This is a weird article, to me anyway. The premise seems to be that despite losing 6-8 cups of water per day through insensible perspiration and exhalation, that you don't need to specifically...
This is a weird article, to me anyway. The premise seems to be that despite losing 6-8 cups of water per day through insensible perspiration and exhalation, that you don't need to specifically drink 6-8 cups of water per day because you get some water from food. Which of course is true.
But it seems weird to take exception to broad health advice, like this USDA recommendation when the consequence of drinking an extra 1-2 cups per day is nil, while chronic dehydration is associated with short and long-term renal failure. It's like arguing that a multivitamin isn't a good idea, because if you eat right you shouldn't need it. But that misses the point that the advice is acting as a bit of an insurance policy with little downside, so long as individuals aren't going supplement crazy.
I understand that coffee and juice, generally, count towards your fluid intake, but it seems almost like a brawndo type attitude. Why drink water, when brawndo has what plants crave? Just sort of a weirdly structured article to come from an MD imo.
In order to get severe problems due to drinking too much water, we're talking multiple gallons in short durations. Short of that, the worst-case scenario is that you're peeing a lot. But...
In order to get severe problems due to drinking too much water, we're talking multiple gallons in short durations. Short of that, the worst-case scenario is that you're peeing a lot.
But dehydration kills. And it's easy to become dehydrated for one reason or another without even realizing it.
I'm not sure that this article achieves that with clarity, though. The article boils down to: "People need to ingest at least 6-8 cups of water per day from food and beverages to replenish water...
I'm not sure that this article achieves that with clarity, though. The article boils down to:
"People need to ingest at least 6-8 cups of water per day from food and beverages to replenish water loss due to basic body functions. The warmer your climate, the more exercise or activity you engage in, the more water you need to replenish. Drink when you feel thirsty, water preferably, and check that your urine is pale in color but transparent to indicate proper hydration. Chronic dehydration is associated with kidney dysfunction, while few if any known side effects are associated with moderate over hydration."
All the editorializing in the article seems like someone nitpicking broad health guidelines in a forest for the trees perspective.
I can't find anything in the article that's misleading. The notion you need to drink 6-8 glasses of water per day to be healthy is a widely held belief that is, in fact, a myth. I find it weird...
I can't find anything in the article that's misleading. The notion you need to drink 6-8 glasses of water per day to be healthy is a widely held belief that is, in fact, a myth. I find it weird that it would seem weird to want to point this out.
There's a difference between being overtly misleading, and failing to be clear. For me, the article is the latter. Beyond a few pet peeves like mixing units and not using accessible language to a...
There's a difference between being overtly misleading, and failing to be clear. For me, the article is the latter. Beyond a few pet peeves like mixing units and not using accessible language to a broad audience, the author gives vague advice and buries it in unnecessary language. For example, the first three to four paragraphs could be condensed to one.
Beyond that, the actual advice given is vague:
All food has some water in it, although obviously fresh juicy fruits will have more than, say, a box of raisins. Suffice it to say that by eating regular food and having coffee, juice or what have you, you will end up consuming 2 litres of water without having to go seek it out specifically. If you find yourself in a water deficit, your body has a very simple mechanism for letting you know. Put simply, you will get thirsty.
If you are thirsty, drink water. If you are not thirsty, then you do not need to go out and purposefully drink 6-8 glasses of water a day since you will probably get all the water in your regular diet.
Emphasis mine. That is a heck of a generalization to make given the prevalence of heat injuries that occur every year and the known risks of dehydration on renal function. Additionally:
There is usually some vague idea that you need to drink water to flush toxins out of your system. Perhaps someone will suggest that drinking water is good for your kidneys since they filter the blood and regulate water balance. Unfortunately, none of these ideas is quite true and the 6-8 glasses myth comes from a fundamental misunderstanding of some basic physiology.
Is a weird message to send, again, with the casual links we've established between chronic dehydration and kidney function. Being over hydrated isn't good for the kidneys, but being dehydrated is absolutely bad for your kidneys.
