Paleo and Water

Quoted message said:

I just got into a mini-argument on Yahoogroups about this. Apparently
the group is very anti-argument, so I thought I'd bring it to Usenet
where people are thicker-skinned. :-)

Anyway, it's about the 'eight cups of water' thing. This used to be
standard advice, but in recent years it's been somewhat debunked as
being a misunderstand about how much water we need from foods AND
beverages, not just water. However, a lot of low-carbers still treat
the advice as gospel and Dr. Atkins' books certainly say it's
necessary.

Many low-carbers use a version of the paleo argument underlying their
reasoning for why the diet works, by arguing we didn't evolve eating
lots of cereals and the highly bred tubers and fruits we can buy in the
supermarket, we evolved eating meat and fat and the relatively
fiber-rich and carb-poor fruits and vegetables which could be gathered.
I think this makes a certain amount of sense, although I think it
ignores how quickly adaptation can happen and the fact that some human
populations do pretty well on high-carb diets.

So - when we were hunter-gatherers eating mostly meat, who was standing
over us making us drink all this water? I'm not even sure it'd be
realistic for such a culture to try to provide 64 oz of pure water to
each adult, let alone the reasoning behind why anyone would drink it.
We have a pretty powerful mechanism, thirst, which urges us to get
fluids. Why would it only work AFTER we're dangerously dehydrated, as
I've seen argued? It just doesn't make any sense to me to argue that
our ancient food habits are appropriate, but our innate thirst
mechanism is broken and we need to force down more water than our
bodies want.

I'm not trying to criticize anyone who thinks this works for them
personallly, and I think it may have some value for weight loss. I
mostly question the extreme health claims I've seen for drinking huge
amounts of unwanted water and the assertion that this is absolutely
necessary for good health. Is my reasoning totally nutty here?

Beth

I'm going to post this to a paleofood message board and see what they
say. I have my views on this very topic but I will take them up
there.

****************************************************
You, in the red uniform, go see what that noise is!
****************************************************

[email hidden] wrote in news:1108050469.105042.133530
@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

Quoted message said:

So - when we were hunter-gatherers eating mostly meat, who was standing
over us making us drink all this water? I'm not even sure it'd be
realistic for such a culture to try to provide 64 oz of pure water to
each adult, let alone the reasoning behind why anyone would drink it.

Interesting question. I'm wondering if, back when we were hunter-gatherers,
we got more water from the food we hunted and gathered. Examples that come
to mind:

- A freshly killed animal's flesh contains more blood (which is mostly
water, IIRC) than a t-bone on styro and under plastic in the supermarket.

- Might this also hold true for what we gathered? Freshly picked fruits
and other things we gathered--would they contain more water than what we
find in a pint container in the supermarket? I'd think yes, but this is
pure speculation.

Cate

[email hidden] wrote:
:: I just got into a mini-argument on Yahoogroups about this.
:: Apparently the group is very anti-argument, so I thought I'd bring
:: it to Usenet where people are thicker-skinned. :-)
::
:: Anyway, it's about the 'eight cups of water' thing. This used to be
:: standard advice, but in recent years it's been somewhat debunked as
:: being a misunderstand about how much water we need from foods AND
:: beverages, not just water. However, a lot of low-carbers still treat
:: the advice as gospel and Dr. Atkins' books certainly say it's
:: necessary.
::
:: Many low-carbers use a version of the paleo argument underlying their
:: reasoning for why the diet works, by arguing we didn't evolve eating
:: lots of cereals and the highly bred tubers and fruits we can buy in
:: the supermarket, we evolved eating meat and fat and the relatively
:: fiber-rich and carb-poor fruits and vegetables which could be
:: gathered. I think this makes a certain amount of sense, although I
:: think it ignores how quickly adaptation can happen and the fact that
:: some human populations do pretty well on high-carb diets.
::
:: So - when we were hunter-gatherers eating mostly meat, who was
:: standing over us making us drink all this water? I'm not even sure
:: it'd be realistic for such a culture to try to provide 64 oz of pure
:: water to each adult, let alone the reasoning behind why anyone would
:: drink it. We have a pretty powerful mechanism, thirst, which urges
:: us to get fluids. Why would it only work AFTER we're dangerously
:: dehydrated, as I've seen argued? It just doesn't make any sense to
:: me to argue that our ancient food habits are appropriate, but our
:: innate thirst mechanism is broken and we need to force down more
:: water than our bodies want.
::
:: I'm not trying to criticize anyone who thinks this works for them
:: personallly, and I think it may have some value for weight loss. I
:: mostly question the extreme health claims I've seen for drinking huge
:: amounts of unwanted water and the assertion that this is absolutely
:: necessary for good health. Is my reasoning totally nutty here?

