Water doesn't prevent dehydration?

[Pi1otguy]

http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/doc/1982.pdf (page 7)

The claimed effect is “regular consumption of significant amounts of water can reduce the risk of development of dehydration and of concomitant decrease of performance”. The target population is assumed to be the general population. Dehydration is a condition of body water depletion. The proposed risk factors are measures of water depletion and thus are measures of the disease. The proposed claim does not comply with the requirements for a disease risk reduction claim pursuant to Article 14 of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006.
(emphasis added)

In a roundabout way 20+ professionals spent 3 years and concluded that drinking water doesn't reduce the risk of dehydration. Obviously staying hydrated is a little more complex than just pure water, but for the general population of a 1st world country (reasonable electrolyte balance, etc) wouldn't that be a true claim.

 

[Let'sgoflying!]

Let them go hiking in the desert during the summer and see if they'd like just a little, after a few hours, or not. Might just change their conclusions.

 

[Geico266]

Loss of fluids through sweating and breathing are a combination of water and electrolites. Replacing the water and electrolites that are lost are essential for life.

It is amazing to me how dehydrated you can get flying at altitude in the dryer air.

 

[Pi1otguy]

Do we *know* that water helps or are we just assuming correlation = causation?

 

[Dan Thomas]

FWIW, I find that the water stays with me better if I put a pit of lemon juice in it. Straight water just seems to get eliminated faster.

Dan

 

[Geico266]

Do we *know* that water helps or are we just assuming correlation = causation?

Yes.

Try going a day without drinking fluids. One day, add excercise in the day also. 60% of the body is water (something like that)

You can live without...... for......

Food = 3 weeks or more.
Water = 3 days or less
Air = 3 mins

 

[fgcason]

Let them go hiking in the desert during the summer and see if they'd like just a little, after a few hours, or not. Might just change their conclusions.

+1

Where do people come up with this garbage anyway? Are they really that stupid and disconnected from reality?

I pulled a kid out of the grand canyon this summer that was about 1000 feet down a trail without water for several hours in 95+ degree sunny weather. Just half a pint of water was enough to make a significant change in behavior. It was like turning a light switch on. That kid was not going to make the top without water. It's disturbing to see someone confused enough that they were sure that walking downhill was going to get them to the rim.

 

[n20junkie]

Europe is lost.

 

[Cap'n Jack]

Europe is lost.

Perhaps so, but I see foolish behavior here too.

 

[Pi1otguy]

Yes.

Try going a day without drinking fluids. One day, add excercise in the day also. 60% of the body is water (something like that)

You can live without...... for......

Food = 3 weeks or more.
Water = 3 days or less
Air = 3 mins

Over the past year or so water has become a larger portion of my daily diet and lost ~30lbs so far. That means I now have ~20 lbs less water in me because I drank water.

 

[Geico266]

Over the past year or so water has become a larger portion of my daily diet and lost ~30lbs so far. That means I now have ~20 lbs less water in me because I drank water.

Ahhhhh no. It means you stopped taking in more calories than you burned by controlling what you ate and you lost excess fat. Congrats BTW!

 

[seand]

At the risk of going against the general rules of the internet, I read the source document and it mostly makes sense to me. This is about advertising and labeling regulations and not a scientific claim in and of itself.

What the panel found that under their rules there wasn't anything that met the definition of "disease risk reduction" in the claim that water treats dehydration. It does seem like they had to split a hair on whether dehydration was a disease or not. It does seem like a stretch to me to call dehydration a disease.

Regardless of how you feel here, if you think this kind of bureaucratic nutrition resolution is unique to Europe as part of its downfall... the US Congress just designated frozen Pizza as a vegetable. This despite that scientifically none of the ingredients are vegetables. While the US Supreme court decided it is a vegetable back in 1893 for taxation purposes, the states have passed laws designating it one or both a fruit and/or vegetable, and botanically there is no debate.

 

[Pi1otguy]

Ahhhhh no. It means you stopped taking in more calories than you burned by controlling what you ate and you lost excess fat. Congrats BTW!