Additionally, after telling people not to follow the safeguard guideline to drink water, the author fails to give a guideline to assess hydration levels like urine color or even common symptoms of dehydration. Nothing about that seems good to me.
It seems disingenuous to complain that their advice (that you're probably not dehydrated if you don't feel thirsty) is bad by mentioning heat injuries when they explicitly mention those as a caveat:
It seems disingenuous to complain that their advice (that you're probably not dehydrated if you don't feel thirsty) is bad by mentioning heat injuries when they explicitly mention those as a caveat:
Thus, the take home message is drink water when you are thirsty, but on very hot days it might not be a bad idea to stay ahead of the curve and keep hydrated.
How is it disingenuous to feel that the article lacks clarity? Should I rewrite the whole thing even more verbosely than I did in a previous reply? The article gives vague advice. That it also...
How is it disingenuous to feel that the article lacks clarity? Should I rewrite the whole thing even more verbosely than I did in a previous reply? The article gives vague advice. That it also gives some vague and incomplete caveats (no mention of the permanent damage that chronic dehydration can cause it's mentioned) doesn't mean it is effectively communicating those points. It doesn't even explicitly state what to check for in urine or a capillary refill test while telling people they don't need to go out of their way to drink water.
So no, I don't think it is disingenuous to say that the article, ostensibly written to educate the lay public, could have been written better.
Edit: also, "disingenuous" implies a certain amount of dishonesty. E.g., "(of a person or their behavior) slightly dishonest, or not speaking the complete truth" amongst other definitions. I don't see how my comments could easily be read as dishonest or lacking candor. People can disagree or have different perceptions of things without one of them acting in bad faith.
Is it fair to characterize it as a "myth"? It just seems overly general and a little outdated. The amount of water you need to drink depends on a lot of different factors, and it often will be 6-8...
Is it fair to characterize it as a "myth"? It just seems overly general and a little outdated. The amount of water you need to drink depends on a lot of different factors, and it often will be 6-8 cups or more. This guideline was developed during a time period when the average person was much more physically active and before air conditioning was widespread.
When I did physical labor in greenhouses during the Australian summer, I needed to drink way more than 6-8 cups of water a day. Way, way more. I would commonly drink 5 liters (21 cups) over the course of the day when it was especially hot — and I'm a 5'4 woman. My larger male coworkers drank way more than me.
I've seen that exact argument about. Thankfully it's usually followed by 'But it's no problem taking a multivitamin to make up for any shortfall'. I always find articles like this very weird as...
It's like arguing that a multivitamin isn't a good idea, because if you eat right you shouldn't need it.
I've seen that exact argument about. Thankfully it's usually followed by 'But it's no problem taking a multivitamin to make up for any shortfall'.
I always find articles like this very weird as the concepts are so simple and easy to understand. It's almost like they're designed to use up brain energy and make us doubtful and confused about everything. A sort of muddying of the waters exercise.
That's an apt way to describe how I felt. I'm all for long form articles that dog under the covers of the simplified advice. But I do expect it to be detailed and well structured. If you are going...
A sort of muddying of the waters exercise.
That's an apt way to describe how I felt. I'm all for long form articles that dog under the covers of the simplified advice. But I do expect it to be detailed and well structured. If you are going to advise people to "break the rule" so to speak, at least give them the details to know when and why in clear terms.
A small nit to pick: there are some vitamins that you can get too much of, and there’s a lot of multivitamins packed high enough that you could have problems taking the full dose regularly on top...
A small nit to pick: there are some vitamins that you can get too much of, and there’s a lot of multivitamins packed high enough that you could have problems taking the full dose regularly on top of a good diet. Others just have excess eliminated in urine (fun fact: a lot of B12 makes it highlighter yellow)
I suppose a better way to phrase it is: "a broad spectrum daily multivitamin not designed to bolster specific functions", since I think the vitamins that might load you up too much on top of diet...
I suppose a better way to phrase it is: "a broad spectrum daily multivitamin not designed to bolster specific functions", since I think the vitamins that might load you up too much on top of diet are formulated to bolster specific functions.
