Is cold water bad for you? The facts behind 5 water myths
10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.
We know the importance of staying hydrated, especially in hot weather. But even for something as simple as a drink of water, conflicting advice and urban myths abound.
Is cold water really bad for your health? What about hot water from the tap? And what is “raw water”? Let’s dive in and find out.
Myth 1: Cold water is bad for you
Some recent TikToks have suggested cold water causes health problems by somehow “contracting blood vessels” and “restricting digestion”. There is little evidence for this.
While a 2001 study found 51 out of 669 women tested (7.6%) got a headache after drinking cold water, most of them already suffered from migraines and the work hasn’t been repeated since.
Cold drinks were shown to cause discomfort in people with achalasia (a rare swallowing disorder) in 2012 but the study only had 12 participants.
For most people, the temperature you drink your water is down to personal preference and circumstances. Cold water after exercise in summer or hot water to relax in winter won’t make any difference to your overall health.
Myth 2: You shouldn’t drink hot tap water
This belief has a grain of scientific truth behind it. Hot water is generally a better solvent than cold water, so may dissolve metals and minerals from pipes better. Hot water is also often stored in tanks and may be heated and cooled many times. Bacteria and other disease-causing microorganisms tend to grow better in warm water and can build up over time.
It’s better to fill your cup from the cold tap and get hot water for drinks from the kettle.
Myth 3: Bottled water is better
While bottled water might be safer in certain parts of the world due to pollution of source water, there is no real advantage to drinking bottled water in Australia and similar countries.
According to University of Queensland researchers, bottled water is not safer than tap water. It may even be tap water. Most people can’t tell the difference either. Bottled water usually costs (substantially) more than turning on the tap and is worse for the environment.
What about lead in tap water? This problem hit the headlines after a public health emergency in Flint, Michigan, in the United States. But Flint used lead pipes with a corrosion inhibitor (in this case orthophosphate) to keep lead from dissolving. Then the city switched water sources to one without a corrosion inhibitor. Lead levels rose and a public emergency was declared.
Fortunately, lead pipes haven’t been used in Australia since the 1930s. While lead might be present in some old plumbing products, it is unlikely to cause problems.
Myth 4: Raw water is naturally healthier
Some people bypass bottled and tap water, going straight to the source.
The “raw water” trend emerged a few years ago, encouraging people to drink from rivers, streams and lakes. There is even a website to help you find a local source.
Supporters say our ancestors drank spring water, so we should, too. However, our ancestors also often died from dysentery and cholera and their life expectancy was low.
While it is true even highly treated drinking water can contain low levels of things like microplastics, unless you live somewhere very remote, the risks of drinking untreated water are far higher as it is more likely to contain pollutants from the surrounding area.
Myth 5: It’s OK to drink directly from hoses
Tempting as it may be, it’s probably best not to drink from the hose when watering the plants. Water might have sat in there, in the warm sun for weeks or more potentially leading to bacterial buildup.
Similarly, while drinking water fountains are generally perfectly safe to use, they can contain a variety of bacteria. It’s useful (though not essential) to run them for a few seconds before you start to drink so as to get fresh water through the system rather than what might have been sat there for a while.
We are fortunate to be able to take safe drinking water for granted. Billions of people around the world are not so lucky.
So whether you like it hot or cold, or somewhere in between, feel free to enjoy a glass of water this summer.
Just don’t drink it from the hose.
Oliver A.H. Jones, Professor of chemistry, RMIT University
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Don’t Forget…
Did you arrive here from our newsletter? Don’t forget to return to the email to continue learning!
Learn to Age Gracefully
Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails:
-
Infrared-Reflecting Patches For Health?
10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.
It’s Q&A Day at 10almonds!
Have a question or a request? We love to hear from you!
In cases where we’ve already covered something, we might link to what we wrote before, but will always be happy to revisit any of our topics again in the future too—there’s always more to say!
As ever: if the question/request can be answered briefly, we’ll do it here in our Q&A Thursday edition. If not, we’ll make a main feature of it shortly afterwards!
