The Water Bandwagon

"What's that you say - you're not feeling well? Drink plenty of water!"

"Everyone should drink 8 to 12 glasses of water a day."

"By the time you're thirsty it's too late."

"Always carry water with you at all times - always - and drink constantly throughout the day."

"Coffee dehydrates you, and anything that's not plain water will dehydrate you."

These are some examples of the types of beliefs I've heard people swearing by since some time in the 1990s to my recollection. I don't have any data to show whether people were so adamant about drinking water in the 1980s and earlier but I strongly suspect they were not.

Somehow, at some point, it's as though people became convinced that we are all dry sponges that must be constantly doused - constantly. It's understandable that people would believe so strongly that we all need to drink a lot more water: for one thing, it is far more important than food or almost anything else for our survival -- also, water just has that pure, clean, healing imagery to it doesn't it? I too used to believe so strongly in drinking water I figured you can't possibly get too much of the good stuff. Gradually, however, I became convinced that people might be way too zealous about it.

Nowadays, I have returned to my normal non-water anxiety self after having read more about it including the fact that plenty of things can hydrate you besides water -yes even coffee!

Today, I stumbled upon more information to debunk what is starting to seem almost like a "water myth":

Metabolism Myth #5
Is it true that by the time you're thirsty, you're already dehydrated?
Posted by Dr. Mark Dedomenico on Thursday, July 9, 2009 5:16 PM (MSN.COM)

How many of you have heard that by the time you are thirsty, it's too late, you're probably dehydrated? Well, let’s see what's really going on when your body signals it's thirsty.

Plasma osmolality is a measure of the concentration of substances such as sodium, chloride, potassium, urea, glucose, and other ions in blood. When you get an increase of plasma osmolality, this means substances in the blood such as sodium have become more concentrated, decreasing the amount of fluid or water in the blood.

Less than a 2 percent rise in plasma osmolality—that's not very much—will elicit thirst. However, it takes a 5 percent rise in your plasma osmolality to indicate true dehydration. Therefore, you could dine out on a high-sodium meal and make yourself extremely thirsty, but this doesn't mean you’re dehydrated. You can get significant increases in thirst without extreme concentration changes in your body fluid.

On the other hand, instances where “thirsty is too late” include water immersion and dehydration in the elderly. Water immersion is where you are plunged in cold water intermittently or for long periods at a time at 60°F or below. In some cultures such as in Russia, they perform such plunging to increase blood flow. Water immersion suppresses thirst response even though you may be dehydrated. And as for the elderly, unfortunately, as we age, our thirst response to dehydration becomes less sensitive, resulting in many elderly not meeting their fluid needs.

So don’t worry; this is just one more of those myths. Just because you're thirsty it doesn't mean you're severely dehydrated or that you've waited too long to hydrate yourself. You may have just had a high-sodium meal or increased your potassium intake by eating bananas, creating a greater concentration of ions in your blood, triggering your thirst.

Who knew? Definitely aim to drink consistently throughout the day. Water is the best hydrating agent and truly is the fountain of youth.

Society's Acceptance of Cloning...and WWDD (What Would Darwinianism Do?)

I waited about a month and I haven't seen much reaction anywhere in response to 5 cloned dogs in California. Quite notably, the dogs were all cloned from saved tissue after the death of one single dog. A "9/11 rescue dog" - the pet was selected as part of a contest to clone the most "worthy" pet. What non-dog owners may not realize is that dog-owners commonly view their pets as members of the family. In my observation this is suggestive of a societal acceptance of a sea change currently underway in biotechnology that may eventually result in a dramatically different human existence.

First, consider that we can see at this beginning of cloning household beings, society has embraced the notion of worthiness for cloning. "Worthiness" is at the very core of the concept of eugenics which many may have hoped largely ended with World War II. It's not that this one instance alone is shocking - it's just remarkable that traces of such a huge bioethical issue arise at the beginning of cloning entering our households. What's more, at a cost of about $144,000 truly only the wealthiest members of society have easy access to this. In a different way, however, cloned worthy animals may enter all of our households. Cloned meat has been accepted by the FDA since January 2008. Consider the pace at which these changes are taking place.

