It matters not that most Americans are gaga over pop-medicine news. If there is no ad revenue to be made from it, it's not important.

Evian and all the other advertisers nuked the articles.

Curse you, Blue Girl, once again you snatch victory and I taste foul foul defeat!

The 8 glasses a day was promoted because the people who sell bottled water discovered that they could make a fortune packaging tap water in plastic bottles and charging $1.50 and upward for a bottle. It does not usually come from Fijian mountain springs unknown to man till you drink it.

The work-around is to buy one bottle, then refill it repeatedly from the tap. Uses less petroleum too.

However, drinking 8 glasses of water a day would definitely be better for you than drinking 64 oz. of high-sugar soda.

64oz of Shiner Bock cures all.

64oz of Shiner Bock cures all.

Including tomorrows hangover!

I read "at least" 64 ounces in a yoga book almost 40 years ago. And all the early advocates I've personally known have been all yoga-doing people.

British news sources have to compete with the BBC, which devotes a lot of resources to health & public health news.

Given the significant anti-intellectualism in America, it doesn't pay to pop people's bubbles.

I think the surprising thing about the study about antidepressants got so much attention in the UK (and in Italy by the way front page of La Repubblica Italies top circulation newspaper).

My conclusion is that US journalists have reason to be relatively proud. Note that the Guardian article to which you linked http://tinyurl.com/2gqtl9 very definitely stated a claim that was overwhelmingly rejected by the Kirsch et al study on which it was based, that is,
Kirsch I, Deacon B.J., Huedo-Medina T.B., Scoboria A. Moore T.J. and Johnson B.T. (2008) “Initial Severity and Antidepressant Benefits: a Meta-Analysis of Data Submitted to the Food and Drug Administration,� PLoS Medicine vol 5(2) e45.
http://tinyurl.com/2fxozc I think that US jounalists can at least be proud that, in this case, they did not sink to the appalling level of undeniable error of Sarah Boseley.
I point this out here http://tinyurl.com/26gpa4.

Aside from that, I think the attention oaid to Kirsch et al 2008 is based on their arbitrary claim that a decline of less than 3 points on the Hamilton rating scale of depression is not "Clinically Significant". All of their unique contribution is based on the assertion that 1.8=0 for all practical purposes. No rational for this opinion exists (other things equal a change from "life is not worth living" to "life is worth living" equals 1 on the scale.

A much larger study with a sound statistical methodology had already noted publication bias in estimates of the effect of antidepressants. It seems to have been overlooked, because it was published in the obscure New England Journal of Medicine Turner E.H., Matthews A.M, Linardatos E. Tell R.A. and Rosenthal R. (2008) “Selective Publication of Antidepressant Trails and its Influence on Apparent Efficacy.� New England Journal of Medicine vol. 358(3) pp 252-60. However, Turner et al 2008 did not argue that 2 = 0, so no one noticed.

Kirsch et al analyze the data in a way which makes no sense -- they did not base their conclusion only on comparison of case and control in controlled studies. This is a large part of the reason for their low estimate of the effect of antidepressants. Large as in on the same order as the effect of eliminating publication bias ( which by the way has almost exactly no effect no the estimate of the benefit due to Prozac in their study -- the effect of publication bias on estimates is confined to the other three drugs which they considered).
I prove this here http://tinyurl.com/27x5uj

Also note the similar argument made by P.J. Leonard. http://tinyurl.com/27zdnw

Note the Kirsch et al's reply to his criticism which includes "We are grateful that his work confirms our major conclusion, which is that the efficacy of anti-depressants depends on the initial severity of depression." This fact has been noted before, but it was not mentioned by Boseley (how could she if she was Claiming that Kirsch et al had concluded that antidpressants have zero efficacy). Kirsch et al contest Leonard's claim about their estimate of the magnitude of the benefit (which they conclude is surely positive). I think he is clearly right and they are clearly wrong.

In any case, their method is absolutely not the standard approach in meta analysis and this eccentric method,which I believe I have proven beyond reasonable doubt (that is rejected the null that it doesn't at not just the 5% level but at well over the 0.01 % level) to introduce bias in their results that is rejected the null that it doesn't at, is largely responsible for their relatively low estimate of the benefit of antidepressants (two methodological choices are together more important than the elimination of publication bias).

