Like most dietary advice, the genesis of this recommendation probably comes from two things... 1. Your friendly federal government trying to horn into your life and 2. extrapolated stupidity.

http://www.iom.edu/Global/News%20Announcements/~/media/442A08B899F44DF9AAD083D86164C75B.ashx

Some pool of doctors somewhere looked at the DRI tables at some point and concluded, "Most people don't drink NEAR this much water in a day..." So to them, the fact that people aren't following the government's DRI for water is a 'health crisis'.

Naturally in the face of this phantom crisis, they feel obliged to meddle. The DRI tables are too complicated, so they pick a simple target which is in the ballpark (64 oz) and start telling people "your doctor recommends that you drink 8 eight oz glasses of water a day". Bingo - you have a myth.

My doctor - who isn't an idiot - put it quite simply. "Drink when you're thisty until you're not." That's all you need to know. These 'targets' you get from the USDA, DRI, AMA, and other places are general advice - not gospel truth. Listen to your body & use common sense. Your body and brain are 100X more qualified than the nanny state and buttinsky panels.

OK, I was able to find an academic source on daily water turnover (and therefore requirements) that mentioned the 40 ml/KG/day. However, the study was done on children, with the 40 ml/KG/day relating to 15 year-olds. Still, there are plenty of authoritative sources out there (in the far reaches of the intertubes) that cite similar or identical turnover rates. A quick search for "human water requirements per day" should get you some decent information. Even the USDA suggests drinking "a lot" of water (3.7 L for men, 2.7 for women) every day. (source)

It's not magic or a made up number, it's a simple in/out calculation. Urine accounts for between 500 and 1,000 ml of water loss, sweating and evaporation of water through breathing--or insensible water loss--accounts for another 450-1900 ml, and feces counts for a couple hundred ml as well (source). So if you're losing two to three liters of water every day, shouldn't you replace it? Wouldn't that be the logical conclusion?

Also, water in the food you eat accounts for only about 20% of your daily intake. (source)

Of course, your environment, activity level, age, weight, sex and other factors can play a part in how much water your body needs. Also, I'm not a doctor, just some guy with access to a search engine, so don't take my word for it.

@dystopianfuturetoday. I agree with you. I know the politicized title may turn some off, and I can understand. I do actually blame the parents, as well. But, it certainly is a public school fail because the whole purpose of school is to teach the basics, and identifying vegetables is pretty base.

We do need healthier options for school kids. If we're paying for it, then a balanced diet should consist of more than just pizza and french fries. But these failures are from the USDA guidelines that say pizza and french fries qualifies as proper servings of protein, bread and vegetables. You want someone to blame? Blame the government for that!

>> ^Jaace:
>> ^alizarin:
"Calfornia Blend" is a very common type of mix, not a place of origin. It's like saying you can't have French Fries from China.
That stinks that the USDA allows their label without any real backing though.

While I understand your meaning...that's a bad analogy because "french" is the way the fries are prepared...not the country of origin ;-).

argument fail

You just said exactly what he said, but managed to say he was wrong at the same time...

>> ^Jaace:
>> ^alizarin:
"Calfornia Blend" is a very common type of mix, not a place of origin. It's like saying you can't have French Fries from China.
That stinks that the USDA allows their label without any real backing though.

While I understand your meaning...that's a bad analogy because "french" is the way the fries are prepared...not the country of origin ;-).

>> ^alizarin:
"Calfornia Blend" is a very common type of mix, not a place of origin. It's like saying you can't have French Fries from China.
That stinks that the USDA allows their label without any real backing though.


While I understand your meaning...that's a bad analogy because "french" is the way the fries are prepared...not the country of origin ;-).

"Calfornia Blend" is a very common type of mix, not a place of origin. It's like saying you can't have French Fries from China.

That stinks that the USDA allows their label without any real backing though.

^ correct

USDA farming subsidies are a ridiculous morass of pork

In reply to this comment by deedub81:
You bring up a lot of good points. I think you just raised the sophistication of my attitude towards this discussion.