No...I think your reasoning is dead-on. I don't drink huge amounts of water
and won't ever. Drinking a little more while trying to lose weight is
probably a good idea for lots of reasons, but this silly notion that one
needs to tote around a gallon jug and refill it every hour is just silly.

Hmm. I think this could go either way. I too suspect freshly picked
fruits/veggies have more water than those stored and shipped, but ours
have been bred to be big and juicy. They had freshly killed meat, but
it wouldn't be freshly killed after the first day, and we have plastic
wrap to keep our not-freshly-killed meat moist.

Anyway, either way, you'd have to argue that our thirst mechanisms are
too broken to make up for day-to-day differences in how juicy the fruit
was or how fresh the meat was.

Beth

Ignoramus28403 <[email hidden]> wrote in news:cug2l1
[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

It is quite possible, though, that hunters living in a hot
climate needed more than 64 oz of water per day to properly perspire.

Or that they were so active, what with most of their waking time spent
finding food, that their water intake was higher due to their higher
perspiration.

Cate, who has no dog in this fight and is just thinking aloud

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I just got into a mini-argument on Yahoogroups about this. Apparently
the group is very anti-argument, so I thought I'd bring it to Usenet
where people are thicker-skinned. :-)

Anyway, it's about the 'eight cups of water' thing. This used to be
standard advice, but in recent years it's been somewhat debunked as
being a misunderstand about how much water we need from foods AND
beverages, not just water. However, a lot of low-carbers still treat
the advice as gospel and Dr. Atkins' books certainly say it's
necessary.

Many low-carbers use a version of the paleo argument underlying their
reasoning for why the diet works, by arguing we didn't evolve eating
lots of cereals and the highly bred tubers and fruits we can buy in the
supermarket, we evolved eating meat and fat and the relatively
fiber-rich and carb-poor fruits and vegetables which could be gathered.
I think this makes a certain amount of sense, although I think it
ignores how quickly adaptation can happen and the fact that some human
populations do pretty well on high-carb diets.

So - when we were hunter-gatherers eating mostly meat, who was standing
over us making us drink all this water? I'm not even sure it'd be
realistic for such a culture to try to provide 64 oz of pure water to
each adult, let alone the reasoning behind why anyone would drink it.
We have a pretty powerful mechanism, thirst, which urges us to get
fluids. Why would it only work AFTER we're dangerously dehydrated, as
I've seen argued? It just doesn't make any sense to me to argue that
our ancient food habits are appropriate, but our innate thirst
mechanism is broken and we need to force down more water than our
bodies want.

I'm not trying to criticize anyone who thinks this works for them
personallly, and I think it may have some value for weight loss. I
mostly question the extreme health claims I've seen for drinking huge
amounts of unwanted water and the assertion that this is absolutely
necessary for good health. Is my reasoning totally nutty here?

Beth

Brilliant!

I completely agree with your position. Our thirst response has been honed
by millions of years of evolution, and has allowed us to successfully exist
in a wide variety of ecosystems (forests, deserts, prairies, tundra, etc.).
Arguing that it is "broken" and that we all need to consume some arbitrarily
large quantity of water each day seems irrational.

GG

[email hidden] wrote in news:1108053112.471648.7420
@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:

Quoted message said:

Hmm. I think this could go either way. I too suspect freshly picked
fruits/veggies have more water than those stored and shipped, but ours
have been bred to be big and juicy. They had freshly killed meat, but
it wouldn't be freshly killed after the first day, and we have plastic
wrap to keep our not-freshly-killed meat moist.

Ok, this is pure speculation and may be a tangent, but to go further on the
blood-as-fluid consumption: If you didn't have agriculture, and you only
ate what you killed or gathered, wouldn't you tend not to waste any part of
an animal you killed? If you killed a gopher, you would eat its flesh, but
might you also not drink its blood?

This is pure speculation based on my recent reading of a fictional book, in
which a person adrift on a lifeboat for months drank the blood of sea
turtles when he was able. Drinkable water was scarce, and the blood held
more nutrients and thus more fuel than water.

