That's Bullshit, Though

Figuratively. Literally, you're a liar.

[thatsbullshittho]

Should you or shouldn’t you drink 8 glasses of water a day? (Part 3)

So I've been thinking about this, on and off, for a few days. That's why I'm back so fast. Also, I guess I should continuously mention how long this is going to be. LONG. You guys. SO LONG. (I'm not all that sorry about it.)

As always, Link will appear, to bring us one post back in time. And also, remember that archive? Of course you do.

Last time I went through two points, so we're at like... 4 now? And I want to go through three this time. Strive to be better in everything you do, or whatever, I don't know.

4.) You’re throwing off your electrolyte balance

Maybe it's just me, but prior to the research I did for this article, I had no idea what electrolytes were from a scientific standpoint. Everyone who talked about them around me specifically said it was sodium (or something), and if I asked, "why? we already have a word for sodium in your blood, it's... ah, sodium. We measure that." then they'd be like, "I dunno.". Also, when it was spoken about, it was always questioning, as in, "So I guess that throws off your electrolytes or something?"

So, I went to the NIH, questions abound. What are electrolytes? How can you throw them off balance? Can you have too many electrolytes? What are the symptoms of low or high electrolytes?

According to the NIH, electrolytes are minerals in your blood that carry an electric charge. And that includes sodium! Also, calcium, phosphorus, potassium, magnesium, and chloride all are electrolytes.

How can you throw them off balance? To put it simply, it has to do with fluid. So, if you drink too much water, you know, then bam. Electrolytes off balance. And too little, pow, electrolytes off balance. Also you'll be in an Adam West Batman episode (citation needed).

One of the links on the previous page leads to the Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research. They ask, How Much Water Should You Drink A Day? Unsurprisingly, they have this to say:

How much water should you drink each day? It's a simple question with no easy answers. Studies have produced varying recommendations over the years, but in truth, your water needs depend on many factors, including your health, how active you are and where you live.

Although no single formula fits everyone, knowing more about your body's need for fluids will help you estimate how much water to drink each day.

Water is your body's principal chemical component and makes up about 60 percent of your body weight. Every system in your body depends on water. For example, water flushes toxins out of vital organs, carries nutrients to your cells, and provides a moist environment for ear, nose and throat tissues.

Lack of water can lead to dehydration, a condition that occurs when you don't have enough water in your body to carry out normal functions. Even mild dehydration can drain your energy and make you tired.

Every day you lose water through your breath, perspiration, urine and bowel movements. For your body to function properly, you must replenish its water supply by consuming beverages and foods that contain water.

So how much fluid does the average, healthy adult living in a temperate climate need? The Institute of Medicine determined that an adequate intake (AI) for men is roughly about 13 cups (3 liters) of total beverages a day. The AI for women is about 9 cups (2.2 liters) of total beverages a day.

Everyone has heard the advice, "Drink eight 8-ounce glasses of water a day." That's about 1.9 liters, which isn't that different from the Institute of Medicine recommendations. Although the "8 by 8" rule isn't supported by hard evidence, it remains popular because it's easy to remember. Just keep in mind that the rule should be reframed as: "Drink eight 8-ounce glasses of fluid a day," because all fluids count toward the daily total.

Now, you might find that people are on the fence about what's better to drink for athletes. Penn State, for example, has an article about how sports drinks are better than water for athletes trying to replenish themselves. Harvard disagrees, saying that water is better than sports drinks. There have been studies done, too. These scientists studied on only females with no control group, so their conclusions are slightly weaker, but apparently for walking uphill for 90 minutes they found that Gatorade is better than water for hydration. But there's the thing, OK? Almost anytime anyone does anything related to electrolytes and sports drinks, excercise and activity are a huge part of it.

I don't want to say that Butter is a inactive person. Because I don't know if that's true. What I do know is that an average everyday person seems to be fine without sports drinks and just water. I also know that scientists seem to agree with the 8 by 8 reasoning that Butter is hemming and hawing at. So here's what I have to say about point 4: If you are the type of person who needs to continuously rebalance your electrolytes, you probably already drink plenty of water since you are clearly some sort of athlete.

Also, Butter brings up animals and I wish for the love of God that people wouldn't compare animals to humans like we need to eat the same stuff and our bodies work exactly the same way. I don't have the best sources for this, I mean I try to get really good sources for everything but in this case it was incredibly difficult to find one because I really didn't know where to look. But here's what I've found.

