone is otherwise healthy, it is possible to get all or virtually all of the necessary fluids through diet. For instance, watermelon, tomatoes and various other fruits and veg are high in water, not to mention other essentials, and you don't drink them.They said water, not pure water. You're still drinking water, we know you did, because if you only drank water 10 times in a whole year you'd be dead. Adding chemicals doesn't stop water from being water.
And in the context of the EU diktat, fluids that happen to contain water, like milk or Gatorade, or neat Glenfiddich, aren't water even though they contain it.
As that EU ruling is over bottled water, it;s certainly possible to live indefinitely without drinking water, either bottled or tap, such as by drinking other fluids that include water .... or by being in hospital on a drip.
It is also certainly the case that for some instances of dehydration, drinking even water is not adequate to the task, and intravenous rehydration is called for.
It's worth bearing in mind that in this whole discussion, dehydration covers a range of situations from very mild dehydration from excessive sweating and maybe over-exercise, to life-threatening conditions caused by fevers, diarrhoea or vomiting, etc, and drinking loads of water can just induce more vomiting.
But it's all rather academic, since the ruling itself seems to be about claims on bottled water, and on that, I'd agree with j1979 like it seems that the ruling is being rather deliberately misrepresented. Of course, I'm shocked (not) that someone selling a product should try to be smart with their wording of claims to sell it.
Can drinking water reduce dehydration? Yes, but it isn't always the right or even best method.
Can drinking other things work as well? Again yes, with the same caveat.
Will drinking water or anything else always reduce or eliminate dehydration? Not in severe cases, no.
In the later case, I have have personal experience, having ended up in a hospital with dehydration and a temperature of 105, after a fever had spiked (and the hallucinations stopped) and was on the way back down. And that's the doctor's temp reading, not mine. The cure? Drink plenty of fluids (and he recommended what to drink and what to not drink, and the recommendations weren't just water), take paracetamol until the temp dropped, and get plenty of rest.
The water is an electrolyte, but electrolyte imbalance is another issue. Your body requires a certain amount of water (hydration) to function mechanically, when that level drops, your body becomes dysfunctional, how do you fix that? You consume water.
I'd like to see anyone try living with zero fluid intake. Even gorging on watermelon wouldn't replace all the water you lose daily, and it'd make you sick in the process anyway.
Nobody is arguing that chemically pure water is the sole way to be hydrated, such inference is entirely assumed on the part of the Europrats.
It's still water being pumped into your arm.
And vendors don't claim that it's the only way to hydrate.
Vendors didn't claim others don't.
Which vendors also didn't claim. And extreme medical conditions aren't exactly the target market either. Now if bottled water vendors start giving doctors kickbacks to replace IV saline with mouthfuls of branded bottle water, then you'd have a case.
The whole point is that the EU has banned water vendors from making the claim "drinking water can prevent dehydration", not 'drinking chemically pure water from our bottles is the only way to stop dehydration', we all know bottled water is far from chemical purity anyway, it's loaded with minerals.
I'm all for government punishing companies for making fraudulent claims, hell, I'd demand upper management to go to jail if they conned the public and caused harm in the pursuit of profit, you'd be hard pressed to find someone who's more concerned about the public good over corporate profits.. But in this case, the argument against the claim is an entirely imaginary inference, and that just isn't good enough reason for government to bare assert authority over private endeavours, and serves as far more a threat to the public good than a claim which amounts to 'this shiznitz dethirsts you'.
http://euromove.blogactiv.eu/2011/11...of-a-euromyth/
In the case of the dehydration claim, the proposal was rejected by the EFSA scientific panel not because dehydration cannot be prevented by drinking water but because it is not a disease risk claim. A disease risk claim “states, suggests or implies that the consumption of a food category, a food or one of its constituents significantly reduces a risk factor in the development of a human disease” (article 2(6)); the proposal sent to EFSA asserted not that dehydration was a risk factor but that it was the disease itself.
There is in fact a separate register of “Health claims describing or referring to the role of a nutrient or other substance in growth, development and the functions of the body” (article 13(1)), which is where a claim about water and dehydration belongs. The application to EFSA was rejected not because it was unfounded scientifically but because it was submitted under the wrong regulatory heading.