So, no question/request too big or small
❝Hi! I’ve been reading about LifeWave patches, would you recommend them?❞
For reference first, this is talking about these: LifeWave.com
Short answer: no
Longer answer: their main premise seems to be that the patches (subscription prices seem to start from about $100–$300 per month) reflect infrared energy back into your body, making you more energized and healthy.
Fun fact: aluminum foil reflects infrared energy (which we feel as heat), by the way, and that is why space blankets (of the kind used in emergencies and by some athletes) are made shiny like that, often with aluminized mylar.
We cannot comment too closely on the rest of the presented science of their products, as it seems quite unlike anything we’re accustomed to reading, and we were not able to make a lot of sense of it.
They do cite research papers to back their claims, including research conducted by the company’s founder and published via an open journal.
Many others are independent studies conducted by often the same researchers as each other, mostly experts in acupuncture and acupressure.
For the papers we looked at, the sample sizes were very small, but the conclusions were very positive.
They were published in a variety of journals, of which we cannot claim any prior knowledge (i.e:, they were not the peer-reviewed journals from which we cite most of our sources).
Also, none were registered with ClinicalTrials.gov.
To be on the safe side, their disclaimer does advise:
❝LifeWave products are only intended to maintain or encourage a general state of health or healthy activity and are not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, mitigate, or prevent any disease or medical condition of the body❞
They do have a Frequently Asked Questions page, which tells about ancient Egyptian use of colored glass, as well as more modern considerations including joining, ordering, their commissions system, binary commissions and matching bonuses, and “how to rank up in LifeWave” as well as a lot of information about subscribing as a preferred customer or a brand partner, opting in to their multi-level marketing opportunities.
Here’s what “Honest Brand Reviews” had to say:
Honest Brand Reviews | LifeWave Review
Our position:
We cannot honestly claim to understand their science, and thus naturally won’t actively recommend what we can’t speak for.
An expert’s position:
Since we couldn’t understand how this would work, here’s what Dr. Paul Knoepfler has to say about their flagship product, the LifeWave X39 patch:
LifeWave X39 stem cell patch story has holes
Take care!
Share This Post
-
3 Day Juice Fasting? Not So Fast!
10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.
Juice fasts are trending… Again. They have been before, and this will probably not be the last time either.
The rationale is that by having nothing but fruit and/or vegetable juice for a few days, the body can clear itself of toxins while it’s not being preoccupied by dealing with what you’re eating on a daily basis.
This is not bad in theory, and in fact is a sort of parallel to the actually good advice to help the liver regenerate—by abstaining from things that the liver has to do hard work about, it has more internal resources to devote to taking care of itself.
Learn more about this: How To Unfatty A Fatty Liver
Just one problem
By having only juice for a few days, you are doing the opposite of what the liver needs.
In fact, by giving it what’s basically straight sugars in water with no fiber and not even any fats to slow it down, you are making your liver work overtime to deal with the flood of sugars, and it will not cope well.
Indeed, processed carbs without sufficient fiber are one of the main drivers of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease.
And yes, that’s what juice is: processed carbs without fiber
(juicing is a process!)
You can read more about the science of that, here:
From Apples to Bees, and High-Fructose Cs: Which Sugars Are Healthier, And Which Are Just The Same? ← we get into quite some detail about how, exactly, such a harmless-seeming thing as fruit juice messes up the liver so badly
Here be (more) science
A three-day interventional study was performed on juicing and microbiome health, with three groups:
- Juice only
- Juice with whole foods
- Only whole plant-based foods
The results?
- Juice only: biggest growth in bacteria that cause inflammation and gut permeability (that’s bad; very bad)
- Juice with whole foods: the same bad effects, but much less pronounced than the juice-only group
- Only whole plant-based food: notable improvements in the microbiome
That’s what the changes were immediately post-intervention; what’s interesting to note is that the bad effects of the juice-only group also lingered longer, whereas the juice+food group enjoyed a relatively quicker recovery in the two weeks after the intervention.
Here’s the paper itself; be warned, you’ll be reading a lot about feces and saliva alongside eating and drinking:
Effects of Vegetable and Fruit Juicing on Gut and Oral Microbiome Composition
Ok, what can I do to detox?