The first thing I asked myself when I read Butter's paragraph was "Is the vet looking for the same thing in cat pee that doctors look for in human pee for the same reason?" Only... I couldn't find anything on clear cat pee from any sources that were reputable. So, I changed my question. If a human has kidney disease, will their pee be the same as a cat who has kidney disease? That's essentially what I wanted to figure out. Now as it turns out, Information on humans is straightforward to get and information on cats and dogs, no so much. However, I went to colleges of veternary medicine for answers as well as prodding around on the NIH's website. In particular, Washington State University had an article on CKD, chronic kidney disease in cats and dogs. I went through this document, they don't talk about the color of the urine. I'm not sure if the color changes much if at all. They instead talk about frequent unrination and leaking. In humans, one sign of kidney disease is blood in the urine, hematuria. This isn't mentioned in the paper by WSU. I'm not saying that cats DON'T have this problem. I don't know. I AM saying that there certainly isn't enough evidence here to say that humans and cats are so similar, you could then say that any symptoms we see in a cat similar to a human's symptoms for kidney disease means that the cat has a kidney disease. I searched high and low for a good source to use for this, and the only thing I could find was this stub on diagnosing hematuria in cats and dogs. And it seems that blood in a cat's urine doesn't mean that they have kidney cancer. According to Cornell, it means that the cat has feline urinary tract disease. For cats, CKD manifests differently. They urinate more and lose weight and vomit. In humans, CKD manifests similarly in the sense that vomiting and weight loss also occurs in humans. But again, for us, blood in urine is a sign of kidney failure. In cats, it seems that this does not hold true (or maybe it does at a microscopic level, but I feel as though someone would've mentioned that).

What I'm trying to say here is that bringing animals into this water discussion, frankly, is silly. Here Butter is, diagnosing your cat for you, saying that if your cat's urine is clear, then there's a problem. Where's the proof? She brings up specific gravity. Interesting, that. Humans have a specific gravity of 1.000 to 1.030 normally. This vet manual has cats normally at 1.020–1.040. Those numbers mean nothing without some context. Khan Academy explains specific gravity here, but if you can't watch videos right now, I'll explain: specific gravity is the density of an object divided by the density of water, which is 1000 kilograms per meter cubed. Khan Academy explains by using gold. The density of gold is 19,300 kg/m^3. So, the specific density of gold is 19.3. (In case you've forgotten your math, right? This particular measurement has no units because you're dividing kg/m^3 by kg/m^3. It's the ratio of densities. I had to add this in because after talking with someone they were convinced I was wrong because there are no units, so... yeah.) If you're interested in specific density, I suggest watching the Khan Academy video. They're great.

Humans and cats have similar specific gravities for urine. But they are not the same. And remember, this is a ratio of density to density. It gets more and more different with dogs and horses (the two other animals that Butter mentions). We know now that a) symptoms that mean one thing for humans do not necessarily mean that the same thing for cats and b) specific gravity for cats and for humans are not the same. So implying that the specific gravity for cats and humans and the color of urine in cats and humas would elicit the same response from a vet or doctor is to be quite frank, irresponsible on Butter's behalf. OK? I tried for the most part to give Butter the benefit of the doubt for her theories on humans because whatever. It works for you, I guess. If you feel like science isn't honest enough for you, that's cool. But there are people out there who have already killed a cat by trying to feed it a vegetarian diet when cats are carnivores that will sometimes eat grass and stuff. This is another living creature you're trying to diagnose. Are you a vet? Are you a doctor? No? then defer to vets and doctors, people who study this stuff, instead of willfully putting people's animals and health in danger. That's all I'm saying.

And before I end point 4, Here is an infographic that summed up what I read about urine from the NIH. This isn't by the NIH, but the information is the same. I just didn't want to link like 20 pages. But if you want them, ask. I got you.

5.) Overhydration sucks

I would love to skip this since I talked sooo much about overhyrdation in part 1. However I want to talk about some SAT prep work that might help you and Butter better understand X is to Y as A is to B. Analogies.

Butter uses the commonly quoted phrase, "By the time you feel thirsty, you're already dehydrated." "Duh," she says, "That's like saying “Once you feel hungry, your body already needs food.".

No, Butter. It's NOT like that. Thirst is to dehydration as hunger is to starvation. So it would be like saying "By the time you feel hungry, you're already starving."

Why nitpick something like this? Honestly? I'm kind of butthurt. But also because Butter could take like, 2 seconds to see if this is a real thing. Most people will just believe stuff that looks pretty well researched and also is something that follows their biases, and Butter seems to be very much like this. I am also like this. That's why I provide my sources so that you can decide whether or not I am talking out of my ass. Anyway, literally the first thing that comes up is the Huffington Post, saying:

Myth: If you're thirsty, you're already dehydrated.

Fact: It's not too late. In fact, thirst is the body's way of telling you to drink water, and you're not at risk of becoming dangerously dehydrated the minute you feel a little parched. "When you get thirsty, the deficit of water in your body is trivial -- it's a very sensitive gauge," Dr. Stanley Goldfarb, professor of medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, told HuffPost in January. "It might be only a 1 percent reduction in your overall water. And it just requires drinking some fluid." In fact, drinking when you're thirsty (sounds pretty basic, right?) is a pretty fail-proof method of staying hydrated, says Dr. Timothy Noakes, professor of exercise and sports science at the University of Cape Town in South Africa and author of Waterlogged. "You don't tell your dog or your cat when to drink, they've got a thirst mechanism," he tells HuffPost. "Why should it be that humans should be the unique animal in the world who have to be told when to drink?" He attributes this "you're doing it wrong" attitude largely to the bottled-water and sports drink industries. "Commercialization and industrialization have told us that humans are weak," he says, when in reality our ability to run in the heat helped us outsmart our ancient predators like lions and tigers, he says. "We should never have survived, and suddenly we're told no one knows when to drink?"

