Diet and nutritionWater — are we drinking too little, or perhaps too much?
- Hubert Czerniak — Kolagen – „klej życia”i zdrowia o potężnejsile działania
- Hubert Czerniak — Zaparcia - jak zadbać o przewód pokarmowy?
- Hubert Czerniak — Alergia z głowy. Część 2
- Jerzy Zięba — Woda nasycona chemią
- Low-intake dehydration prevalence in non-hospitalised older adults: Systematic review and meta-analysis. · Clin Nutr 2023
- Water intake and hydration state in children. · Eur J Nutr 2019
- Effect of Increased Daily Water Intake in Premenopausal Women With Recurrent Urinary Tract Infections: A Randomized Clinical Trial. · JAMA Intern Med 2018
- Orthomolecular Medicine News Service — James Caleb Jackson and Bernarr Macfadden: Natural health pioneers in Dansville, New York
- Orthomolecular Medicine News Service — Sodium Ascorbate Treatment of Whooping Cough
- Orthomolecular Medicine News Service — Vitamin D Stops Cancer; Cuts Risk In Half
Hubert Czerniak claims that insufficient hydration can intensify allergic reactions, and that drinking water regularly can ease their symptoms.
- He says the recommended daily amount of water is 1.5 to 3 liters.
- For constipation, he recommends a minimum of 1.5 to 2.5 liters a day, depending on the conditions and lifestyle.
- Jerzy Zięba describes how water builds cells and tissues, transports nutrients, removes harmful substances, and regulates body temperature.
What the authors write
The recommended daily amount of water is 1.5 to 3 liters.
For constipation, drinking too little fluid may be one of the problems, and the recommended minimum amount of water is 1.5 to 2.5 liters a day, depending on the conditions and lifestyle.
Insufficient hydration can intensify allergic reactions, and drinking water regularly can ease their symptoms.
Insufficient hydration can intensify allergic reactions, and drinking water regularly can ease their symptoms.
Water is important for the body because it builds cells and tissues, transports nutrients, removes harmful substances, and regulates body temperature.
Research from PubMed · Europe PMC
We selected 3 studies with the best, positive results. This is a selection, not a full review of all research.
Total number of studies on this topic in PubMed: 2 564.
A meta-analysis estimated that about one-quarter of older people living outside hospitals are dehydrated because they do not drink enough fluids.
Aim of the study: Low-intake dehydration amongst older people, caused by insufficient fluid intake, is associated with mortality, multiple long-term health conditions and hospitalisation. The prevalence of low-intake dehydration in older adults, and which groups are most at-risk, is unclear.
Results: From 11,077 titles and abstracts, we included 61 (22,398 participants), including 44 in quality-effects meta-analysis. Meta-analysis suggested that 24% (95% CI: 0.07, 0.46) of older people were dehydrated (assessed using directly-measured osmolality >300 mOsm/kg, the most reliable measure). Subgroup analyses indicated that both long-term care residents (34%, 95% CI: 0.09, 0.61) and community-dwelling older adults (19%, 95% CI: 0.00, 0.48) were highly likely to be dehydrated. Those with more pre-existing illnesses (37%, 95% CI: 0.14, 0.62) had higher low-intake dehydration prevalence than others (15%, 95% CI: 0.00, 0.43), and there was a non-significant suggestion that those with renal impairment (42%, 95% CI: 0.23, 0.61) were more likely to be dehydrated than others (23%, 95% CI: 0.03, 0.47), but there were no clear differences in prevalence by age, sex, functional, cognitive or diabetic status.
“Not stated” does not mean nobody paid — the database does not always record it.
The review found that most children do not meet water intake recommendations, which may mean they are not drinking enough.
Aim of the study: Although low water intake has been associated with adverse health outcomes, available literature indicated that the majority of children do not meet the water intake guidelines and they are underhydrated based on elevated hydration biomarkers. This review examined the water intake habits and hydration status in children from 32 observational studies (n = 36813).
Results: From 32 studies, only 11 studies reported both water intake and hydration status. 12 out of 24 studies reported mean/median water/fluid intake below the guidelines, while 4 out of 13 studies that assessed hydration status indicated underhydration based on urine osmolality (greater than 800 mmol kg-1). Among the 19 countries that reported comparison of water/fluid intake with guidelines, 60 ± 24% of children (range 10-98%) failed to meet them. These findings suggest that children are not consuming enough water to be adequately hydrated.
“Not stated” does not mean nobody paid — the database does not always record it.
In a study, women with recurrent cystitis who drank an additional 1.5 liters of water a day had fewer episodes of the condition.
Aim of the study: To assess the efficacy of increased daily water intake on the frequency of recurrent cystitis in premenopausal women.
Results: The mean (SD) age of the 140 participants was 35.7 (8.4) years, and the mean (SD) number of cystitis episodes in the previous year was 3.3 (0.6). During the 12-month study period, the mean (SD) number of cystitis episodes was 1.7 (95% CI, 1.5-1.8) in the water group compared with 3.2 (95% CI, 3.0-3.4) in the control group, with a difference in means of 1.5 (95% CI, 1.2-1.8; P < .001). Overall, there were 327 cystitis episodes, 111 in the water group and 216 in the control group. The mean number of antimicrobial regimens used to treat cystitis episodes was 1.9 (95% CI, 1.7-2.2) and 3.6 (95% CI, 3.3-4.0), respectively, with a difference in means of 1.7 (95% CI, 1.3-2.1; P < .001). The mean time interval between cystitis episodes was 142.8 (95% CI, 127.4-160.1) and 84.4 (95% CI, 75.4-94.5) days, respectively, with a difference in means of 58.4 (95% CI, 39.4-77.4; P < .001).
“Not stated” does not mean nobody paid — the database does not always record it.
Perspectives and opinion materials
The content below presents the authors’ opinions, interpretations and hypotheses. It is not treated as equal to scientific studies and systematic reviews.
Pisaczek does not judge who is right. It shows what was written and where to read it. Every sentence above has its source.