I wish that were the case. For example, one that was ranked very highly on places like Labdoor (when their results didn’t need a subscription years ago) was Garden of Life - Vitamin Code for Men....
I wish that were the case. For example, one that was ranked very highly on places like Labdoor (when their results didn’t need a subscription years ago) was Garden of Life - Vitamin Code for Men. It’s a general multivitamin, except everything is at least 100% RDI per serving. Centrum - Men from possibly the most popular brand in the US is also 100% and higher for most things in a single pill.
That might be true, but without looking at the labels, were any of the vitamins of the variety that is problematic? Most vitamins you take are quickly removed from the body through urine, if you...
That might be true, but without looking at the labels, were any of the vitamins of the variety that is problematic? Most vitamins you take are quickly removed from the body through urine, if you are hydrated well. So taking a supplement that is 100% of your daily recommended portion of vitamin C, for example, will just slightly color your urine at the next trip to the bathroom.
Some vitamins can cause problems in very high doses, which is why you don't often see broad multi vitamins with 100% of your daily iron, etc. And doing spot check, one of those doesn't have any iron and the other has 44%. But, it is good to be careful and check.
Just going with what the first link called out, here’s a table with RDIs. No guarantee that everything else not mentioned is ok. Vitamin GoL Centrum Beta-carotene and vitamin A 120 117 Calcium 0...
Just going with what the first link called out, here’s a table with RDIs. No guarantee that everything else not mentioned is ok.
I'm not an expert, and I would encourage folks to talk to their doctors and educate themselves on their own supplements. The only entry that catches my eye right away is Vitamin A because I know...
I'm not an expert, and I would encourage folks to talk to their doctors and educate themselves on their own supplements. The only entry that catches my eye right away is Vitamin A because I know it is fat soluble and builds up in your liver. That level is the between the amount recommended for adult men and pregnant or breastfeeding women, which is 1/3 the tolerated upper level. So I would avoid anything that has 100% of vitamin A unless I knew I was deficient in my diet.
Edit: stressing again that people should get advice from clinicians and not folks on the research side of things. That said, I did a quick check of tolerable upper intake limits, maximum recommended dosages, and the likelihood of chronic vs acute hypervitaminosis, and the only one that I still side eye is the level of vitamin A. Even though vitamin D, E, and K are also fat soluble, the amounts here are either less than the maximum recommended daily dosage (in the case of vitamin D, quite a bit less) or the vitamin has relatively limited dietary sources.
That said, people should generally aim to get less than 100% of fat soluble vitamins from a supplement unless they know they have a deficiency.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitamin_D_toxicity#Cardiovascular_disease ...excess D3 is a real risk factor for cardiovascular disease and it's commonly over-supplemented...
I wouldn't take Wikipedia at face value in interpreting studies. Those citations in order studied: Endogenous (internal) synthesis of vitamin D from sun exposure. A murine (mouse) model involving...
I wouldn't take Wikipedia at face value in interpreting studies.
Evidence suggests that dietary vitamin D may be carried by lipoprotein particles into cells of the artery wall and atherosclerotic plaque, where it may be converted to active form by monocyte-macrophages.[11][16][17] This raises questions regarding the effects of vitamin D intake on atherosclerotic calcification and cardiovascular risk as it may be causing vascular calcification.[18] Calcifediol is implicated in the etiology of atherosclerosis, especially in non-Whites.[19][20]
Those citations in order studied:
Endogenous (internal) synthesis of vitamin D from sun exposure.
A murine (mouse) model involving vitamin D.
A fundamental biochemistry study examining serum levels and interactions.
Another murine model that observed regression in two forms of vitamin D administration, amongst other study reviews.
This studies the pathways of vitamin D in the body. But isn't looking at CVD.
This was the most relevant, and did a retrospective I think on African Americans with type II diabetes. They found some associations in the various things they looked for, but conclude: "The effects of supplementing vitamin D to raise the serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D level on atherosclerosis in African-Americans are unknown. Prospective trials are needed to determine the cardiovascular effects of supplemental vitamin D in this ethnic group."