Huffinton Post links to themselves a lot, in a way that sort of is a bit... dishonest? Like if you follow that link, you'll see they they've linked to themselves, and the link to themselves doesn't have to do with the topic at hand (if you're thirsty you're already dehydrated) just something marginally close enough(drink 8 x 8 glasses of water a day) that it would fool someone who didn't read the article. And they do actually mention in that article the if you're thirsty, you're already dehydrated argument, but it's not sourced. It's just a guy who was talking with them or happened to say it somewhere else (that they don't source) and he's a doctor. And that's all well and good, right? But I don't know who this doctor is. Just some rando off the street? You know that a teenager was arrested in Florida for opening up a doctor's office, right? All I'm saying is that ONE guy who's credentials are literally "he's a doctor" and "he spoke to us at the Huffington Post" isn't enough for me, personally. That's why I don't like them as a source. I do like NIH, though, and they don't make a peep about this "thirsty = dehyrdated" claim. So I'm going to go ahead and say that this is ridiculous. Which is exactly what Butter is saying, that the idea behind that saying is silly. OK? I'm just butthurt about it.

She also has some "symptoms" of water intoxication that I presume came clean out of nowhere. I refer you to part 1 if you want to learn about water intoxication and how she's wrong about things.

So I looked at her next two points and thought, "Those go well together and I don't really want to have a 10 page dissertation on how Butter is wrong, plus I feel like I was just slightly mean to her in this post, but I'm not going to change what I wrote because screw that." I wrote a lot and I feel like anything mean I said to or about Butter is slightly justified. Slightly. Mostly not, but I mean... you have sources that aren't mean, you don't have to listen to me.

So I guess come back next time for the final part of Butter's 8 Reasons not to drink 8 glasses of water a day. But just so you know, right? I don't think you should drink 8 glasses of water a day. Well, I mean, you can. I'm not saying it's wrong to do so. I overall agree with the point Butter is making, you know, that you're probably drinking enough water without following this rule of thumb. I say the list is quantifiable BS because it's a list of things that are generally correct, except it's like Butter just pulled it all out of a hat and is like, "Yeah, listen to me over science and doctors, I know what I'm talking about". Then when what she says is kind of correct, she's like, "See? I'm smarter than your doctor!" I just think maybe instead of bullshiting and acting like she knows better than everyone, she could sit down and write something much shorter than what I've written using literally just the NIH for sources. Like for real, half the stuff she says isn't wrong, but she just uses the stupidest logic and it bugs the crap out of me.

-6

[thatsbullshittho]

Should you or shouldn’t you drink 8 glasses of water a day? (Part 2)

I said a week, but, eh. I mean, one month, one week. Same diff. Or not. (also I'm actually really sorry, I'm a giant flake.) You ready for another super long post on water and bullshit? Awww yiss.

Last month on That's Bullshit Tho, I talked about ButterBeliever's 1st of 8 reasons not to drink water. And sure, yeah. It was wordy, long, probably annoying, and need we forget that no one read it? But lest we forget our mistakes of the past, here is a link to the past and also, a link (archived) to the believer of butter his/herself. I'm not trying to hurt the feelings of all the Butterkin out in the wild of this stupid website, but from here on out I will refer to ButterBeliever as Butter. Butter is actually female based on research (I went to the about me section on their website). So I will be refering to her as such from here on out.

So anyway to continue the work from the last time I was here, let's talk about point 2 of 8. Namely:

2.) You’re already getting water in your food.

Following up from last month, this is a point that I can get behind. Butter says the following, which I think is pretty much spot on:

"Point is, you get water just about every time you eat."

I agree. Unless you're eating dehydrated foods without rehyrdating them in some way, it is very likely that you are having water with your food. So, I agree with Butter on this point. I'd agree more wholeheartedly if she wouldn't illustrate her point with stuff that is opinion but state them like they're facts though.

She clarifies her point by stating that she doesn't like powdered milk or powdered eggs. And those two things are absolutely fine to dislike, so this isn't me saying that she's wrong for disliking powdered milk or eggs. This is me asking what that has to do with anything. It's an opinion, and while it isn't wrong to say that powdered milk and powdered eggs had water taken out of them, calling them nasty makes these things sound bad. It isn't necessary to take a shit on foods one dislikes to make a point.

That being said, I've never been the type to accept things at face value. So, I decided to look up powdered milk, just to be sure she's correct. And she is technically incorrect (in the sense that there is still water in powdered milk) but on a whole, largely correct (because the amount of water remaining in powdered milk seems to be greater than 1%, but less than 5%, which is basically nothing to people who aren't scientists). Even evaporated milk still has water in it (which people who use evaporated milk know), just not 100% of the water that's in fresh milk. Here is a book on the science of cooking that includes a chart with the water percentages in evaporated and condensed milk (as compared to fresh milk and two types of dry milk). Powdered milk is also known as dry milk, apparently... I didn't know that before I looked this up. The book I'm referencing, by the way, was published in 2007.