I'm not saying water was difficult to come by for hunter-gatherers
(although I'm sure it wasn't always easy to find drinkable water), but I'm
thinking of the anti-wasting tendency of a person who literally lives to
eat: Wouldn't such a person use every consumable part of an animal?

Cate

Cate said:

[email hidden] wrote in news:1108053112.471648.7420
@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:

Quoted message said:

Hmm. I think this could go either way. I too suspect freshly

picked

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

fruits/veggies have more water than those stored and shipped, but

ours

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

have been bred to be big and juicy. They had freshly killed meat,

but

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

it wouldn't be freshly killed after the first day, and we have

plastic

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

wrap to keep our not-freshly-killed meat moist.

Ok, this is pure speculation and may be a tangent, but to go further

on the

Quoted message said:

blood-as-fluid consumption: If you didn't have agriculture, and you

only

Quoted message said:

ate what you killed or gathered, wouldn't you tend not to waste any

part of

Quoted message said:

an animal you killed? If you killed a gopher, you would eat its

flesh, but

Quoted message said:

might you also not drink its blood?

This is pure speculation based on my recent reading of a fictional

book, in

Quoted message said:

which a person adrift on a lifeboat for months drank the blood of sea

Quoted message said:

turtles when he was able. Drinkable water was scarce, and the blood

held

Quoted message said:

more nutrients and thus more fuel than water.

I'm not saying water was difficult to come by for hunter-gatherers
(although I'm sure it wasn't always easy to find drinkable water),

but I'm

Quoted message said:

thinking of the anti-wasting tendency of a person who literally lives

to

Quoted message said:

eat: Wouldn't such a person use every consumable part of an animal?

I get the feeling that both of us are working from half-remembered
reading material, but why let that stop us? :-)

Anyway, my general but uneducated impression is that hunter-gatherer
groups didn't routinely lead lives of desperation. I suspect that when
food was ample, they ate the tastiest parts of the animal and discarded
the rest, and when food was scarce they ate every scrap. Whether the
animal's blood was used probabably depended on a lot of factors.

Er, short answer, no idea. Anyone who actually knows something about
this want to step in?

I do know that it's been argued that some of our ideas about
hunter-gatherer societies are a bit skewed because all of the ones that
survived into modern history lived on pretty marginal land - that's why
it wasn't taken away from them by agriculturalists. Life for ancient
hunter-gatherers was probably easier than for the !Kung, for example,
because they had better territory.

Beth

"Cate" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

[email hidden] wrote in news:1108053112.471648.7420
@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:

Quoted message said:

Hmm. I think this could go either way. I too suspect freshly picked
fruits/veggies have more water than those stored and shipped, but ours
have been bred to be big and juicy. They had freshly killed meat, but
it wouldn't be freshly killed after the first day, and we have plastic
wrap to keep our not-freshly-killed meat moist.

Ok, this is pure speculation and may be a tangent, but to go further on

the

Quoted message said:

blood-as-fluid consumption: If you didn't have agriculture, and you only
ate what you killed or gathered, wouldn't you tend not to waste any part

of

Quoted message said:

an animal you killed? If you killed a gopher, you would eat its flesh, but
might you also not drink its blood?

You'd also eat the brains (lots of high-quality fat there), and probably
crack open the larger leg bones to suck out the marrow (same reason). And,
if you were a somewhat more advanced toolmaker, you'd throw everything left
over (except for the entrails) into a pot and boil it into a soup. With no
24-hour convenience stores, and no refrigerators, very little of any kill
was wasted.

GG

Quoted message said:

This is pure speculation based on my recent reading of a fictional book,

in

Quoted message said:

which a person adrift on a lifeboat for months drank the blood of sea
turtles when he was able. Drinkable water was scarce, and the blood held
more nutrients and thus more fuel than water.

I'm not saying water was difficult to come by for hunter-gatherers
(although I'm sure it wasn't always easy to find drinkable water), but I'm
thinking of the anti-wasting tendency of a person who literally lives to
eat: Wouldn't such a person use every consumable part of an animal?

Cate

I don't know why they pick "Hunter-Gatherers" as their origin for their
argument. We don't air drop from there.
Why don't they pick "Nut-Fruit pickers" as their origin when we live in the
forests? Now you have a Nut-Fruits diet.