Nothing in those six, separately or together really supports the statement implying known effects in humans.
There are many studies that do directly explore the association of cardiovascular disease and vitamin D in prospective RCTs. Here are some:
During the last two decades, the potential impact of vitamin D on the risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) has been rigorously studied. Data regarding the effect of vitamin D on CVD risk are puzzling: observational data indicate an inverse nonlinear association between vitamin D status and CVD events, with the highest CVD risk at severe vitamin D deficiency;
In the clinical setting, administration of high daily or bolus doses of vitamin D is often solely based on 25-hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D] testing. This review summarizes the evidence of the effect of vitamin D on cardiovascular disease (CVD). Meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have demonstrated that CVD risk markers, such as lipid parameters, inflammation markers, blood pressure, and arterial stiffness, are largely unaffected by vitamin D supplementation. Similar results have been obtained regarding CVD events and mortality from (meta)-analyses of RCTs, even in subgroups with 25(OH)D concentrations <50 nmol/l. Likewise, Mendelian randomization studies have indicated that the genetic reduction of the 25(OH)D concentration does not increase CVD risk. Some studies do not exclude the possibility of adverse vitamin D effects, such as elevated plasma calcium concentration and an increased CVD risk at a 25(OH)D concentration >125 nmol/l. Based on a conservative benefit-risk management approach, vitamin D doses beyond the nutritionally recommended amounts of 600 to 800 IE daily currently cannot be advised for the prevention of CVD events.
So my take away is the association is still imperfectly understood, but care should be used in managing risk to subject in prospective studies where higher doses of vitamin D are administered to subjects at risk of CVD.
That being said, folks should talk to their doctor if they have concerns.
I'll add my own weird experience: sometimes my brain misinterprets thirst for hunger. While this may help some with dehydration depending on what I eat, I try (and sadly, often fail) to drink...
I'll add my own weird experience: sometimes my brain misinterprets thirst for hunger. While this may help some with dehydration depending on what I eat, I try (and sadly, often fail) to drink water first when I feel hungry to make sure I'm not just thirsty.
Also, when doing intense cycling as I sometimes do, it's really hard to stay hydrated. I drink as often as I can think of it, whether I feel thirsty or not, but always about 30-60m after the ride I'm often extremely thirsty. This effect increases with duration and intensity. I also find it sometimes very hard to drink straight water after the ride, it has to be a soda (or chocolate milk if a hard, long ride).
I also find I cannot eat for a while after an extra hard and long ride.
This is actually super-common, and is why it's generally good advice to take a drink of water any time you feel hungry as well. Worst-case is that you were actually hungry.
sometimes my brain misinterprets thirst for hunger.
This is actually super-common, and is why it's generally good advice to take a drink of water any time you feel hungry as well. Worst-case is that you were actually hungry.
I tend to get really nauseous if I drink water (like, more than a few sips) on an empty stomach. It doesn't seem like that's very common, though. I've never heard anyone else experiencing it.
I tend to get really nauseous if I drink water (like, more than a few sips) on an empty stomach. It doesn't seem like that's very common, though. I've never heard anyone else experiencing it.
I too experience this, but not all the time. Drinking colder water seems to help offset this, at least for me. Sometimes I mix 75% water with 25% fruit juice just to avoid the nausea.
I too experience this, but not all the time. Drinking colder water seems to help offset this, at least for me. Sometimes I mix 75% water with 25% fruit juice just to avoid the nausea.
I haven't tried that. If I think about it, I try to drink a Vitamin Well (water with vitamins) and that works well. I doubt the vitamins are actually doing anything, but after I have one of those...
I haven't tried that. If I think about it, I try to drink a Vitamin Well (water with vitamins) and that works well. I doubt the vitamins are actually doing anything, but after I have one of those I can usually drink regular water just fine. Usually I don't think about it and just eat something, though.