I know, I know. None of that was bullshit. It was just something that annoyed me. ButterBeliever's website is a blog where her opinions are facts she can toss around. This is my blog, but I hope people call me out on my opinions on things. But I also enjoy fact checking. Fact checking is great. Which is why, after I read her first line:

"Even if you were supposed to be drinking 64 ounces of water every day, you’d be getting a significant portion of that simply by eating food."

I went out of my way to find out if 64 oz (by the way, I'm assuming Butter meant fluid ounces and not... just regular ounces since we don't usually weigh water by the pound) was the recommended amount of water to drink by the NIH. 64 fl oz of water seems like nothing, but it's about 1.8L. I ended up on the National Library of Medicine's page on water (don't worry, still a part of the NIH) here where they state that there is no specific recommendation on how much water you should drink, but that you should take in between 91 to 125 fl oz of water between eating and drinking everyday. That's about 2.7 liters.

The 64 oz figure obviously comes from the 8 by 8 (8 glasses of 8 oz of water) mentality. But it seems like no one (except for the saying, so... I guess everyone?) is saying that you need to drink 8 oz of water a day. If eating well every day (as in a healthy amount of food per day, within caloric restrictions and whatnot) nets you about 91 oz of water a day, and you are an adult of a healthy weight and normal height, AND you drink 64 oz of water on top of that, that's... like 155 oz of water a day. 4 liters of water.

So, what's the lethal dose of water for 50% of the population, the LD50? According to the American Chemistry Society, 6L of water will kill a 165 lbs person. They give a pretty good explaination in this video. That being said, they say, "If you drink it all at once, so don't do that". I tried to find out if there was a ratio of water to body mass that would produce death, but... I mean, if the only ratio we have is 6L to 165lbs, I can't do much. I'm not a scientist. Well. OK, I am. But only with computers.

My overall point is that for an adult who is exceedingly normal and otherwise healthy, 4L of water of day isn't bad enough to kill. Whether or not a person CHOOSES to drink and eat enough to reach levels that are crazy is what's messy.

So overall, I agree with point 2. Nothing's wrong with it. No bullshit. Moving on to point 3:

3.) You’re missing out on nutrient-dense beverages

The first time I read this list, this was the point that stopped me first and made me go, "Yeah?" in that sarcastic tone of voice you save for that special guy who is just so smart, smarter than even experts in the subject matter.

This particular point had a source, the Weston A. Price Foundation. The page linked is on healthy drinks (as opposed to soda). Now, I knew nothing about Weston A. Price and decided to look into their foundation (see all the information I am using here). I also looked into Weston Price himself. As it turns out a lot of the information I was looking for about him came from the foundation so, you can find most of the information I'm using against the foundation and Weston Price on wikipedia, see here. Also, there is a fallacy known as appeal to authority that I'd like to talk about for a bit before we get started here.

Appeal to authority is the fallacy in which because someone who is an an authority on a subject (Person A) says something about the subject (Subject S), we believe that the statement they made is the truth (Statement T). HOWEVER. There are two ways this fallacy can be committed. The fallacy is committed when Person A is not an expert on Subject S, but rather some other subject. It can also be committed if person A is an authority on the subject. An appeal to authority is not a strong argument. Example: Jenny McCarthy and anti-vaccination is absolutely an appeal to authority (if people believe what Jenny says simply because she says it). Neil DeGrasse Tyson saying that the Earth isn't flat is an appeal to authority because he is an expert in astrophysics. Jenny McCarthy is just a bad appeal to authority. Neil deGrasse Tyson is a good one that's still weak, because he didn't source it. But it's more credible than Jenny McCarthy's statement.

All that being said, this isn't to say that Jenny McCarthy is a liar and if you believe her you're stupid or anything like that. She's definitely not an authority on the subject though, so citing her makes you look stupid, I can tell you that much. She is an authority on other subjects, like how best to host a TV show or how to move your career from nude modeling to TV. And before you think I'm making fun of her, I'm very serious, props to that woman from taking Playboy fame and moving to TV and news. People act like every girl in Playboy got to be a TV celebrity. They haven't. Give her credit where credit's due, she's basically the reigning expert on that. Modeling nude isn't a bad thing, but I feel like people treat your like you're tainted after that, and Jenny McCarthy moved past that in a way that I don't think most people could do/have done. So there are her props, but I still think she's kind of stupid for the anti-vaccination stuff.

I bring up appeal to authority because it is this fallacy that starts and ends this foundation and in a way, the use of the foundation as a source. Price is a pivotal person for Americans. He was the dentist who founded the National Dental Association (NDA), which is the research portion of the American Dental Association (ADA). He was the chairman of the NDA for 14 years.

Price made tools and all sorts of amazing advancments for dentists, in a technological sense. He also worked on a theory called focal infection theory, which has since been debunked but once was a popular thought amongst dentists for a period. The theory essentially states that a localised infection can break off microorganisms and infect other parts of the body. Price wrote a book on this in 1923, drawing on 25 years of research from himself and others in the dentistry field.