If they had applied their method to published studies, then used the arbitrary cutoff which they used, they would have concluded that the benefits of antidepressants are not clinically significant.

All claims proven (I think) at the link which I repeat http://tinyurl.com/27x5uj.

Totally aside from the debate between Kirsch et al and Leonard and me, in this case UK journalism, as selected by you, differed from US journalism, becaue it included a claim which is definitely absolutely false (not my claim Kirsch et al's) and sensational

I cannot remember where I read it (New Yorker?), or who the quoted nutritional expert from the WW II era was, but the rationale for drinking a lot of water was to not only prevent dehydration but to prevent wrinkles.

8x8 is probably excessive but I certainly know I feel crappy if I drink nothing but crap and I feel better if I at least swap some of the soda or juice for some good old fashioned water.

In the countries where the government is involved in running health care, certain stories get more play because they may set national policy.

I recall hearing the instances of bad health care in Canada get (from a US perspective) wide coverage because that population sees such coverage as one way to get the problem fixed.

No body in the US can be pressured to fix the US health care.

I drink at least 8 12-oz. cans of Diet Coke a day. That way the acids damage my teeth and everything else in my system, and the carbonation etiolates my bones.

When My Coke Rewards ends, boy, I'm really going to reform. It's going to be bottled environment-damaging water for me all the way. Boring, boring, boring environment-damaging water.

Every day I have about a 4 oz - 5 oz. mixed fruit cup and a medium glass of water.

It's the key to optimal health.

I like to have some Miller lite with nano particles, followed by some GMO crops [hoping I dont get Morganellas] with some heaping helping of preservatives.

Water aids in the body's absorption of vitamins and minerals, helps eliminate poisons/wastes, and aids in the production of new cells.

So if you work out, or if you're studying a lot in college (and therefore growing new neural connections) be sure to drink enough water, especially with meals.

After a kidney stone experience (to be avoided at all costs!) I tried 8x8. Couldn't do it. I was either drinking water, sitting around feeling bloated, or peeing. I did stop drinking tea and cranberry juice (which apparently contribute to the formation of kidney stones).

I want web access in my car. Blue Girl beat me to it while I was bumper to bumper on 495.

Dennis Miller stopped being funny decades ago, but he was the one who pointed out that Evian spelled backwards is Naive.

Actually, if you check a database like MedLine, you'll find that almost all American outlets *did* cover the antidepressant story, though perhaps not as quickly and not as flashily as the UK papers.

FWIW, from Brian Williams on NBC Nightly News last night:

"And how many times have you heard the guidelines for good health -- we should all drink eight glasses of water a day? How many times have you felt badly because your liquid intake is nowhere near that? Do you wonder who these people are who have the time to drink eight glass of anything per day?

"Well, there's good news. A new study says there's no solid evidence that the average healthy person actually needs that much water. Their advice, your body will tell you when you need water. Drink when you're thirsty. It's further proof of our theory: if you're willing to wait long enough, a new study will always come out that will justify your way of life."

I knew a guy in college who kept a bottle of Evian in his fridge, refilled with tap water. When he used it to fill his bong, he jokingly said, "I only smoke through Evian!"

My guess is our media hasn't covered these things because they don't make good scare stories.

This is excellent! I hate water, and never drink it except in spin class (but never after), and always feel bad because I'm going to get kidney stones and have a stroke and die in pain. No more! I'm taking Diet Coke to the gym!!

And people wonder when American newspapers are declining.... It's because they don't carry any of the interesting or controversial stories like this water thing or last weeks anti-depressants story, that people would be interested in.

A couple of factors occur in the matter of disinterest in research findings.

Perhaps those who select the content of American media are insufficiently educated to grasp the implications of a finding such as that on anti-depressants... (probably worked for them or their spouses :) The anti-depressant study was so large and compelling that it was widely reported in the media of most if not all Western countries. But if you are not trained to assess evidence its quite likely you would dismiss the study as just another anti-drug scree. This might account as well for the current saturation coverage of autism about which nothing authoritative can be said as yet as to causes and mechanisms of dysfunction. But autism fits well into the paradigm of moral panics so beloved of the American media.

