But if it's a product of the bottled water industry, why has the recommendation remained unchanged for over 50 years? (long before the bottled water industry existed)
Recommended amounts of daily fluid intake are so much mince
- Thread starter Toddy
- Start date
-
Hey Guest, Early bird pricing on the Summer Moot (29th July - 10th August) available until April 6th, we'd love you to come. PLEASE CLICK HERE to early bird price and get more information.
But if it's a product of the bottled water industry, why has the recommendation remained unchanged for over 50 years? (long before the bottled water industry existed)
Swallow, I too think the individual and their needs differ enormously. I still think that the original link debunking the spurious fake science of the bottled water companies is of interest and worth attention.
The urine colour chart idea is unbalanced in that it gives no information on overhydration and the issues associated with it.
Peeing 'clear' or very light straw coloured once in 24 hours is one thing, but I suspect that to keep it to that level on a permanent basis is not a good idea.
The water issue concerns me; one son was hospitalised (as an adult I hasten to add) because he became severely dehydrated while suffering a kidney infection while already under the weather with a throat infection (it was a very bad week) Basically he was feverish and couldn't drink because it hurt too much.
Then we got all the conflicting advice about how much water he 'should' be drinking....everything up to and including 10 litres a day
The reality is that for most healthy folks such volumes are not only unrealistic but in themselves unhealthy, especially for those who do not live in hot or arrid areas......that's most of us in the UK.
He now drinks when he's thirsty, whether it hurts or not, and has not had a single problem since.
cheers,
Toddy
Yep, Yep and Yep again. So many people covered points I was going to make I missed the one agreeing about over-hydration.
De-bunking is fine, but where I'm sitting it does look a little bit like over de-bunking on your part.
Thirst is another bio-feedback mechanism. Has a bad rep these days. And cramps my cousin got when not drinking salt water when thirsty were another.
I think a common theme in the thread is that you go with some form of bio-feedback unless you are in extreme cold or heat.
If we are all sort of agreed on that, then figures go out the window, unless they are a backup for the extreme environments.
The tragic deaths of the 3 soldiers in the Pen-y-Fan recently was pretty shocking.
I read somewhere they were doing an exercise known as the Fan Dance, which has 4 hour 15 minute time limit.
Yet within those 4 hours it seems they suffered dehydration, organ failure, and finally death. The third soldier to die was in a critical care unit for 17 days.
The speed of which they seem to have succumbed is quite shocking.
I read somewhere they were doing an exercise known as the Fan Dance, which has 4 hour 15 minute time limit.
Yet within those 4 hours it seems they suffered dehydration, organ failure, and finally death. The third soldier to die was in a critical care unit for 17 days.
The speed of which they seem to have succumbed is quite shocking.
Sorry Toddy, but completely disagree. Based on 6 continents and 40-50 countries or more travelled to over the last 40-odd years, most of the locations off the beaten tourist routes, malnutrition is more the norm than the exception in third-world countries. Even in my lifetime in the UK, it's noticeable the increase in height for example over that period. At 6ft, I was one of the tallest in my classes at school. 20 years later, most of my eldest daughters male friends were topping out at that height or more at 15-16!
And I can't help but chuckle at the basic assumption of some that - if anything comes out of a big company - it must of necessity be evil! That's just political dogma, not reality. Next time you're ill, and take medicines developed and produced by those evil large firms, you might like to reconsider.....
A well-made point by mrcharly pointed out that that particular study was based around top-level sport people, and their specific needs re rehydration and electrolyte levels. I was looking at a video a couple of days ago about the England rugby squad, and the backroom nutrition and training guys/gals re nutrition, electrolyte and rehydration needs, and their ongoing empirical evidence about performance levels. The amount of detail they go into about individual athletes measurable performance levels, recovery periods etc is amazing. Other sports nowadays are also so professional with results mattering so much financially, and all are looking at this level of investigation. If things don't work, they change them.
It's define parameters really, isn't it ?
My background says that if people are successfully breeding then they are not critically malnourished. Population growth is the clearest demonstration of that.
Our, westernised world view, of 'normal' body type and over abundance of food alters our perception of others who do not live within those particular situations. Lean and skinny is not malnourished, it's perfectly normal.
I came across an older text recommending eight glasses of water a day but three of them had to be seawater I firmly suspect that talking mince has been going on for a long time.
I read a medical report recently where the recommended maximum salt intake was also debunked; most of the world survives quite happily on more than the recommended amount, and in some instances a very great deal more than that.
Not a ringing endorsement to drown food in salt, but some of the scare tactics aren't doing any favours.
Snake oil and aluminium pans....uhuh.
I am becoming incredibly sceptical and curious about who actually produces unbiased research results.
I take the point about the specifics of sportsmen and women, but most of us aren't sportsmen and women, most of us do not adhere to that level of physical discipline. That the first report was biased in their interest doesn't detract from the too much is bad too, reality, and that the bombardment of recommended minimums is actually a sales tactic.
On that note, I'm away to put the kettle on
cheers,
Toddy
My background says that if people are successfully breeding then they are not critically malnourished. Population growth is the clearest demonstration of that.
Our, westernised world view, of 'normal' body type and over abundance of food alters our perception of others who do not live within those particular situations. Lean and skinny is not malnourished, it's perfectly normal.
I came across an older text recommending eight glasses of water a day but three of them had to be seawater
I firmly suspect that talking mince has been going on for a long time.I read a medical report recently where the recommended maximum salt intake was also debunked; most of the world survives quite happily on more than the recommended amount, and in some instances a very great deal more than that.
Not a ringing endorsement to drown food in salt, but some of the scare tactics aren't doing any favours.
Snake oil and aluminium pans....uhuh.
