| Posted by | Reply |
irishabs
Myfit Moderator
Yelm Washington Personal Trainer
5/5/2008 7:01:32 AM |  Well considering that I am a distance runner reaing that article. I thought that they were not very professional when it came to this study.
For one they never included what water does for the recovery of the muscles after training.
Also that water is also found to cut alot of illnesses in almost half.
Pop and all the other beverages have too much stuff in them to be healthy anyways.
I have also read from a study in the U.S here with a study of 2000 people that water does not have any bad effects unless you drink alot of it durring your meal, and that off consuming to much of it.
The reason is because if you drink alot of it durring your meals, it is known to kill the enzyms that you congest.
Also if you have drinkin too much water there is a chance that you will die from it.
There was a case of somebody dying from it in yelm washington this past weekend.
So i think that study is way off the facts. It almost sounds like somebody tryin to sell more pop...lol
|
Deer7
Newbie
1 Posts
5/4/2008 10:15:09 AM | Thank you for your input. You have done a great job going through the report and write the review above. The way you defend the source of our Life - Water - is also very interesting and important. It looks like you like this subject.
Thanks again
|
Personal Trainer
 Moderator
5/4/2008 10:11:50 AM | To continue on with my last post Dr. Goldfarb mentions:
". Two studies by
Boschmann et al.
17,18
found consumption of water increased
thermogenesis—boosting the number of calories used by the
body. This effect is not seen with ingestion of salt-containing
fluids."
Why wasn't this mentioned!?
"Although the data regarding satiety and thermogenesis are
intriguing, they are insufficient to clarify the role of water in-
take in mitigating the obesity epidemic."
So why wasn't this mentioned in the media paper? All we heard again was that it played NO significance for our health.
"Fifteen patients with mi-
graine headaches were randomly assigned to increased water
intake or placebo for 12 wk. The number of hours of headache
was quantified over 14-d intervals at the beginning and at the
end of the trial. Although the treatment group had 21 fewer
hours of headache compared with the control group, this dif-
ference did not reach statistical significance (the number of
patients was obviously quite small)."
So, they said because there was only 21 people they wrote the study off. A wise move but again, ignored to report say that there is some research....
Dr. Goldfarbs conclusion:
"Although we wish we could de-
molish all of the urban myths found on the Internet regarding
the benefits of supplemental water ingestion, we concede there
is also no clear evidence of lack of benefit. In fact, there is
simply a lack of evidence in general. Given the central role of
water not only in our bodies but also in our profession,it seems
a deficit worthy of repletion."
What did the media take from this conclusion?
"Don't drink Water, Drink Soda Instead"
WTF!?
|
Personal Trainer
Moderator
5/4/2008 10:07:53 AM | I looked further into Stanley Goldfarbs published papers and he notes:
http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:CiNxmEdvdKcJ:www.asn-online.org/press/pdf/2008-Media/Water%2520Study.pdf+Stanley+Goldfarb+water&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=ca&client=firefox-a
"Water ingestion can acutely affect GFR, although not nec-
essarily in the direction one might expect. Using 12 young,
healthy individuals as their own controls, Anastasio et al.
8
found increased water intake actually decreases GFR. It might
therefore seem that any “toxin” removed purely by glomer-
ular filtration is cleared less efficiently in the setting of in-
creased water intake; however, it is not certain such changes
inGFRpersistovertime.Indeed,GFRwasunchangedduring
a 6-mo randomized trial of increased water intake in older
men who had benign prostatic hypertrophy.
9
Of course, the
populations in the two studies are different, and the main
goal of the randomized trial was to evaluate bladder function
rather than kidney function; as an aside, the study did show
someimprovementinbladderfunction,althoughtheclinical
significance of the findings is unclear."
So, they (researchers) completely ignored the fact that the study concluded it did show 'some improvement in bladder function' and chose to write that it doesn't help to drink more water for your kidneys. Oh, lets also note that the N value (number of people in the study) is 12. 12!?!?!?!?!?!?!!?!? You CANNOT suggest that a extremely poor value such as that should even be mentioned in any papers IMO. I had 150 in my thesis and I thought that was low.
The same study goes on to mention: "Anastasio et al. found
the total clearance of osmoles increased as water intake in-
creased, probably as a result of reduced reabsorption. If there
are “dangerous” substances among these osmoles, then in-
creased water intake might indeed help in their clearance."
Again, completely ignored in the media report to the public.
"In short, increased water intake does
have some impact on renal clearance of various substances,
but current data are insufficient to assess the clinical signifi-
cance of these observations"
Again, this was not mentioned.. all we heard was that there was no significance and 'Only drink when you are thirsty!'.
"One study of 14 individuals in “good
health” suggested that water retention is quite variable and
depends significantly on the speed with which water is in-
gested. "
Are you kidding? 14 people!?
"Such studies examine rela-
tively short-term changes, usually over 24 h. We are not aware
ofdataregardingwhattypeofsteadystatedevelopsoverlonger
periods of increased water intake"
So, they didn't do their job is what they are saying. They jumped to the conclusion that there is no significance without doing the homework.
I think you can tell that I take VERY little weight in what they have to tell us in this report. I could go on...
Can someone else please read the studies in which they concluded these results from and give us your opinion.
PT.
|
Personal Trainer
Moderator
5/4/2008 9:40:49 AM | It's very interesting actually. I am shocked that 'they' could conclude such a thing when we have been told our whole lives the exact opposite.
Lets break it down here, the news article which you are referring to says
"Drs. Dan Negoianu and Stanley Goldfarb of the University of Pennsylvania assessed published clinical studies on the benefits of drinking water."
They go on to say:
"The researchers point out that although the studies they reviewed did not prove that there is a clinical benefit of drinking more water, there is also no proof that there isn't one."
What I really don't like here is a: The media will always headline one sentence of the whole report and b, WHAT STUDIES ARE THEY REFERRING TO!? All they mention is clinical studies, no mention of what the purpose of the studies were trying to conclude, who conducted them, I think this is actually a very poor report of the 'facts'. Not to say that what they are saying isn't true but until I'm not going to stop drinking something which we are 90% of...
If someone finds a link to the actual studies they are talking about please post it here.
PS. Where the heck does it say about drinking soda instead!?
PT
|