We are both opportunists and survior-ists.
We eat everything and anything to survive.

On 10 Feb 2005 07:47:49 -0800, [email hidden] wrote:

=>I just got into a mini-argument on Yahoogroups about this. Apparently
=>the group is very anti-argument, so I thought I'd bring it to Usenet
=>where people are thicker-skinned. :-)
=>
=>Anyway, it's about the 'eight cups of water' thing. This used to be
=>standard advice, but in recent years it's been somewhat debunked as
=>being a misunderstand about how much water we need from foods AND
=>beverages, not just water. However, a lot of low-carbers still treat
=>the advice as gospel and Dr. Atkins' books certainly say it's
=>necessary.
=>
=>Many low-carbers use a version of the paleo argument underlying their
=>reasoning for why the diet works, by arguing we didn't evolve eating
=>lots of cereals and the highly bred tubers and fruits we can buy in the
=>supermarket, we evolved eating meat and fat and the relatively
=>fiber-rich and carb-poor fruits and vegetables which could be gathered.
=> I think this makes a certain amount of sense, although I think it
=>ignores how quickly adaptation can happen and the fact that some human
=>populations do pretty well on high-carb diets.
=>
=>So - when we were hunter-gatherers eating mostly meat, who was standing
=>over us making us drink all this water? I'm not even sure it'd be
=>realistic for such a culture to try to provide 64 oz of pure water to
=>each adult, let alone the reasoning behind why anyone would drink it.
=>We have a pretty powerful mechanism, thirst, which urges us to get
=>fluids. Why would it only work AFTER we're dangerously dehydrated, as
=>I've seen argued? It just doesn't make any sense to me to argue that
=>our ancient food habits are appropriate, but our innate thirst
=>mechanism is broken and we need to force down more water than our
=>bodies want.
=>
=>I'm not trying to criticize anyone who thinks this works for them
=>personallly, and I think it may have some value for weight loss. I
=>mostly question the extreme health claims I've seen for drinking huge
=>amounts of unwanted water and the assertion that this is absolutely
=>necessary for good health. Is my reasoning totally nutty here?
=>
=>Beth

"Moon Shooter" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I don't know why they pick "Hunter-Gatherers" as their origin for their
argument. We don't air drop from there.
Why don't they pick "Nut-Fruit pickers" as their origin when we live in

the

Quoted message said:

forests? Now you have a Nut-Fruits diet.

Weren't the hunter-gatherers out gathering nuts and fruits and vegetables
and seeds?

--
No Husband Has Ever Been Shot While Doing The Dishes

X-No-Archive: yes

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Anyway, it's about the 'eight cups of water' thing. This used to be
standard advice, but in recent years it's been somewhat debunked as
being a misunderstand about how much water we need from foods AND
beverages, not just water. However, a lot of low-carbers still treat
the advice as gospel and Dr. Atkins' books certainly say it's
necessary.

$$ Dr. Atkins is seen as a God by some people. I lost 46 lbs low-carbing
without a 2 week induction and WITHOUT drinking all that unwanted water.
Dr. Atkins books make it sound like we can all eat oh so "SUMPTUOUSLY" and
watch the fat melt off our bodies.... but what bullsh*t that was! At some
point most of us have to start counting calories like any other low-calorie
dieter. And many of us start to miss the variety of foods that bring the
carbs back up, such as fruit, beans, rice, potatoes etc. When I hit that
PERMANENT PLATEAU I tried the water recommendation and all it did was keep
me awake at night running to the porcelain pot....

Quoted message said:

Many low-carbers use a version of the paleo argument underlying their
reasoning for why the diet works, by arguing we didn't evolve eating
lots of cereals and the highly bred tubers and fruits we can buy in the
supermarket,

$$ I read that we evolved on tubers, wild fruit, insects (people still eat
them), bird's eggs, lizards we could catch, assorted edible greens, nuts
and berries, and when available - meat. We're opportunistic carnivores.
Early man was poorly equipped to hunt down animals for food. Compared to
the other animals we were slow, lacked claws and fangs and made poor
predators - until we discovered tool making. Once we learned to use spears
and other such things we turned more to meat in our diets. With the short
lifespans in those days people didn't live long enough for cholesterol to
kill them. Disease, parasites, accidents and starvation took care of that.

we evolved eating meat and fat and the relatively

Quoted message said:

fiber-rich and carb-poor fruits and vegetables which could be gathered.

$$ Look to the several million years we evolved *before* we had the tools to
hunt and kill animals.