That's pretty high praise right there.

It's good to see someone else who's had a taste of both sides of life -- almost all the people I know have had all of one and none of the other.

I don't really disagree with you about people whose net worth is in the $1-$5 million range. They probably do live in middle-class neighborhoods, live in middle-class homes, and still shop in Wal-Mart.

Difference is, they're also not likely to lose their house, their car, or their credit rating if someone in their family gets a serious illness or loses their job (or God forbid, both), nor do they have to scrimp and save to put their 2.5 kids through college. They probably live in an area with a good public school, or can afford private school.

Their opportunities are greater, and their likelihood of slipping out of their situation due to a random event is dramatically less. They have income or savings to fall back on.

I agree that there are many countries with great programs funded by the government. I just wouldn't want to live there. I don't want to pay higher taxes. I want the freedom to spend my money how I see fit. Let me give you an example: I donate a substantial portion of my income to non-profit organizations every year, almost 12% in 2007. I hand picked where I wanted to donate based on my personal research and opinions. Some of my donations go to assist the poor. 100% of my donated money goes straight to where it's needed because it's handled by unpaid volunteers, not salaried government workers and politicians.

I don't pay very much for my health care because I don't need much. I maintain a policy for emergency health care, and I pay my doctor in cash when I get an ear ache.

Tell me how my lifestyle (and the life of the families that benefit from my donations) would improve if my money was paid in taxes rather than donations?

That's a core conservative argument. In your viewpoint, you earned your money in a vacuum, and owe nothing to anyone (except the people you borrowed money from). You want to donate some of your money, but you want it to be your sole choice where it goes.

In my viewpoint, you've used public roads all your life, benefited from the USDA keeping food safe, national parks, public schooling, the safety provided by police, the fire department, the FBI, the CIA, and the armed services. You will one day be a beneficiary of Social Security, and have been a beneficiary of farm subsidies if you've ever bought bread or milk.

We're all part of a collaborative enterprise here in America, and each of us have a duty to it. We're lucky in this country, all they expect us to do is pay taxes, and possibly serve on a jury. Nothing else is compulsory. In other countries, military service is mandatory for a certain period of time.

Now, you can complain that the government doesn't use your money wisely in all circumstances, but that's the fault of the voters. We have a responsibility to use our votes to force real accountability in government. If you want your tax money to go towards or away from something, vote your mind. If you're passionate about it, talk other people into seeing things as you do.

Arguments that "government" doesn't have the right to collect and disburse tax money strike me as essentially anti-democratic. While I like to have an open mind about such things, you're going to need a better replacement than "those who have, rule" if you want anything less than full opposition from me.

Even Lincoln said that we have a "government of the people, by the people, for the people", which to me implies that it is (or was) a collaborative effort for the common good. Once we establish that, we're just talking about who how to distribute the tax burden amongst the citizens. Should we ask the poor to pay the same portion of their income Bill Gates pays, or should we ask more from those who have more, and less from those who have less?

That's not punishing success, it's just saying that those who have succeeded have a greater responsibility to support our common good than those who haven't.

You're still free to give money to charity in addition to paying your share to the government, and if you don't have enough left over afterwards, you're free to go find ways to get more income. If higher tax rates are really a big disincentive, I'm sure your boss would be happy to give you a paycut if you asked for one, but I think most people will just try to keep earning more, no matter what.

Oh, and as for how Republicans are taking your money and giving it to corporations? By not lowering your taxes, while lowering your benefits, and increasing the benefits to Exxon, Pfizer, Bear Stearns, and Lockheed Martin.

To quickly touch on your other points, I think McCain's life was pretty cushy up to the point where he shipped off to Vietnam, and resumed the cushiness when he married Cindy Hensley. He was the son of 2 generations of Admirals, and graduated from officer's school, after his service he dumped his wife and married into money, and she funded his run for political office. That was 30 years ago. I think he's had himself a pretty sweet life for most of that, and I think that kind of situation detaches people from reality (and being a Senator for 30 years could have the same effect).