Secondly, the pharm empire in the US is incredibly powerful and its threats to withhold advertising (advertising which would not be permitted in the media in the first place in most other countries) would not be taken idly.

As for the water gorging hydraulic therapy canard, it might well have come originally from the dark ages along with the daft notions about airborne cholera outbreaks, evil vapours, ill humors, leech therapy and all manner of lunatic twaddle which many people believe to this day.... And then there was Horace Fletcher who insisted in 1903 that it was necessary to chew each piece of food 32 times before swallowing (aka "Fletcherizing"). He had a huge following amongst people who should have known better.

It does no harm? It doesn't excite prurient interest? Couldn't possibly be news.

This sort of primogeniture theory of knowledge is how textbooks persist in purveying myths like the Coriolis effect makes the toilet water swirl, and Paul Revere's propaganda rendering of the Boston Massacre.

Once we know it, we aren't going to unknow it.

Kevin, wasn't it you who explained that some bureaucrat calculated the total mass of water consumed by an average person including the water that was part of food?

One obscure thought: When this finding came out (some time in 1930s maybe?), a quarter of the population lived on farms and other rural places and did plenty of physical work, and there was little or no air conditioning for the most part. High fluid intake would be a necessary part of that life style for at least half of the year.

Even more obscure points: Back when I was in high school, football coaches had this thing about not allowing water breaks during practices. Most of us survived, but at least a couple of dozen kids died of dehydration every fall as a result of this moronic approach. Meanwhile, hospitals have learned the necessity of maintaining body fluid levels and blood salt levels. I seriously doubt that icu doctors insist on pushing half a gallon of water through seriously ill patients every 24 hours. Oh, and PS: I actually do know something about uptake of vitamin D, for example, through the intestinal brush border epithelium, and to read comments like those by Swan is to groan.

It's a remnant of our Puritanism, an attitude that is shared even by our supposedly unbiased, "scientific" medical profession. We want to hear only that what we like, what we enjoy, is bad for us, and that what we dislike is good for us. Dietary masochism, if you will.

Thus we hear an endless stream of "don't eat fatty foods, don't eat sugar," but if they found that spinach caused cancer, you'd never hear about it.

If drinking 64 oz of water a day were something everyone was dying to do, this would be on the front page of all the papers. But drinking water is neither terribly enjoyable nor terribly distasteful; therefore it lacks the moral component which is the sine qua non of American public discourse.

If you don't work out, something like 8x8 or 8x10 will make you urinate a lot. But if you work out, you need more water than otherwise, and you won't pee as much with the additional water.

Growing up my mother used to make us drink a glass of water before we were allowed to have a soda or kool-ade and I'd say about 50% of the time it kept us from drinking the sugar laden drink at all. Not sure if we got our 8x8 or more but the effect it had was neither I nor my siblings drink soda or sugary drinks to this day but we're all big water drinkers.

The only study done about water preventing headaches has shown that the higher water intake group suffered fewer headaches. However, this was not a statistically significant decrease due to the small number of people enrolled in the study. Negoianu and Goldfarb believe that further research should be done to confirm this study's findings that increased water consumption prevents headaches. This article also cites studies that have shown that decreased water consumption is correlated with increased rates of coronary disease, colon cancer, and bladder cancer. Again these studies are not conclusive due to poor study design.

I believe that Kevin overstates the conclusion of the Negoianu and Stanley Goldfarb paper, the authors state that while there is no conclusive evidence that water prevents headaches, there is also no evidence that water does not prevent headaches.

If you didn't know already, the Guardian does a column called Bad Science which aims to skewer quacks and such like.

Uh, the Dead Sea Scrolls were not handed down from generation to generation. They were hidden in a cave soon after being written and stayed there for 1900 years.

By the way, I heard the 8 glass of water a day thing from my mother, one of the few people who may actually have achieved it, who would have gotten it some time in the 30's. My wife, on the other hand, is allergic to water. (Not a joke, it's a clinical problem.)

"The whole eight-glasses-a-day thing came from some prehistoric government study . . .that's been handed down through the generations like the Dead Sea scrolls"

More like "that's been handed down through the generations like the 'Protocols of the Elders of Zion' or the 'Warsaw Declaration'"

"it doesn't help you lose weight"

Hmm, If you drink water instead of munching on sweets it damn well DOES help you lose weight.