Quoted message said:

I think this makes a certain amount of sense, although I think it
ignores how quickly adaptation can happen and the fact that some human
populations do pretty well on high-carb diets.

$$ Exactly! Haven't you seen the research on the low incidence of so many
diseases in vegetarians or near vegetarians? They suffer from so much less
heart disease, high BP, breast and colon cancer.... look it up. It's
believed the Eskimos high consumption of fish and fish oil is what
counteracts their high protein/fat diets.

Quoted message said:

So - when we were hunter-gatherers eating mostly meat, who was standing
over us making us drink all this water?

$$ Drinking all that water is the dream of dietitians to help overeaters
control their appetites - nothing more.

I'm not even sure it'd be

Quoted message said:

realistic for such a culture to try to provide 64 oz of pure water to
each adult, let alone the reasoning behind why anyone would drink it.
We have a pretty powerful mechanism, thirst, which urges us to get
fluids.

$$ There you go! Sometimes it doesn't function well in the elderly, but how
many obese elderly do you see?

Why would it only work AFTER we're dangerously dehydrated, as

Quoted message said:

I've seen argued? It just doesn't make any sense to me to argue that
our ancient food habits are appropriate, but our innate thirst
mechanism is broken and we need to force down more water than our
bodies want.

$$ It's total BS! People have posted on just about every diet NG and board
how they lost weight without gagging down all that water.

Quoted message said:

I'm not trying to criticize anyone who thinks this works for them
personallly, and I think it may have some value for weight loss. I
mostly question the extreme health claims I've seen for drinking huge
amounts of unwanted water and the assertion that this is absolutely
necessary for good health. Is my reasoning totally nutty here?

$$ No, you are correct. At 60 years old I'm in excellent health drinking
only when I'm thirsty. Ask any healthy person you know how much water he or
she drinks in a day.... I can almost guarantee you they are not gagging
down 64 oz. a day.
--
Wysong
Age 60. Height 5'6"
Starting date: 1/8/05
171/ 165 / 140 lb
Starting date LC 7/01 at 207lbs
Stopped losing on LC 11/01 at 165lbs
==========================================

On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 09:41:09 -0800, "GaryG" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

You'd also eat the brains (lots of high-quality fat there), and probably
crack open the larger leg bones to suck out the marrow (same reason). And,
if you were a somewhat more advanced toolmaker, you'd throw everything left
over (except for the entrails) into a pot and boil it into a soup. With no
24-hour convenience stores, and no refrigerators, very little of any kill
was wasted.

Yep. They would have used the *whole* animal as well as drinking the
blood.

****************************************************
You, in the red uniform, go see what that noise is!
****************************************************

X-No-Archive: yes

"Moon Shooter" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I don't know why they pick "Hunter-Gatherers" as their origin for their
argument. We don't air drop from there.
Why don't they pick "Nut-Fruit pickers" as their origin when we live in

the

Quoted message said:

forests? Now you have a Nut-Fruits diet.

$$ This is what I mentioned in an earlier post. We started out as small
fruit, nut, berry, insect, root and greens eaters. With no claws, fangs,
hunting tools or speed we hardly hunted down animals for food in those
ancient times.

Quoted message said:

We are both opportunists and survior-ists.
We eat everything and anything to survive.

$$ We were omnivores. However Creationists will dispute this conversation.

--
Wysong
Age 60. Height 5'6"
Starting date: 1/8/05
171/ 165 / 140 lb
Starting date LC 7/01 at 207lbs
Stopped losing on LC 11/01 at 165lbs
==========================================

[email hidden] wrote in news:1108056584.129844.223190
@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:

Quoted message said:

I get the feeling that both of us are working from half-remembered
reading material, but why let that stop us? :-)

Never stopped me before. <g>

Quoted message said:

I do know that it's been argued that some of our ideas about
hunter-gatherer societies are a bit skewed because all of the ones that
survived into modern history lived on pretty marginal land - that's why
it wasn't taken away from them by agriculturalists. Life for ancient
hunter-gatherers was probably easier than for the !Kung, for example,
because they had better territory.

Makes sense to me.

Is there anyone here who actually knows about this?