I am becoming incredibly sceptical and curious about who actually produces unbiased research results.
I take the point about the specifics of sportsmen and women, but most of us aren't sportsmen and women, most of us do not adhere to that level of physical discipline. That the first report was biased in their interest doesn't detract from the too much is bad too, reality, and that the bombardment of recommended minimums is actually a sales tactic.
On that note, I'm away to put the kettle on
cheers,
Toddy
I'm on two aswell, and was told to survive on 1.5l after I apparently drank 6l in one day whilst in hospital on a drip of diuretic. Doesn't sound like I had as bad an experience. Though waking one morning for pee, and managed to overflow one of them **** bottle cartons. Slightly embarrassing.
And the salt tablets are foul.
Fortunately this was several years ago now and haven't had any complaints from the docs since.
That's the problem, there is no immediate guidance on the chart, so are you supposed to look when it's all down the toilet, in which case it has already been diluted.
I presume that it's aimed at a sample pot full of urine or a catheter leg-bag of urine.
There's a bit more information on this poster: http://www.sept.nhs.uk/Community-Health/Bedfordshire-Community-Health-Services/~/media/SEPT/Files/Service/Keeping%20Hydrated.ashx
Toddy is right, there is no mention of over-hydration and the risks associated with it though. Things have to be looked at as a guide only and taken in combination with other symptoms and known fluid intake, and by that I mean have you had less fluid than usual, or have you been exerting yourself / sweating more than usual etc etc, as you say it's a personal thing combined with environmental factors and existing medical conditions that dictate you have a larger/smaller than usual fluid intake.
Urine colour can be skewed by a host of other factors such as food, medications and health besides hydration levels, so I think that the poster is just designed to make people aware of dehydration.
So Andy, you mistook lean and skinny for malnutrition? Right?
It's funny but I haven't seen many indigenous people living an indigenous lifestyle that don't either looked like they went to the gym, or had a bit of extra weight.
Most people aren't in that position.
Last edited:
World statistics say that one in eight humans are malnourished....that ranges from going hungry to starvation.
The corollary is that 7 out of 8 are not malnourished or hungry....the greatest proportion of the population.
http://www.worldhunger.org/articles/Learn/world hunger facts 2002.htm
I'm not saying there are no malnourished people, I am saying that the majority are not malnourished.
Statistics....it's all in how you present them. Too often the interpretation is lost in the hype.
Mary
The corollary is that 7 out of 8 are not malnourished or hungry....the greatest proportion of the population.
http://www.worldhunger.org/articles/Learn/world hunger facts 2002.htm
I'm not saying there are no malnourished people, I am saying that the majority are not malnourished.
Statistics....it's all in how you present them. Too often the interpretation is lost in the hype.
Mary
Wrong. Surprisingly enough, there is only a very small percentage of the population that are living an indigenous lifestyle nowadays (and even in the Amazon in small tribal enclaves you'll see the ubiquitous football shirt!). The majority tend to live on the cheapest food available, which tends to be high in carbs and low on protein, giving rise to stunted growth, low average lifespan and making them particularly susceptible to host of ancillary diseases as a result.
Interesting fact - the average height of the Japanese male increased between 6 and 7 inches in the first generation post WW2, with a virtual elimination of rickets (the source of WW2 propaganda about the "bandy-legged nips"). Reason? Massive increases in the average protein intake of the vast majority of the population. A case of Big Macs being good for you?!
To be honest if someone thought of me as a statistic and I'm was the OK category then I don't care. If someone thought of me as a statistic and I was in sheep dip, then I'd probably be quite offended.
1/8 * 7,117,000,000 = 889,625,000 that seems like a lot of people to me but then I guess you could take the edge off it and say it's only 167.43 Scotlands.
See, there's the edge.
It's okay to decry me for saying something but when the statistics actually say something that irritates folks they still try to get a dig in.
Statistics, are simply that.
I don't like the undeniable fact that there are hungry people in this world, I help where I can, but the concommitant fact remains.
M
It's okay to decry me for saying something but when the statistics actually say something that irritates folks they still try to get a dig in.
Statistics, are simply that.
I don't like the undeniable fact that there are hungry people in this world, I help where I can, but the concommitant fact remains.
M
I didn't see that as dig. I saw it as an alternative representation.
Statistics are used as much to justify as they are to understand. The line about
Looks awfully like a justification of a viewpoint to me and up to the point where you added
it looked like you were saying there wasn't a real problem.
Statistics are used as much to justify as they are to understand. The line about
Looks awfully like a justification of a viewpoint to me and up to the point where you added
it looked like you were saying there wasn't a real problem.
Nope; simply saying that most of the population are not malnourished.
I sometimes wonder about this internet conversation thing. It's impossible to hear intonation, emotions, attitudes and expression that we take as part of the entire communication process when face to face, especially with people we have never met.
It's easier with those I have met, I can 'hear' them in the words they write
M
I sometimes wonder about this internet conversation thing. It's impossible to hear intonation, emotions, attitudes and expression that we take as part of the entire communication process when face to face, especially with people we have never met.
It's easier with those I have met, I can 'hear' them in the words they write
M
Also when you read the words of someone you have not met I think your hear them in your own voice. It's pretty easy to argue with yourself!
Sent from my HTC Desire using Tapatalk 2
Sent from my HTC Desire using Tapatalk 2
greensurfingbear
Bushcrafter (boy, I've got a lot to say!)
Actually no. It means you're not getting enough "nutritious" food. You can be both overfed and malnourished at the same time. Most commonly in the world at large it means that they're getting limited food but only of staples (rice, beans, etc) and damned few, if any, fruits and/or vegetables.
Last edited:
Successful breeding on that level usually indicates poverty and lack of other forms of recreation.