There is a resurgance of this theory, if you're interested in looking it up. But more to the point, Price is a dentist who, while he may have had some knowledge on nutrition, is not an expert in nutrition. As such, following Price's advice on nutrition is appealing to authority. He is an expert in dentistry, not nutrition, so anything he believes as far as nutrition is concerned is best taken with a grain of salt. Also, he's credited with much of the development of alternative, holistic, or unconventional dentistry. He's an influential figure for sure, but the influence spreads both into what I believe is nonsense (holistic anything is what I consider flat out nonsense) and proven science (all of his tecnological advancements and even his work into the focal infection theory). I don't think that just because he was wrong about focal infection theory meant he was a bad dentist. In fact, he was probably quite good. And in science, if you're not comfortable with being wrong, from time to time anyway, then you're doing it wrong. So, I would say that if you were to look back on the legacy of Price, he was probably a very good dentist who inadvertently, with his foray into nutrition and other unrelated fields, caused holistic dentistry, which probably hurts more people than it helps.

All this being said... The foundation is founded on the ideals of Price. Price's nutritional beliefs came under scrutiny when he was alive, these people agree with his beliefs. I don't want to get too into this because look at how far away from the topic we've gotten already, but... I mean why not. We're here now. Because the foundation is bullshit.

The foundation says and believes a lot of things that are somewhat presumptuous, mostly stemming from what seems to be a very nuanced reading of the words of Price, as well as having little to no source outside of Price himself. The thing is that people don't disagree that nutrition and dental health are connected in some way. They just think it needs more research. Whereas the Price foundation seems set on the idea that Price had it right, despite his ONLY actual expertise being in dentistry. The ADA has a page, mouthhealthy.org where they even have some points on nutrition and they defer to the USDA's MyPlate for the proper diet for your teeth. They also wrote a paper on preventing oral diseases from spreading. What isn't repeated is the things written here. Statements like:

"Instead of nourishing food, modern medicine gives drugs, the chief modus operandi of which is to sequester nutrients from one part of the body and carry them to the part that is diseased or injured. This is akin to robbing Peter to pay Paul, rather than simply making sure that Paul has all the nutritional wealth he requires."

go unchallenged to the Price Foundation, even though there is no proof to back this up and I would be hesitant to agree that this is what Price intended or even actually said. Unfortunately I haven't read his book, so I don't know if that is what he meant or what he said.

The foundation says that nutritionally dense drinks can be better than water, which is another half truth. They can be better than water, absolutely. But recall, “sola dosis facit venenum”, the dose makes the poison. When you've run a race or a marathon, drinking gatorade is recommended over water. Why? Gatorade is supposed to replenish the electrolytes lost during the race. There are some studies, like this that say things like:

The use of sports drinks instead of water or electrolyte‐free drinks is one strategy for slowing down the development of hyponatraemia. This approach is recommended by the American College of Sports Medicine for ultraendurance races and the Institute of Medicine for prolonged physical labour in hot environments.

This says that hyponatraemia (low concentration of sodium in the blood) can be slowed down if you drink a sports drink after a race. It doesn't say that this drink is better than water. It says it's better than water at replenishing your eletrolytes and keeping your sodium levels normal after a race.

On a whole, if you're participating in healthy behaviors and eating a healthy diet, surprisingly you don't need to supplement your eating with nutrient dense drinks. I linked MyPlate a while back, but let's make a MyPlate for Butter. Butter is an adult female, so I'll just make a MyPlate for an adult female. You can make your own at MyPlate, by the way. I'm going to say she's between 30 and 40, btw.

An adult female between 30 and 40 years needs to eat 1.5 cups of fruit per meal. So... 1/2 a large apple or 1 small apple. Or a cup and a 1/2 of sliced banana. Fruits are high in Vitamin C, potassium, folic acid, and fiber. Fiber can't be found in fruit juices. As for veggies, she needs 2.5 cups per meal. You can break the vegetables in subgroups (dark leafy veggies, starchy potatoes, red and orange vegetables, beans, and other) and they give you values for those too, although I'm not going to. 2.5 cups of veggies is the same as 5 cups of raw spinach or 24 baby carrots or 2.5 cups of mashed or whole cooked beans or 2.5 cups of corn. Veggies give you potassium, dietary fiber, folate (folic acid), vitamin A, and vitamin C. For grains, Butter should eat 6 oz of grain per meal. So, like, a slice of bread, 7 crackers, or 1/2 an English muffin. Grains give you dietary fiber, several B vitamins (thiamin, riboflavin, niacin, and folate), and minerals (iron, magnesium, and selenium). For meats (or protein) she needs 5 oz per meal. Which is about 5 eggs per meal, 5 oz of fish, 2.5 oz of nuts, or 5 slices of sandwich meat. Meat and proteins give you protein, B vitamins (niacin, thiamin, riboflavin, and B6), vitamin E, iron, zinc, and magnesium. And also seafood gives you the omega-3 fatty acids, EPA and DHA. Women at Butter's projected age need 3 cups of dairy. That's 3 cups of low fat or fat free milk and 1 cup of calcium fortified soymilk. Dairy gives you calcium, potassium, vitamin D, and protein. Lastly oils. Butter should eat 5 tsps of oil per meal. 1 Tbsp of margarine (no trans. fats) has 3 tsps of oil. So... I guess do that math. Oils contain polyunsaturated (PUFA) or monounsaturated (MUFA) fats and essential fatty acids.