Again, wrong. Water is not an electrolyte, though water with the right impurities is, but then, it's the impurities that are converting the water into an electrolyte. And, of course, there are plenty of electrolytes that are not water, such as battery acid .... though I don't recommend it as a treatment for dehydration.
But as I said, some forms of dehydration are about salt deficiencies, not water shortage. If you have that form of dehydration hypotronic (or hyponatremic), drinking water will not address the problem, and in fact, by further diluting the bodies existing salts. may actually make it worse.
Put it this way. Dehydration is a broad term of a variety of actual problems which may have the same basic root but manifest in different ways. Drinking (or infusing) water will help with some and may others worse. Your assertion in the quote is correct, but incomplete. If your deficiency is water, then adding water will help, though not necessarily by drinking it, and if you do drink it, not by gorging on it. Little and often, rather than glugging down loads. But dehydration includes variants where that may well not only not help, but harm.
Not what I suggested, and you know it.
Yup, but you were being pedantic and referred j1979 to drinking it. So I was being pedantic right back, and pointed out he may well be getting water without drinking it, via other methods.
And nor did I say they did.
Indeed, but it was you that raised the medical issue by suggesting that j1979 would be dead if he did what he claimed. You effectively called him a liar.
Then, tumble quoted a physiological and medical definition of dehydration, and you told him
It is not, medically or physiologically the only thing that hydrates you. And he was specifically quoting the medical and physiologically interpretation of the condition of dehydration, not the commonly understood (or rather, misunderstood) definition.Water is literally the only thing which hydrates you. It wont provide any sugars your body needs to keep going however, but that's another matter.
Which is why I said you were simply wrong. It is not just about water, and as explained, water is not the only thing required to treat it and may even be harmful, especially if drunk.
I mostly don't disagree with that, but I think the ruling has been misrepresented. See Rob B's post after your last one, in post 26.The whole point is that the EU has banned water vendors from making the claim "drinking water can prevent dehydration", not 'drinking chemically pure water from our bottles is the only way to stop dehydration', we all know bottled water is far from chemical purity anyway, it's loaded with minerals.
I'm all for government punishing companies for making fraudulent claims, hell, I'd demand upper management to go to jail if they conned the public and caused harm in the pursuit of profit, you'd be hard pressed to find someone who's more concerned about the public good over corporate profits.. But in this case, the argument against the claim is an entirely imaginary inference, and that just isn't good enough reason for government to bare assert authority over private endeavours, and serves as far more a threat to the public good than a claim which amounts to 'this shiznitz dethirsts you'.
Oh, and while we're talking about accuracy ....
That's not necessarily true either. It depends what you add, and how you add it. Burn sulphur and you get sulphur dioxide. Oxidise it and you get sulphur trioxide. Hydrate that (i.e. a process adding water) and you get sulphuric Acid in a pure form. Dilute it, again with water, and you get a strong liquid form of sulphuric acid.
Admittedly, the actual process is a little more tricky that that description suggests, but chemically, you've combined water (H2O) with a chemical, sulphur trioxide (SO3), and what you end up with is most definitely not water.
And there are countless other examples I could have used.
Sure, adding some chemicals to water and you'll end up with a chemical suspended in water. But others cause a chemical reaction and the water has changed at a molecular level to something else, which is no longer water, any more than sulphuric acid is. It all depends what you add, and how you add it.
What about the dangers of over hydrating.
Perhaps they are looking at this angle to and if your do exercise and drink 500ml of water but have exercised some much you have sweated more. Your body will tell you but some people don't know the signs of dehyradation so they see, "drink this and your be hydrated".
Finally they are thinking one size doesn't fit all.
Nowhere is it ever written as such though (*), and for good reason. Heck, I've never even seen bottled water being advertised as an healthier option than sugar filled soft drinks yet I reckon it would be hard to dispute otherwise.
(*) And I do not think that 'implied' is sufficient justification for a ban either. If a bottle of orange juice claims that it contains Vitamin C, and Vitamin C is good for you, I'd expect people to be smart enough to know it is not the sole source of Vitamin C.
Enjoy the yellow water out of the tap in the less privileged part of the world
Last edited by TooNice; 26-11-2011 at 05:50 PM.
bahahahah 3 year investigation to see if it helps or not ? why not just burn the money we put into the EU more like first its we cant deport next thing we wont be able to call the queen the queen as it might be "bad" for people
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