Cate

jaime said:

On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 09:41:09 -0800, "GaryG"

<[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

You'd also eat the brains (lots of high-quality fat there), and

probably

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

crack open the larger leg bones to suck out the marrow (same

reason). And,

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

if you were a somewhat more advanced toolmaker, you'd throw

everything left

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

over (except for the entrails) into a pot and boil it into a soup.

With no

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

24-hour convenience stores, and no refrigerators, very little of any

kill

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

was wasted.

Yep. They would have used the *whole* animal as well as drinking the
blood.

I'm not particularly invested in this one way or another, because I
don't think my case depends on it, but does anyone saying this know for
sure if it's true, or does it just seem logical? I.e. do
hunter-gatherer groups today definitely do this?

Beth

Quoted message said:

I'm not particularly invested in this one way or another, because I
don't think my case depends on it, but does anyone saying this know for
sure if it's true, or does it just seem logical? I.e. do
hunter-gatherer groups today definitely do this?

According to the several Paleo forums I am in many people certainly
do.

****************************************************
You, in the red uniform, go see what that noise is!
****************************************************

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

jaime said:

On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 09:41:09 -0800, "GaryG"

<[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

You'd also eat the brains (lots of high-quality fat there), and

probably

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

crack open the larger leg bones to suck out the marrow (same

reason). And,

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

if you were a somewhat more advanced toolmaker, you'd throw

everything left

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

over (except for the entrails) into a pot and boil it into a soup.

With no

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

24-hour convenience stores, and no refrigerators, very little of any

kill

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

was wasted.

Yep. They would have used the *whole* animal as well as drinking the
blood.

I'm not particularly invested in this one way or another, because I
don't think my case depends on it, but does anyone saying this know for
sure if it's true, or does it just seem logical? I.e. do
hunter-gatherer groups today definitely do this?

Beth

I saw a show on one of the nature networks a while back about recently
discovered evidence of cannibalism in the southwestern US deserts. The
archeological evidence included human skulls that had been set on the fire
for the purpose of cooking the brains - the same cooking technique the
indigenous peoples used with animal skulls. They also discovered human leg
bones that had been cracked open for their marrow (same as with deer and
other large animals). The bones also had numerous small nicks and scrape
marks, the result of butchering with stone tools.

GG

I too question the need for extra water in order to lose weight. My first
experiment with reduced water seemed to slow my progress. My second
experiment with reduced water did not slow my progress.

My doctor suggested that toxins get trapped in fat, and are released when
losing weight. I suppose there are a lot of ideas to support the practice
of drinking extra water. However, I suspect that a proper study would find
the practice unnecessary.

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I just got into a mini-argument on Yahoogroups about this. Apparently
the group is very anti-argument, so I thought I'd bring it to Usenet
where people are thicker-skinned. :-)

Anyway, it's about the 'eight cups of water' thing. This used to be
standard advice, but in recent years it's been somewhat debunked as
being a misunderstand about how much water we need from foods AND
beverages, not just water. However, a lot of low-carbers still treat
the advice as gospel and Dr. Atkins' books certainly say it's
necessary.

Many low-carbers use a version of the paleo argument underlying their
reasoning for why the diet works, by arguing we didn't evolve eating
lots of cereals and the highly bred tubers and fruits we can buy in the
supermarket, we evolved eating meat and fat and the relatively
fiber-rich and carb-poor fruits and vegetables which could be gathered.
I think this makes a certain amount of sense, although I think it
ignores how quickly adaptation can happen and the fact that some human
populations do pretty well on high-carb diets.

So - when we were hunter-gatherers eating mostly meat, who was standing
over us making us drink all this water? I'm not even sure it'd be
realistic for such a culture to try to provide 64 oz of pure water to
each adult, let alone the reasoning behind why anyone would drink it.
We have a pretty powerful mechanism, thirst, which urges us to get
fluids. Why would it only work AFTER we're dangerously dehydrated, as
I've seen argued? It just doesn't make any sense to me to argue that
our ancient food habits are appropriate, but our innate thirst
mechanism is broken and we need to force down more water than our
bodies want.

I'm not trying to criticize anyone who thinks this works for them
personallly, and I think it may have some value for weight loss. I
mostly question the extreme health claims I've seen for drinking huge
amounts of unwanted water and the assertion that this is absolutely
necessary for good health. Is my reasoning totally nutty here?

Beth