Myself I drink too much fruit juice so I started making sure I have a pitcher of extremely low calorie lemonade (heavily watered) in my fridge so I can go to that. It really helped.

New uses for old materials are patentable, so if one came up with a new and unobvious water drinking treatment of some sort that was useful in some way, it would be patentable.

You mention that it got picked up on TV stations in the US but not papers. This got me to wondering if part of the problem is a structural element to how stories are packaged.

TV news is promoted with teasers, so a local station can run a segment, and precede it with "Do you really need 8 glasses of water a day? Find out next." People get curious, so they watch to find out the answer. It doesn't matter that the answer is "we don't know".

Newspapers, on the other hand, are headline driven. So what's the headline here? "No medical evidence that humans need 8 glasses of water." Or "How much water do we need? Results inconclusive, says new study." Neither is as compelling as the TV teaser. Of course, papers could put a blurb on the front page: "How much water do we need to drink? Find out in HEALTH..." But perhaps front page teaser blurbs are less effective than TV news teasers.

I don't know. But it's something to consider. (That and the Almighty Evian conspiracy. :D )

I never believed you need 8 glasses of water/day. Of course, having a little bladder (I'm all too aware of this fact!), if I tried that, I would literally wear a path to the bathroom.

So I never tried to down the 8 glasses of water. That being said, I don't drink any soda at all now. Other than Hansen's (or perhaps other "all natural" products), the levels of sodium benzoate in most soft drinks is higher than what is allowed by govt.in water. And you can bet govt. allows more in there than it should. And sodium benzoate (a preservative) IS linked to cancer.

So drink that stuff at your own risk.

I never was a huge soda drinker, but now I miss it not one iota. Hope this helps someone!

There is one area where it will definitely help you, and that is if you have chronic back problems.

The British papers didn't address it because it wasn't a scaremongering health story based on bad science, which is the only kind of health story those papers generally go for.

However, I'll agree that Ben Goldacre's Bad Science column in the Guardian is quite excellent.

Bob G,

I second what you said about supplying water during football practice. The common knowledge in the 70's and before was that your body could get "toughened up" by going without water and that water gave you stomach cramps. My most tremendous thirsts were after sweating my butt off during an August practice in the Midwest while wearing football pads. I'm guessing the idea of "toughening up" the muscles came from butchers who noticed that aged meat loses water and becomes denser. Yeah. Treat your body like a hunk of Prosciutto ham.

Muscles perform best when they are sufficiently hydrated but we are still stuck with the myth that "more is better." If you go blind from lack of Vitamin A then taking a lot of vitamin A will give you superhuman eyesight! Bollocks. Sometimes more will be harmless and sometimes more will kill you.

I like to keep my urine clear. And I feel better the more water I drink. But I exercise I lot. I really don't care what the rest of you decide to do. Way to push back on ignorance though Knute.

Clem,

And you can bet govt. allows more in there than it should.

Careful your bias is showing. I thought it was the Nutrasweet that converted to methanol and formaldehyde causing all the problems? Now that that has been debunked we've got to get oogie boogie about potassium benzoate?

There are good reasons to avoid soda, even diet soda, because it is a waste of money and the acid will rot your teeth. People don't need to get religious about their food but I guess human nature says we will be religious about something.

Tom,

I sweat a lot when I exercise so I also drink a lot of water and I agree clear urine tastes a lot better, but it takes an awful lot of water to keep my urine clear.

Tripp,

For the extra challenge, I pop a few B-vitamins and then try to get clear. Some say that is too risky but it's all about conditioning.

Tom,

Don't you find the B vitamins make the urine taste too, well, greenbeany? I prefer a little extra vitamin C for the tartness. I've considered letting myself be diabetic for the sugary urine but maybe that is going too far.

But it is all good. Americans have the most nutritious urine in the world!

I thought it was six 8-oz. glasses of water or juice. And that doesn't seem excessive. A 12-oz. glass of water with each meal, a 4-oz. glass of juice with breakfast, and a tall glass of water or juice in the afternoon. I do that without thinking.

