Re: If Britain does not have a different "April Fools" type day...
posted at 11/21/2011 3:38 PM EST
In Response to Re: If Britain does not have a different "April Fools" type day...
[QUOTE]To reject the devil's advocate position.... The claim was not that water prevents dehydration. That would be false because it is an absolute statement, and there are ways to get dehydrated even if you drink water. The specific statement was merely an expression of probability: “regular consumption of significant amounts of water can reduce the risk of development of dehydration” If you regularly drink significant amounts of water, there is a lower probability that you will become dehydrated than if you only drank small amounts of water or none. How can that be argued with? Obviously, regular consumption of significant amounts of tonic water or orange juice can reduce the risk of development of dehydration. So too would biting a lot of cacti, or avoiding 130 degree temperatures and marathons. It's also true that even if you do all those things, you might develop horrible cholera and die of dehydration anyway. Hence, the claim is expressed as a statement that drinking a bunch of water can reduce the probability of dehydration. Not even that it necessarily reduces it. As for electrolytes, that may be true. There are other places to get electrolytes. Like food. And at any event, the fact that one needs some level of electrolytes does not mean that water without them cannot lower the risk of dehydration - that would only be true if we assumed for the argument that a person has no other sources of electrolytes. That's really the key here: The statment was "can" lower a probability. Rejecting that is the equivalent of saying "water cannot lower the probability of dehydration." That's why this is so absurd. I also disagree that the statement says anything specifically about bottled water. That it would appear on bottles of water does not communicate that bottled water is more likely to reduce the probability of dehydration. I don't think it comes remotely close to implying it. It refers simply to "water", not bottled water. Yes, it would appear on bottled water. Because that's the product being sold. If there's any danger here, it's that customers aren't careful.
Posted by WhatDoYouWantNow[/QUOTE]
But again, I think it's the wording that's the problem.
What is "regular" consumption? How much is "significant amounts"?
For instance, we now know that the whole "8 glasses of water per day" recommendation was a myth...that many other things we eat and drink have water in them...usually enough for the average person.
By the logic in the statement above, one could drink beer, coffee or tea to prevent dehydration just as well as one could with water.
Again, I do think it's a little silly, but then so is advertising any health benefit whatsoever on a bottle of water. I realize in some places it's the only potable water there is, but given the environmental catastrophe of plastic bottles themselves, this is the best they could do.