As for what that has to do with how he'd do the job? How's he going to relate to my needs, when he doesn't even know how many houses he owns, can't remember the last time he pumped gas, and needs note cards to tell him the price of milk? Yes, that's a talking point, but I think it makes a pretty salient point about the kind of detachment from reality McCain has.

Obama's the kind of middle-class millionaire you were describing. He's only recently made it to millionaire status, largely through sales of his books, and that largely based on his run for President.

I disagree that we've already done enough with social programs such that the only people who go homeless or hungry are doing so by choice. If that were true, why would people choose to go hungry and live on the streets?

>> ^BansheeX:
Do you understand that in a libertarian society, it is illegal to infringe on a person's rights, whether you're a company or an individual? How do you interpret my post as wanting to let companies do ANYTHING they please?

Force of habit, I'm used to bumping heads with Republicans, and rarely do Libertarians preach about the need to restrict the power of corporations to infringe on people's individual rights. Most just talk about the tyranny of regulation, and often go so far as to debate the necessity of OSHA, USDA and even the FTC (which seems to have faded from existence in my lifetime).

"Economics" is too vague. There are many different branches, the dominant philosophy changes with time. Currently, it is neo-Keynesian, but that will change after its collapse. It matters not that 90% of current economics doctorates are in this manner of thinking. The Austrians were already proven right from the FIRST great depression, do we really need another one to figure out that the Federal Reserve is the equivalent of the benevolent dictator argument?

Not to lean too heavily on an appeal to authority, but are you saying there's something about Austria in the Great Depression that disproves the underpinnings of what 90% of economists believe? Shouldn't someone at Universities around the world be notified?

I'm just reacting to the insistence that there's something fundamentally flawed with liberal philosophy. Usually that "something flawed" is that "socialism doesn't work" or "the free market fixes everything" or some other nonsensical absolute assertion.

For example, you said I don't understand which powers of government are "justified" and which ones aren't. That's not true, we just have a different concept of what's justified.

You also questioned whether or not I'd go along with letting the government have and use a hypothetical mind control device -- and of course I'd be opposed to such a thing. I'm all for protecting individual rights, and limiting government's power over the individual, I just don't think free markets are always the best way to fulfill every need in society, merely most of them.

The market is millions of people making mutually agreeable transactions. The government is not the market, they're just suppose to protect people's property and settle disputes on a national and domestic level. And it isn't black and white anyway. For example, I disagree with fellow libertarians in that I want to keep the FDA for information, labelling, and enforcement of what constitutes terms like "organic" and "free range," but remove their ability to ban products. That power is currently used for collusive anti-competitive reasons. Go on wikipedia and look up Stevia for one example, the artificial sweetener lobby bribed officials to block its use in products because it was a natural, no-patent substitute to crap like "Aspartame" which would have cost them billions.

I agree on that issue, that there's abuse of the power that needs to stop, but I don't think the solution is to remove government power to ban products.

I'm not entirely sure what such a law would say, there are risks everywhere to everything.

That's easy: show a schedule of payments to potential purchasers, so they know what their obligations will be with regards to the loan.

There's differing opinions out there about who's at fault for the crisis, but part of the problem did start with predatory lending practices, motivated by the hunger for those mortgage backed securities.

Ultimately, though, their only loss will be their credit and the home they couldn't afford because they can walk away and leave their bank or lender with the unpaid loan and depreciating house. That's what the government is trying to bail out with honest taxpayer money.

Actually, since we're still under the auspices of the Bush administration, it's mostly going to help out banks who leveraged themselves to invest in mortgage backed securities. Regular people who got screwed by predatory lending are having to get by with the scraps the Democrats can attach to the legislation.

I know it's all socialism to you, but to me there's a vast difference in those things.