Why the anxiety about debunking? Sure, eight is a couple more than six, but nobody has ever gotten water-poisoning from drinking eight glasses of water in a day, as some of the . It's lower in calories that juice, much better for you than soda or even coffee, and as long as you get it out of the tap, it's cheap.

Really. What's the big deal?

a very well known study -American Journal of Epidemiology, (January 11, 2002, Volume 155 No.9) - concludes that drinking over 5 over glasses of water a day vs one or two reduces heart attacks and strokes by 40 to 60%....True it's not an RCT but it's good enough for me..considering that there's no down side. Most heart attacks are in the early morning when the blood is thicker given the absence of water, so it makes sense....

...but nobody has ever gotten water-poisoning from drinking eight glasses of water in a day, as some of the more hysterical reports seem to indicate...

Sorry. The doorbell rang and I posted without finishing my sentence.

The only study done about water preventing headaches has shown that the higher water intake group suffered fewer headaches. However, this was not a statistically significant decrease due to the small number of people enrolled in the study. Negoianu and Goldfarb believe that further research should be done to confirm this study's findings that increased water consumption prevents headaches.

That's really interesting, because I've discovered that dehydration is one of my migraine triggers. I really do need my 6 to 8 glasses a day, especially since I live in Southern California where it's easy to get dehydrated. If you have migraine-prone people mixed into the test study without screening for it, that could be a reason why some people in the test study get headaches and others don't.

I have noticed that most places (like Weight Watchers) have cut their recommendations back to 6 cups and not 8, and it's been that way for a couple of years now, so the 8 thing at least is slowly going away.

It's pretty obvious, really - if you don't drink at least 8 glasses of water, you'll be stuck using only 10% of your brain.

American newspapers have gutted their science writers and editors.

I like to go to the mayo and see what they think:

ROCHESTER, Minn. "— Eight glasses a day? More or less? The amount of water we need to drink each day can vary. The August issue of Mayo Clinic Women's HealthSource lists factors that can increase the need for fluid, including:
Increased physical activity
Hot and humid weather
Dry indoor air and high altitudes, which reduce moisture in the air
Having an illness, particularly one accompanied by fever, vomiting or diarrhea

Data show that women who are adequately hydrated consume about 2.7 liters (91 fluid ounces) of total water a day. Since food typically accounts for about 20 percent of fluid intake, this means drinking roughly 2.2 liters (74 ounces or about 9 cups) of beverages a day.

While drinking water is often the best way to replace lost fluids, other liquids including milk, tea, soup, fruit juice and sports drinks also are effective. One caution: beverages with caffeine or alcohol can increase fluid output, making it more difficult to stay adequately hydrated.

For a healthy adult, fluid intake is probably adequate when one rarely experiences thirst and when urine is colorless or slightly yellow. As adults get older, they may experience less thirst, so it's advised to drink before thirst sets in. Signs of inadequate fluid intake may include dry mouth, headache, light-headedness, little or no urination, and constipation."

As far as "where did this conventional 'scientific' wisdom come from?" I have an even better example.

Friend of mine tells about a Russian theory of where oil comes from, and it's NOT from decomposed organic matter (i.e. dinosaurs, etc.)

The Russians theorize it comes from rock on rock activity deep in the earth's crust (or something like that) and IS, therefore, completely renewable.

They acted on their theory and drilled much, much deeper than we (or "our" oil companies) have, and have tapped into oil pools much closer to where they originate. The shallow pools most oil has been extracted from DO go dry because oil seeped into them very slowly through small cracks.

Friend also says some of "our" fields (in the Gulf of Mexico, I believe) also show no signs of depletion despite being heavily pumped over decades.

As to the decomposed organic matter theory, where did it come from? Friend says it was one guy's theory, about 150 years ago, and no one has ever tested it. It was just accepted and became conventional "scientific" theory over time.

Not that burning oil is a great thing for the planet (tho Europe also has diesel engines that burn cleaner than a Prius), but we don't really have to worry about it running out.

Five years ago I was drinking 8 cups of water or more day, but only getting about 1/2 of the RDA of salt, week after week. This crashed my blood salt level and landed me in the hospital for 3 days on an IV. Later I checked on-line for more about "water intoxication" and "hyponatremia". I now drink only when I'm thirsty, plus make sure I get plenty of salt (about 1.5 tsp/day).