On the flip side, gut-stretch is one signal for your body to detect whether it's full or not and drinking extra water when hungry can weaken hunger signals, which may be a problem if you tend to...
On the flip side, gut-stretch is one signal for your body to detect whether it's full or not and drinking extra water when hungry can weaken hunger signals, which may be a problem if you tend to undereat.
I did eight years of physical labor on a farm in Australia, so I had to learn how to stay on top of hydration. At least for me, thirst is a symptom of dehydration only when dehydration is already...
I did eight years of physical labor on a farm in Australia, so I had to learn how to stay on top of hydration.
At least for me, thirst is a symptom of dehydration only when dehydration is already so far advanced that the rest of the day (and possibly even the day after) is a write-off. Long before I feel thirsty, I am feeling hungry (especially for salty food) in my body's desperate attempt to restore electrolyte balance. And long before I am feeling hungry, I am already feeling sluggish and unable to work at my full capacity.
The advice I received from my supervisor and my coworkers is that you have to be proactive about hydration: Start hydrating hard on Sunday as if it's a work day, and you will waltz right through Monday.
And when I tried it, I found that they were absolutely right. As long as I started drinking liters of water and downing electrolytes on Sunday and then kept that up through the week (especially in the mornings before work), I loved my job. I would wake up at 4:30 in the morning, work hard all day through 35–40°C weather (95–104°F), not feel particularly tired or hungry or hot, and then still have energy for taking walks and doing yardwork when I got home. I have physically never felt better before or since I had that job.
Yeah, when I do BMX racing in the summer, coaches and teams often say to start hydrating two days before the race. Then you have to keep up with hydrating. The goal is to have a clear/light...
Yeah, when I do BMX racing in the summer, coaches and teams often say to start hydrating two days before the race. Then you have to keep up with hydrating. The goal is to have a clear/light colored urine the night before.
It definitely works, it does take effort though. They same the same thing, if you are thirsty, you already behind.
Yes electrolytes are critical. I add a lot of kcl to my food and use less nacl and it helps a lot with cramping. I will try slurping extra water the day before big rides.
Yes electrolytes are critical. I add a lot of kcl to my food and use less nacl and it helps a lot with cramping.
I will try slurping extra water the day before big rides.
This is all typical, especially being unable to eat. I think it took me like 48 hours after my ultramarathon to actually eat a meal. I was able to force myself to eat a couple slices of pizza,...
I also find it sometimes very hard to drink straight water after the ride, it has to be a soda (or chocolate milk if a hard, long ride).
I also find I cannot eat for a while after an extra hard and long ride.
This is all typical, especially being unable to eat. I think it took me like 48 hours after my ultramarathon to actually eat a meal. I was able to force myself to eat a couple slices of pizza, otherwise, all I could eat was essentially straight carbs. I think I ate one pack of Pop-Tarts and nothing else the day after the race.
It is a common belief that you have to drink 6-8 glasses of water per day. Almost everyone has heard this recommendation at some point although if you were to ask someone why you need to drink this much water every day, they probably wouldn’t be able to tell you.
[…]
But all told, roughly 1.5-2 litres of water loss are obligatory losses that we cannot do anything about. Those who exercise, live in hot climates or have a fever will obviously lose more water because of more sweating. Thus, a human being needs to replenish the roughly 2 litres of water they lose every day from sweating, breathing, and urination.
[…]
All food has some water in it, although obviously fresh juicy fruits will have more than, say, a box of raisins. Suffice it to say that by eating regular food and having coffee, juice or what have you, you will end up consuming 2 litres of water without having to go seek it out specifically. If you find yourself in a water deficit, your body has a very simple mechanism for letting you know. Put simply, you will get thirsty.
…
While the thirst reflex is pretty reliable, it does tend to fade with age and older people are more likely to become dehydrated without realizing it. Thus, the take home message is drink water when you are thirsty, but on very hot days it might not be a bad idea to stay ahead of the curve and keep hydrated.
It's a general good sign of hydration which is more important in a desert environment but is still valid for every day life. It's just less urgent and easier to fix if you're slightly dehydrated.