Instead of letting the chips fall where they may, we're trying to delay a necessary recession AGAIN with inflation. Prices want to come down from these artificial levels, and have those jobs reallocate to manufacturing exports because exports are the only thing a the weak dollar is good for.

I agree with the assessment of the current situation, it does seem like we're putting off the inevitable. I'm a cynic though, I think they want to make sure the next President gets the big market crash, and they're intentionally delaying things for that purpose, even at the risk of making that crash worse.

And it will be a replay of the FDR administration with Obama, but pretty effing bad under McCain [snip]

That's exactly how I see it too, and I couldn't be more happy at the thought of a new FDR-style administration, I just hope we don't have another Great Depression and World War to go with it.

Quite the discussion of economic philosophy, in the comments on a video of Obama talking about Republicans being pridefully ignorant on energy.

People who don't believe in government shouldn't ever ask people to put them in charge of it.

That's a very elitist attitude, NR. You're basically saying "If you don't believe in what I'm saying then get out of my way because I know what's best!" What's up with that? To be honest, I think the free market works just fine, because that's truly the power given to the people. You don't need the USDA, OSHA or the EPA. If I remember correctly, the USDA wasn't successful in stopping the salmonella outbreak in tomatoes and jalapenos, even with all of their regulations. The same goes with any government department. They're ineffectual and wasteful.

You're too alarmist for my taste. The free market doesn't set the value of human life. What's that about? We don't need OSHA to care for human life - I say let the people care for the people. If people or property are damaged because of negligence there are ways of rectifying that matter without preemptive bureaucratic restrictions, regulations and subsidies. If a company is negligent they should be held accountable by the communities. For instance, you don't need the EPA when you allow communities to sue corporations for pollution and dumping, but currently we've allowed corporate interests to get way too close to police makers (the same policy makers who devise and run these worthless departments), so instead of allowing communities to sue corporations, the federal government in their infinite wisdom penalizes them instead when they pollute and damage local ecosystems. It's essentially a pollution tax paid to the federal government. Isn't that nice?

I'd say you'd have more of a leg to stand on if you could prove how these departments are worth the amount we pay in for them. But, that's impossible, isn't it?

Yes, I want freedom from the USDA -- I want my $1 cheesburger to be filled with hormones, rat feces, and mad cow disease.

Yes, I want freedom from OSHA, because I want all safety to be viewed through the lens of cost-effectiveness, with the value of human life set by the free market.

Yes, I want freedom from corporate taxes, because I can fully expect companies to pass those savings on to me, every penny of it!

Yes, I want freedom from the EPA, because clean air is for pussies.

After all, who needs safe food, safe medicine, a safe work environment, and clean air, when you might get almost a 60% raise, because surely that will pay your healthcare costs when the unregulated insurance market cancels your policy for eating a burger at McDonalds, or breathing the air in any metro area.

This is lunacy, always has been, and always will be.

People who don't believe in government shouldn't ever ask people to put them in charge of it.

i like the point about the USDA. Great vid.

Fluoride May Damage the Brain, New Report Says

New York – February 26, 2008 -- "It is not clear that the benefits of adding fluoride to drinking water outweigh risks of neurodevelopment or other effects such as dental fluorosis," according to an Institute for Children's Environmental Health report. (1)

Fluoride chemicals are added to 2/3 of U.S. public water supplies ostensibly to reduce tooth decay. Fluoride is found in dental products, supplements and virtually all foods and beverages (2).

"Excessive fluoride ingestion is known to lower thyroid hormone levels, which is particularly critical for women with subclinical hypothyroidism; decreased maternal thyroid levels adversely affect fetal neurodevelopment," reports a prestigious committee of scientists and health professionals in a “Scientific Consensus Statement on Environmental Agents Associated with Neurodevelopmental Disorders.”

Studies they reviewed and others link fluoride to brain abnormalities and/or IQ deficits. (3)

"The question is what level of exposure results in harmful effects to children. The primary concern is that multiple routes of exposure, from drinking water, food and dental care products, may result in a high enough cumulative exposure to fluoride to cause developmental effects," they write.