Now if Butter eats a diet that follows this to a T, she would be getting the nutrients she needs from every meal without having to fortify herself with drinks. She says there are beneficial probiotics people are missing out on-- does she mean like the ones in dairy products like yogurt? She says there are nutrients missing, which exists in literally every food and her last point was LITERALLY that we eat water in our food so we don't need to drink as much water as the 8 by 8 claims. So we DO need to over eat nutirents but we DON'T need to over drink water? That seems inconsistent. Water toxicity aside, Butter claimed that drinking too much water caughed cold hands and braing fog. Just as an example, excessive Vitamin C has been linked to diarrhea. And Butter says vitamins need to be replenished by nutrient dense drinks too-- the same vitamins that are in a healthy diet, I presume?

So to conclude: Butter's source is weak and altogether useless in the scope of things. Butter's theory that nutrient dense beverages should replace water is kind of silly considering that Butter should be eating a diet that replenishes those nutrients anyway, however, Butter is correct in saying that we eat water with our food.

I guess in another month I'll be back. Maybe. We'll see.

-6

[thatsbullshittho]

Should you or shouldn’t you drink 8 glasses of water a day? (Part 1)

Here's an archived link to the content

OK, so I was on Reddit, saw this link, and it made me want to start a blog I'd been mulling over for a while. This website in particular, ButterBeliever, is a goldmine of absolute BS. I chose to do it on Tumblr because I hate Tumblr. Unfairly, I think. So this is my attempt to make something I like on Tumblr in the hopes that maybe I'll find something I enjoy here that isn't just gifs. I can just go to 4chan for cool gifs.

Anyway. This list is quantifiable BS, that I'm sure someone else has taken down before. But I'm going to make my post anyway. This'll be long. Very long. Like probably I'll break it up into parts. You can consider this Part 1. Not an introduction, but an indepth analysis of the first point made in this article.

1.) You’re blindly following standardized health advice instead of listening to your own body.

OK, well, this is an opinion. You're allowed to have opinions. What we should be worried about is what ButterBeliever is basing their opinions on.

The assertion that 8 glasses of whater a day is an adage and not medical advice seems pretty straightforward. I'm going to cut down the first sentence a bit, but on a whole, the opening line of this particular point is something I can agree with fundamentally:

"I find it interesting that in spite of huge, gaping variations in the span of health and nutrition recommendations [...] to all the varying sects of alternative medicine and nutrition [...], one constant has remained throughout ALL angles of health and nutrition advice, even in our real-food realm: “Drink more water!”"

This is something I get. It does seem like both sides of the camp say varying things. But that being said, what does that have to do with water? ButterBeliever takes umbrage with this. The following lines are what I consider to be important things to look at in their post:

"What’s weird is that the whole, “All things in moderation,” thing is fairly universal as well. Yet, that’s not supposed to apply to water, according to everyone’s standards."

"Therein lies one of the biggest problems with the water recommendations of today—the audacious contention that your own body really doesn’t know what’s good for it."

"Worse yet is when people are drinking to satisfy other physical needs their bodies are signaling—hunger especially."

First of all, the "all things in moderation" adage does apply to water. There's also a saying that goes "sola dosis facit venenum" or "the dose makes the poison". What this means in a general sense is that a substance can produce a harmful effect as long as the concentration within a certain system is high enough. The saying having to do with water, namely drink 8 glasses of water a day, is a moderated amount of water. This is telling you that more than 8 is too much, thus it is moderating the amount of water you're drinking. Right? So the idea that "all things in moderation" doesn't apply is silly. We are moderating the amount of water you should drink with this saying.

But, I think ButterBeliever is trying to make another point. I don't think ButterBeliever wanted to use the all things in moderation saying alone, I think they were heavily implying sola dosis facit venenum. I think their statement is that ButterBeliever themself have adverse effects when drinking 8 glasses of water a day or maybe that this saying doesn't seem to have any proof behind it. The latter point, unfortunately, can be disproven by a quick Google search. The Mayo Clinic while not the best source, has a paragraph on the saying itself.

"Everyone has heard the advice, "Drink eight 8-ounce glasses of water a day." That's about 1.9 liters, which isn't that different from the Institute of Medicine recommendations. Although the "8 by 8" rule isn't supported by hard evidence, it remains popular because it's easy to remember. Just keep in mind that the rule should be reframed as: "Drink eight 8-ounce glasses of fluid a day," because all fluids count toward the daily total."