Thanks. A big part of that was eliminating the ~120 "liquid calories" per bottle several times a day found in most sugary drinks. So in a way, yes, water lacks the sugars required to keep excess body fat which contains water.

At the risk of going against the general rules of the internet, I read the source document and it mostly makes sense to me. This is about advertising and labeling regulations and not a scientific claim in and of itself.

That's why I posted it vs the slightly over the top reporting in the UK news sources on this issue.

What the panel found that under their rules there wasn't anything that met the definition of "disease risk reduction" in the claim that water treats dehydration. It does seem like they had to split a hair on whether dehydration was a disease or not. It does seem like a stretch to me to call dehydration a disease.

My understanding is that while it may have real world implications on the claims water bottlers can make, this was more of a test case than anything else. My thinking is that at some point in the 3 years someone should have adjusted the claim or the rules to consider this bases on it relieving a condition. Consumers look to food and herbal products based on their assumed affects on conditions too (energy drinks, SoBe, etc).

Regardless of how you feel here, if you think this kind of bureaucratic nutrition resolution is unique to Europe as part of its downfall... the US Congress just designated frozen Pizza as a vegetable. This despite that scientifically none of the ingredients are vegetables. While the US Supreme court decided it is a vegetable back in 1893 for taxation purposes, the states have passed laws designating it one or both a fruit and/or vegetable, and botanically there is no debate.

The pizza thing actually makes sense. IF we assume that juices and purees count as their original fruit or vegatable, then anything with enough tomato sauce or puree contains vegetables. A properly constructed pizza or even lasagna contains vegetables in the form of tomato puree in the sauce.

 

[Cap'n Jack]

The pizza thing actually makes sense. IF we assume that juices and purees count as their original fruit or vegatable, then anything with enough tomato sauce or puree contains vegetables. A properly constructed pizza or even lasagna contains vegetables in the form of tomato puree in the sauce.

A Chicago style pizza might fit this description. A good NY style pizza lets the bread do the "talking". You can't have a good pizza without a good crust. Adding too much tomato sauce or cheese, or other stuff, hides the taste of the crust, which is probably a good thing for a Chicago pizza:wink2:

 

[Jim Logajan]

At the risk of going against the general rules of the internet, I read the source document and it mostly makes sense to me. This is about advertising and labeling regulations and not a scientific claim in and of itself.

What the panel found that under their rules there wasn't anything that met the definition of "disease risk reduction" in the claim that water treats dehydration. It does seem like they had to split a hair on whether dehydration was a disease or not. It does seem like a stretch to me to call dehydration a disease.

Maybe I misread the linked-to document, but I'd say you and the authors are both making a false assumption. The original marketing claim is in German, but in the English language document their translation of the German marketing claim uses the word "performance" not "disease".

So it really doesn't matter whether dehydration is a disease, since that wasn't the word used in the marketing claim:

"Regelmäßiger Verzehr signifikanter Mengen von Wasser kann das Risiko für die Entwicklung von Dehydratation und damit einhergehendem Leistungsabfall deutlich senken."

I believe the usual German word for "disease" is krankheit. I don't see that word anywhere in the claim.

The appears to be another case of re-interpreting the meaning of words in a law or regulation in order to stop some activity somebody in power personally doesn't like.

 

[bsdunek]

IMHO, those people that run for, or hire into government positions are already brain damaged. Once they're in their position, they just get worse. This is what comes of it.
Lest you think I'm just saying this - I'm a technical consultant for the EPA, and Im amazed at what I see every day. I do this as a retirement job, and while I enjoy the engineering challenge, the entertainment is worth it, so long as I don't think about our tax dollars being wasted.

 

[Anthony]

IMHO, those people that run for, or hire into government positions are already brain damaged. Once they're in their position, they just get worse. This is what comes of it.
Lest you think I'm just saying this - I'm a technical consultant for the EPA, and Im amazed at what I see every day. I do this as a retirement job, and while I enjoy the engineering challenge, the entertainment is worth it, so long as I don't think about our tax dollars being wasted.

We, the taxpayer, enable this waste, and "entertainment". It really needs to be curtailed.