It's a general good sign of hydration which is more important in a desert environment but is still valid for every day life. It's just less urgent and easier to fix if you're slightly dehydrated.
This is a weird article, to me anyway. The premise seems to be that despite losing 6-8 cups of water per day through insensible perspiration and exhalation, that you don't need to specifically drink 6-8 cups of water per day because you get some water from food. Which of course is true.
But it seems weird to take exception to broad health advice, like this USDA recommendation when the consequence of drinking an extra 1-2 cups per day is nil, while chronic dehydration is associated with short and long-term renal failure. It's like arguing that a multivitamin isn't a good idea, because if you eat right you shouldn't need it. But that misses the point that the advice is acting as a bit of an insurance policy with little downside, so long as individuals aren't going supplement crazy.
I understand that coffee and juice, generally, count towards your fluid intake, but it seems almost like a brawndo type attitude. Why drink water, when brawndo has what plants crave? Just sort of a weirdly structured article to come from an MD imo.
In order to get severe problems due to drinking too much water, we're talking multiple gallons in short durations. Short of that, the worst-case scenario is that you're peeing a lot.
But dehydration kills. And it's easy to become dehydrated for one reason or another without even realizing it.
I'd say there's value in just conveying the truth to people.
I'm not sure that this article achieves that with clarity, though. The article boils down to:
"People need to ingest at least 6-8 cups of water per day from food and beverages to replenish water loss due to basic body functions. The warmer your climate, the more exercise or activity you engage in, the more water you need to replenish. Drink when you feel thirsty, water preferably, and check that your urine is pale in color but transparent to indicate proper hydration. Chronic dehydration is associated with kidney dysfunction, while few if any known side effects are associated with moderate over hydration."
All the editorializing in the article seems like someone nitpicking broad health guidelines in a forest for the trees perspective.
I can't find anything in the article that's misleading. The notion you need to drink 6-8 glasses of water per day to be healthy is a widely held belief that is, in fact, a myth. I find it weird that it would seem weird to want to point this out.
There's a difference between being overtly misleading, and failing to be clear. For me, the article is the latter. Beyond a few pet peeves like mixing units and not using accessible language to a broad audience, the author gives vague advice and buries it in unnecessary language. For example, the first three to four paragraphs could be condensed to one.
Beyond that, the actual advice given is vague:
Emphasis mine. That is a heck of a generalization to make given the prevalence of heat injuries that occur every year and the known risks of dehydration on renal function. Additionally:
Is a weird message to send, again, with the casual links we've established between chronic dehydration and kidney function. Being over hydrated isn't good for the kidneys, but being dehydrated is absolutely bad for your kidneys.
Additionally, after telling people not to follow the safeguard guideline to drink water, the author fails to give a guideline to assess hydration levels like urine color or even common symptoms of dehydration. Nothing about that seems good to me.
It seems disingenuous to complain that their advice (that you're probably not dehydrated if you don't feel thirsty) is bad by mentioning heat injuries when they explicitly mention those as a caveat:
How is it disingenuous to feel that the article lacks clarity? Should I rewrite the whole thing even more verbosely than I did in a previous reply? The article gives vague advice. That it also gives some vague and incomplete caveats (no mention of the permanent damage that chronic dehydration can cause it's mentioned) doesn't mean it is effectively communicating those points. It doesn't even explicitly state what to check for in urine or a capillary refill test while telling people they don't need to go out of their way to drink water.
So no, I don't think it is disingenuous to say that the article, ostensibly written to educate the lay public, could have been written better.
Edit: also, "disingenuous" implies a certain amount of dishonesty. E.g., "(of a person or their behavior) slightly dishonest, or not speaking the complete truth" amongst other definitions. I don't see how my comments could easily be read as dishonest or lacking candor. People can disagree or have different perceptions of things without one of them acting in bad faith.