This leaves me with the assumption that ButterBeliever themself might have an issue drinking this much water in one day, possibly because doing so is unhealthy. Let's get to the bottom of this. ButterBeliever goes into some symptoms of drinking too much water.

"Forget the uncomfortable urges to pee, the brain fog, and freezing cold hands and feet you’re experiencing..."

Now, I experience one of those three things that ButterBeliever talks about when I drink a lot of water. I just want to pee. I can't speak to brain fog or cold hands and feet. But perhaps these are symptoms of overhydration via water? Fortunately, the National Institute of Health has a page on fatal water intoxication. So, what is fatal water intoxication?

"Water intoxication provokes disturbances in electrolyte balance, resulting in a rapid decrease in serum sodium concentration and eventual death. The development of acute dilutional hyponatraemia causes neurological symptoms because of the movement of water into the brain cells, in response to the fall in extracellular osmolality."

So, serum sodium is a test that checks the level of sodium in your blood to test your blood sodium levels. ButterBeliever mentioned brain fog and cold hands and feet in their symptom list. The NIH says that one develops acute dilutional hyponatraemia, which is low sodium levels. This means that the concentration of your blood is more water than sodium in this case. Symptoms include confusion, which might be comparable to brain fog. It really doesn't mention peeing more. Frequent urination doesn't list drinking too much water as a cause. It is possible that we made a causal relationship between drinking water and urges to pee/frequent urination, though. Coldness in extremities is also unlisted as a symptom of water intoxication.

It seems like the symptoms that ButterBeliever speaks of don't all apply to water intoxication. So this brings us to another idea-- that your body has a function that allows it to determine how much or how little you should or shouldn't eat. And ButterBeliever is right, we do have something like that. It's called your appetite.

ButterBeliever seems to believe that one's appetite is something that should be followed as it is a way of your body regulating itself:

"Why do we all think it’s so acceptable to disrespect our own bodies in this way? That’s really what it is—complete and total ignorance of the biological signals your body is ingrained with to regulate itself. You don’t have to calculate out how much air you’re going to breathe in each day, or how many times you should blink, or the number of times you will visit the bathroom. Your body does all the thinking for you, and tells you to breathe, blink, or poop according to its needs. And generally, you react to each respectively without giving it a second thought."

What I want to start by saying is that associating hunger and thirst with breathing regulation and blinking was a grave error on the part of ButterBeliever. Your body does regulate breathing and blinking without needing the conscious mind's input, but it's not like your body is thinking about these things, because your body doesn't think. These things are just automatically done. Both of these are regulated by the brain. I can understand why hearing that your body regulates blnking from your brain makes you think your body is thinking. But your body isn't thinking, it's just performing the actions that it's supposed to do. That's all. It regulates blinking and breathing, two things that are necessary for survival, so you can focus on more pressing things. Hunger and thirst are not automatic, they are regulated by hormones and not by the brain. Peeing and pooping also aren't automatic. There are signs that you are hungry, thirsty, or need to visit the bathroom. But it is not an automatic thing to do. You don't always feel the need to eat when you eat and you don't always have a full bladder when you need to pee. Your body signals you when you SHOULD do these things, but these are not automatic actions your body is programmed to do.

But... on point, "Disrepect" is a strong word. I prefer ignore in this case. Disrepect meaning lack of respect and respect meaning a feeling of deep admiration for someone or something elicited by their abilities, qualities, or achievements... doesn't seem to really apply to one's appetite. I doubt that ButterBeliever has a deep respect for their appetite, in the sense that if they did I don't know that they would contend that your body knows whats best for it.

Personification of the human body is considered normal, but it shouldn't be considered so normal to assume that your body has a natural knowledge of the "rights" and "wrongs" or nutrition and so forth. You would have to ask how does your body "know" what you do and don't need to eat or drink? Scientists answer to that question is leptin. Leptin is integral in appetite regulation, although other hormones are also important.

ButterBeliever believes that your body knows how much food it should or shouldn't have. Now, maybe ButterBeliever is talking in a scientific way,saying your body knows because of leptin, but it seems more like they are personifying the body and giving it intrinsic knowledge of what should and shouldn't be put into your face. However, this doesn't explain how loss of appetite or increase in appetite are symptoms of illnesses. Just as an example, certain cancers can cause decreased appetite. That means that the body, which should know exactly how much you should or shouldn't eat based on ButterBeliever's assertion, is misled by cancer, which causes it to desire less food. In another example, gestational diabetes is a cause of increased appetite. This means that the body is fooled by a completely different type of illness into changing appetite. Cancer and diabetes are vastly different, and there are still other illnesses and even parasites that can deceieve the body.

I believe that, if ButterBeliever were to speak to me about this particular issue, they might say that the body knows when it isn't well and will regulate itself. They might insist that your body tells you when it is unwell. However, this is something I think is demonstrably not true. Your body has multiple ways of determining that it isn't well, but just because your body knows doesn't mean that you do. You could have a sore throat for a couple of days before you get a fever, which is indicative of the flu. However, sore throat is indicative of the common cold as well. This means if you have a particularly bad flu but your only current symptom is a cough, you might view it as a persistent cold and simply take cough medicine, which won't work. This means that under the assumption that your body knows best, your body has no way of differentiating two completely different sicknesses to you in order to better treat your illness.