Secondly, consider another related tremendous shift in attitude is toward embryonic stem cell research now that Obama has opened the federal coffers. The relevance here is that one thing scientists are interested in is whether it is possible to create a clone of a human in order to obtain identical stem cells (back in 2004 someone falsely claimed to have accomplished this). Of course, even if creating a human clone were possible it would require a tremendous shift in societal acceptance. My point is only that society continues to head in that direction now that we are actively funding research on human embryos that were previously frozen and viable.

I personally suspect that all of these changes in society will have a sort of natural feel to them as they are accepted by society as improvement of medical technology. With regards to the current trend towards increased use of fertility treatment I even wonder whether (if human cloning becomes a reality) it would eventually be accepted as a means for procreation in rare circumstances where there may be no other option for procreation, or where a parent seeks to avoid expression of a recessive gene. Perhaps by that time, for example, we will have seen in our pets and other animals that no two clones ever look or act exactly the same. Only one of the 5 cloned dogs, in fact, is an exact replica. The others apparently have some different markings (notice the tan markings above) and personality traits (I'm assuming that because the owner mentioned that one dog stood out as acting the same as the original dog that the others act a little different - I think that's a very fair assumption).

One concern over wide-spread cloning would be setting the stage for a potential Irish potato famine scenario. That is, with reduced genetic diversity in agriculture comes an increase in risk if one or two of only a few genetic variations succumb to disease.



Another, more philosophical question if human cloning becomes a reality, is whether on any level, people would be driven more to clone themselves as much as possible or whether the general preference would remain to recombine with another set of genes. Arguably at least, under Darwinianism the instinct is to pass on as much of an individuals' DNA as possible and therefore society may face this pressure in the form of cloning - be it legal or illegal.

Obesity (A movie and my thoughts about it)

I just finished watching a movie called "Killer at Large: Why Obesity is America's Greatest Threat". I wouldn't really recommend the movie based solely on the fact that it is somewhat boring. As for the obesity problem in the U.S. and the world in general, there is legitimate concern about the health problems associated with obesity - most notable perhaps is that diabetes is currently the fifth leading cause of death in the U.S. What is unclear however, is exactly what is behind the problem.

Some of the more commonly mentioned causes for obesity in an individual include: genetics, poor nutrition, lack of exercise, or overeating (perhaps for emotional reasons). Unfortunately, it does not yet seem quite possible to identify the specific cause for obesity either on an individual level or for society as a whole. Instead, we have only generalized concepts. Knowing that there is a significant change throughout society (a revolution, if you will) however, we can look for other significant changes or revolutions that may have caused it.

Revolutions that come to mind include the baby boom generation and the internet. Notably, I would not include something like the availability of food as a recent revolution (I'm not sure that it was ever a revolution - it may have been a gradually increasing phenomenon) - nor would I count the changing shape of the traditional family as a revolution (again, I think it has changed gradually). I'm not saying that I can prove that the current explosion in obesity rates comes from a revolutionary change in society - I'm just suggesting it more likely does.

In order for the baby boom generation to factor into the obesity rates one might look for the aging population to be "throwing off the averages" - this does not seem to be the case however. One might also consider whether the "echo-boomers" have lived a dramatically different life because the economically prosperous times in which they were born and raised afforded them the ability to do far less physical work than any previous generation - and perhaps their children adopted some of these habits. Similarly, I tend to think that the internet revolution holds real possibility as one cause because it is a significant revolution of the uselessness of physical activity.

As for genetics, we know that a gene is only part of the "equation" - environment is the other part. To use the "lingo" Phenotype = Genotype + Environment. In my guess, the internet revolution is probably a significant environmental change that requires adaptation through intentionally increased physical work in order to combat obesity.

Of course, the problem with this theory is that many in the U.S. do not have internet access and obesity is often linked to poverty (which is linked with lack of internet access). It would be interesting to do a study to look for a correlation between internet access (at home, work, etc.) and obesity.