Is it fair to characterize it as a "myth"? It just seems overly general and a little outdated. The amount of water you need to drink depends on a lot of different factors, and it often will be 6-8 cups or more. This guideline was developed during a time period when the average person was much more physically active and before air conditioning was widespread.
When I did physical labor in greenhouses during the Australian summer, I needed to drink way more than 6-8 cups of water a day. Way, way more. I would commonly drink 5 liters (21 cups) over the course of the day when it was especially hot — and I'm a 5'4 woman. My larger male coworkers drank way more than me.
I've seen that exact argument about. Thankfully it's usually followed by 'But it's no problem taking a multivitamin to make up for any shortfall'.
I always find articles like this very weird as the concepts are so simple and easy to understand. It's almost like they're designed to use up brain energy and make us doubtful and confused about everything. A sort of muddying of the waters exercise.
That's an apt way to describe how I felt. I'm all for long form articles that dog under the covers of the simplified advice. But I do expect it to be detailed and well structured. If you are going to advise people to "break the rule" so to speak, at least give them the details to know when and why in clear terms.
A small nit to pick: there are some vitamins that you can get too much of, and there’s a lot of multivitamins packed high enough that you could have problems taking the full dose regularly on top of a good diet. Others just have excess eliminated in urine (fun fact: a lot of B12 makes it highlighter yellow)
I suppose a better way to phrase it is: "a broad spectrum daily multivitamin not designed to bolster specific functions", since I think the vitamins that might load you up too much on top of diet are formulated to bolster specific functions.
I wish that were the case. For example, one that was ranked very highly on places like Labdoor (when their results didn’t need a subscription years ago) was Garden of Life - Vitamin Code for Men. It’s a general multivitamin, except everything is at least 100% RDI per serving. Centrum - Men from possibly the most popular brand in the US is also 100% and higher for most things in a single pill.
That might be true, but without looking at the labels, were any of the vitamins of the variety that is problematic? Most vitamins you take are quickly removed from the body through urine, if you are hydrated well. So taking a supplement that is 100% of your daily recommended portion of vitamin C, for example, will just slightly color your urine at the next trip to the bathroom.
Some vitamins can cause problems in very high doses, which is why you don't often see broad multi vitamins with 100% of your daily iron, etc. And doing spot check, one of those doesn't have any iron and the other has 44%. But, it is good to be careful and check.
Just going with what the first link called out, here’s a table with RDIs. No guarantee that everything else not mentioned is ok.
So 7-8 out of 11 are 100% or more.
I'm not an expert, and I would encourage folks to talk to their doctors and educate themselves on their own supplements. The only entry that catches my eye right away is Vitamin A because I know it is fat soluble and builds up in your liver. That level is the between the amount recommended for adult men and pregnant or breastfeeding women, which is 1/3 the tolerated upper level. So I would avoid anything that has 100% of vitamin A unless I knew I was deficient in my diet.
Edit: stressing again that people should get advice from clinicians and not folks on the research side of things. That said, I did a quick check of tolerable upper intake limits, maximum recommended dosages, and the likelihood of chronic vs acute hypervitaminosis, and the only one that I still side eye is the level of vitamin A. Even though vitamin D, E, and K are also fat soluble, the amounts here are either less than the maximum recommended daily dosage (in the case of vitamin D, quite a bit less) or the vitamin has relatively limited dietary sources.
That said, people should generally aim to get less than 100% of fat soluble vitamins from a supplement unless they know they have a deficiency.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitamin_D_toxicity#Cardiovascular_disease
...excess D3 is a real risk factor for cardiovascular disease and it's commonly over-supplemented...
I wouldn't take Wikipedia at face value in interpreting studies.
Those citations in order studied:
Nothing in those six, separately or together really supports the statement implying known effects in humans.
There are many studies that do directly explore the association of cardiovascular disease and vitamin D in prospective RCTs. Here are some:
Vitamin D and Cardiovascular Disease: An Updated Narrative Review
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31519560/:
So my take away is the association is still imperfectly understood, but care should be used in managing risk to subject in prospective studies where higher doses of vitamin D are administered to subjects at risk of CVD.