"Given the serious consequences of LDDs [learning and developmental disabilities], a precautionary approach is warranted to protect the most vulnerable of our society," the authors caution.

"It's time to stop water fluoridation," says lawyer Paul Beeber, President, New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation. “With many neurological diseases, such as autism and ADD, afflicting too many American children, fluoride's dubious promises of less cavities no longer outweigh fluoride's serious health risks," says Beeber.

The National Research Council reviewed fluoride toxicology evidence and reported in March 2006 that studies linking fluoride to lowered IQ are plausible.(3a)

"The real dental dilemma facing American children today is their inability to get dental care," says Beeber. “Eighty-percent of dentists refuse Medicaid patients (4) and 108 million Americans don’t have dental insurance (5),” says Beeber.

Studies show that when fluoridation ends, cavities actually go down. (6)

Please sign the petition urging Congress to end fluoridation and hold hearings about why federal officials continue to promote water fluoridation in the face of growing scientific evidence of harm at http://www.FluorideAlert.org/Congress .

Dr. Phyllis Mullenix was the first U.S. scientist to find evidence that fluoride damages the brain. She published her study in a respected peer-reviewed scientific journal (7) and then was fired because she wouldn’t squelch it.(8)




References:

1) Institute for Children's Environmental Health, “Scientific Consensus Statement on Environmental Agents

Associated with Neurodevelopmental Disorders,”

Developed by the Collaborative on Health and the Environment’s

Learning and Developmental Disabilities Initiative

November 7, 2007 released February 20, 2008

http://www.iceh.org/pdfs/LDDI/LDDIStatement.pdf

2) USDA National Fluoride Database of Selected
Beverages and Foods - 2004 http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/foodcomp/Data/Fluoride/Fluoride.html
3) http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/brain/index.html#human



3a) The National Academies of Science, Committee on Fluoride in
Drinking Water, National Research Council, "Fluoride in Drinking
Water: A Scientific Review of EPA's Standards," March 2006

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/11571.html?onpi_newsdoc03222006



4) Slate, “Hidden Rations Why poor kids can't find a dentist,” by Anne Alstott
May 29, 2007 http://www.slate.com/id/2167190/


5) American Dental Education Association/American Association for Dental Research Testimony presented by Dr. Nick Mosca

March 27, 2007 Before the House Energy and Commerce Committee



http://www.iadr.com/files/public/LA07testimonyMosca.pdf



6) http://thyroid.about.com/cs/toxicchemicalsan/a/fluoridepr.htm



7) Mullenix P, et al. (1995). “Neurotoxicity of Sodium Fluoride in Rats,” Neurotoxicology and Teratology 17:169-177)



Dr. Phyllis Mullenix interview:

http://www.fluoridealert.org/mullenix-interview.htm



Videos: Part 1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9daqPRUWpMc



Part 2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A4QrTcyrrvw





SOURCE: NYS Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation, Inc

PO Box 263

Old Bethpage, NY 11804

http://www.orgsites.com/ny/nyscof

http://www.FluorideAction.Net

^I've never stated that fluoride is "evil and killing our kids"(nor have I implied that you've said that), you made a great overreaction though, oscar worthy actually. I've also not issued an all out campaign against the use of fluoride as I've stated and reiterated two of the findings of the CDC & NRC, that fluorides predominant benefits are post-eruptive and topical (not systemic). I do take issue with Hydrofluorosilicic Acid being added to my water supply for many, many reasons (which I've laid out in detail)

thank you for helping to make my point. You stated "anything in excess is harmful". The CDC gives a minimum of how much fluoride is beneficial and I've pointed out that they do not take into consideration the many, many things we consume that add to that intake of fluoride, neither do they look at varying doses depending on who's consuming it...babies, old people, people with kidney problems, etc...

I have a hard time understanding why people are so vocal about supporting a one size fits all solution when there are serious questions that arise from the efficacy and safety when overuse of the product in question occurs.