Cancer can go into remission and come back, for no apparent reason. Under the assumption that your body knows best, there is no way for your body to know when cancer will be back. But despite the fact that you still have cancer, your body sees no reason to keep its defenses up and will return to regular functions. Cancer could still exist in the body but your body isn't trying to remove it. You, as the person with cancer, are unaware of this until remission hits.

Ebola disables the immune system. This is your body's defense system. Currently there's no medical cure but this is an example of the body being unable to regulate itself. Ebola takes over multiple types of cells all while replicating itself with very little resistance. Your body is not regulating the virus. Your body is losing many organs, cells, and tissues, but isn't even scratching the surface of the Ebola infection.

I don't believe that your body knows best, because your body is just a group of intertwined systems. Each system does it's job well, but that in no way means that the sum of the parts is wise or smart. We've talked about methods of deception in the body, but to bring this back to appetite: My assertion is that if it is possible for your body to be fooled by an illness into eating more or less food than necessary, then it is important that you regulate appetite by regulating your diet. In other words: Even if theoretically your body is thinking in order to regulate appetite, you can't trust it because it can be fooled by illnesses.

We'll talk about leptin later in this series.

The final point that ButterBeliever made was that people drink when they're hungry, which is bad because of over-hydration. We talked about fatal water intoxication. On first glance, this statement seems absolutely fair. It is bad to be over-hydrated. But it's the proof they use to back it up that seems suspect.

"Wow. I’m pretty sure my two-year-old niece has been able to tell the difference between hunger and thirst since before she could talk. It isn’t exactly difficult. I can promise you, you haven’t forgotten how to do this yourself. The kind of disordered thinking that’s behind the message of drinking to satisfy hunger is born of other messed-up behavior and cultural attitudes about health, diet, and body image. Guaranteed. Why else would you ever want to not feed your body when its asking for it? Gotta perpetuate that calorie fear, of course!"

I think it's funny that ButterBeliever defers to a two year old for their information. Two year olds do a lot of dumb stuff. Why would I be cowed by a two year old's ability to determine whether or not she's hungry or thirsty? It's like ButterBeliever is trying to insult the reader. "You're not doing this simple thing two year old does," they say. Well, that's interesting, because the abstract of a paper discussing hunger and thirst starts:

"Associations between hunger and eating and between thirst and drinking are generally weak. This stems, in part, from limitations in the measurement of these sensations which generally rely on temporal, motivational, metabolic and/or self-reported descriptive indices. Each is critically reviewed. Also problematic is the fact that the deterministic depletion-repletion concept of ingestive behavior fails to account for influences of a multitude of contravening cognitive, social, sensory and logistical factors. Although hunger and thirst serve some parallel purposes, sharp distinctions are also present with health implications. Of particular note are the observations that thirst ratings are higher and more stable over the day compared to hunger and thirst may be more motivating to drink than hunger is to eat. Coupling these observations with evidence that beverages have limited satiety value, they pose particular challenges and opportunities. Beverages can facilitate the delivery of nutrients to those desiring or requiring them, but also to those where they are not desired or required. The benefits and risks are a function of their use rather than their inherent properties."

This is just the abstract, but it mentions there are four ways to test whether or not what you feel is hunger or thirst or whether or not: Temporal, Motivational, Metabolic, and Self-Reported. ButterBeliever's niece is self reporting. And she's not wrong about her self reports, because it's her own report. If she says, "I want to eat because I'm hungry," then yeah, probably she thinks she's feeling hungry. But why does she feel hungry? I believe absolutely that a two year old would think that she's hungry when she feels a particular rumble in her stomach. She's motivated to do so. After all, we've all been taught from a young age that a particular sensation is the feeling of hunger.

But is that because you need to eat? Or is it just a negative reaction to low energy and water? In a physiological sense... Is this an effect of insulin and leptin, two hormones that affect appetite, hunger, and thirst? In a temporal sense, is it just that long periods of time without eating cause you to be hungry and long portions of time without drinking make you thirsty?

I am not saying everytime you feel hungry you should drink, and neither is the saying that ButterBeliever is arguing against. It's not saying "substitute food with water". It's not saying whenever you start feeling hungry, drink water. Even if it was, what's the problem with doing that? ButterBeliever guarantees that this is behind messed up societal views. I am hesitant to believe this without proof, though.

I could say all of this, but ButterBeliever themself wouldn't care, because ButterBeliever is apparently anti-science. I say this in the kindest possible way, but if you don't believe me, go back to the top and re-read her first bullet point. They blame this on us blindly following standardized health advice instead of listening to our body.

I think I've made a decent case that this first point is bullshit. But who knows, maybe I rambled, maybe the points aren't clear. You tell me.

I'll be back at some point during the next week with part 2. It'll be shorter and probably less worder, because I'll be able to refer back to this post. But this deserved a post of it's own I feel. Let me know where I screwed up. -6