That being said, folks should talk to their doctor if they have concerns.
I'll add my own weird experience: sometimes my brain misinterprets thirst for hunger. While this may help some with dehydration depending on what I eat, I try (and sadly, often fail) to drink water first when I feel hungry to make sure I'm not just thirsty.
Also, when doing intense cycling as I sometimes do, it's really hard to stay hydrated. I drink as often as I can think of it, whether I feel thirsty or not, but always about 30-60m after the ride I'm often extremely thirsty. This effect increases with duration and intensity. I also find it sometimes very hard to drink straight water after the ride, it has to be a soda (or chocolate milk if a hard, long ride).
I also find I cannot eat for a while after an extra hard and long ride.
This is actually super-common, and is why it's generally good advice to take a drink of water any time you feel hungry as well. Worst-case is that you were actually hungry.
I tend to get really nauseous if I drink water (like, more than a few sips) on an empty stomach. It doesn't seem like that's very common, though. I've never heard anyone else experiencing it.
I too experience this, but not all the time. Drinking colder water seems to help offset this, at least for me. Sometimes I mix 75% water with 25% fruit juice just to avoid the nausea.
I haven't tried that. If I think about it, I try to drink a Vitamin Well (water with vitamins) and that works well. I doubt the vitamins are actually doing anything, but after I have one of those I can usually drink regular water just fine. Usually I don't think about it and just eat something, though.
On the flip side, gut-stretch is one signal for your body to detect whether it's full or not and drinking extra water when hungry can weaken hunger signals, which may be a problem if you tend to undereat.
True, but in the West (especially America), more people than not need that weakened hunger signal.
Or if your hunger signals are just "off" from the jump.
I did eight years of physical labor on a farm in Australia, so I had to learn how to stay on top of hydration.
At least for me, thirst is a symptom of dehydration only when dehydration is already so far advanced that the rest of the day (and possibly even the day after) is a write-off. Long before I feel thirsty, I am feeling hungry (especially for salty food) in my body's desperate attempt to restore electrolyte balance. And long before I am feeling hungry, I am already feeling sluggish and unable to work at my full capacity.
The advice I received from my supervisor and my coworkers is that you have to be proactive about hydration: Start hydrating hard on Sunday as if it's a work day, and you will waltz right through Monday.
And when I tried it, I found that they were absolutely right. As long as I started drinking liters of water and downing electrolytes on Sunday and then kept that up through the week (especially in the mornings before work), I loved my job. I would wake up at 4:30 in the morning, work hard all day through 35–40°C weather (95–104°F), not feel particularly tired or hungry or hot, and then still have energy for taking walks and doing yardwork when I got home. I have physically never felt better before or since I had that job.
Yeah, when I do BMX racing in the summer, coaches and teams often say to start hydrating two days before the race. Then you have to keep up with hydrating. The goal is to have a clear/light colored urine the night before.
It definitely works, it does take effort though. They same the same thing, if you are thirsty, you already behind.
That’s a really good write up! It follows most of the ideas that I have taught myself over years of lifeguarding and outdoor work.
Yes electrolytes are critical. I add a lot of kcl to my food and use less nacl and it helps a lot with cramping.
I will try slurping extra water the day before big rides.
This is all typical, especially being unable to eat. I think it took me like 48 hours after my ultramarathon to actually eat a meal. I was able to force myself to eat a couple slices of pizza, otherwise, all I could eat was essentially straight carbs. I think I ate one pack of Pop-Tarts and nothing else the day after the race.
But damn did I down that cold two liter of Coke.
From the article:
[…]
[…]
…
What is also weird is that they didn’t mention water toxicity, that you can drink too much water. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_intoxication
Just as an aside to this I once heard some advice which I thought helpful which was to make sure your pee was clear once a day.
That’s what they would tell people going to burning man, but I’m not sure it’s necessary if you’re not camping in a desert.
It's a general good sign of hydration which is more important in a desert environment but is still valid for every day life. It's just less urgent and easier to fix if you're slightly dehydrated.