Well, the advice we gave up top in the linked article about liver health is very sound, and also you might like to check out:
Detox: What’s Real, What’s Not, What’s Useful, What’s Dangerous?
Want to learn more?
Here’s a video explainer from the ever-charming French biochemist Jessie Inchauspé (and our own text overview, for those who prefer reading):
Fruit Is Healthy; Juice Isn’t (Here’s Why)
Take care!
Share This Post
-
Is It Possible To Lose Weight Quickly?
10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.
In Victorian England, weight-loss trends like the dangerous tapeworm diet were popular. While modern fad diets can seem less extreme, they often promise similarly fast results. However, these quick fixes can have similarly harmful consequences:
Not so fast
To illustrate the difference between gradual and extreme dieting, the video bids us consider two identical twins, Sam and Felix:
- Sam adopts a gradual approach, slowly reducing calorie intake and exercising regularly. This causes his body to burn glycogen stores before transitioning to fat as an energy source. Regular exercise helps Sam maintain muscle mass, which boosts his metabolism and supports sustained weight loss.
- Felix drastically cuts calories, forcing his body into starvation mode. He quickly depletes glycogen stores, loses muscle mass, and burns fewer calories, making long-term weight loss more difficult. Although Felix might initially lose water weight, this is temporary and unsustainable.
You cannot “just lose it quickly now, and then worry about healthiness once the weight’s gone”, because you will lose health much more quickly than you will lose fat, and that will sabotage, rather than help, your fat loss journey.Healthy weight loss requires gradual, balanced changes in diet and exercise tailored to individual needs. Extreme diets, whether through calorie restriction or things like elimination of carbs or fats, are unsustainable and shock the body. It’s important to prioritize long-term health over societal pressures for quick weight loss and focus on developing a sustainable, healthy lifestyle.
In short, the quickest way to lose weight and keep it off (without dying), is to lose it slowly.
For more on all of this, enjoy:
Click Here If The Embedded Video Doesn’t Load Automatically!
Want to learn more?
You might also like to read:
How To Lose Weight (Healthily)
Take care!
Share This Post
-
Stop Trying To Lose Weight (And Do This Instead)
10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.
“Lose weight” is a common goal of many people, and it’s especially a common goal handed down from medical authority figures, often as a manner of “kicking the can down the road” with regard to the doctor actually having to do some work. “Lose 20 pounds and then we’ll talk”, etc.
The thing is, it’s often not a very good or helpful goal… Even if it would be healthy for a given person to lose weight. Instead, biochemist Jessie Inchauspé argues, one should set a directly health-giving goal instead, and let any weight loss, if the body agrees it is appropriate, be a by-product of that
She recommends focusing on metabolic health, specifically, her own specialism is blood glucose maintenance. This is something that diabetics deal with (to one degree or another) every day, but it’s something whose importance should not be underestimated for non-diabetics too.
Keep our blood sugar levels healthy, she says, and a lot of the rest of good health will fall into place by itself—precisely because we’re not constantly sabotaging our body (first the pancreas and liver, then the rest of the body like dominoes).
To that end, she offers a multitude of “hacks” that really work.
Her magnum opus, “Glucose Revolution“, explains the science in great detail and does it very well! Not to be mistaken for her shorter, simpler, and entirely pragmatic “do this, then this”-style book, “The Glucose Goddess Method”, which is also great, but doesn’t go into the science more than absolutely necessary; it’s more for the “I’ll trust you; just tell me what I need to know” crowd.
In her own words:
Click Here If The Embedded Video Doesn’t Load Automatically!
Prefer text?
We’ve covered Inchauspé’s top 10 recommended hacks here:
10 Ways To Balance Blood Sugars
Enjoy!
Don’t Forget…
Did you arrive here from our newsletter? Don’t forget to return to the email to continue learning!
Learn to Age Gracefully
Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails:
-
Carbonated Water: For Weight Loss, Satiety, Or Just Gas?
10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.
There are two main mechanisms of action by which sparkling water is considered to help satiety and/or weight loss; they are:
- It “fills us up” such that we feel fuller sooner, and thus eat less, and thus (all other things being equal) perhaps lose weight
- The carbon dioxide is absorbed into the bloodstream, where (as a matter of chemistry) it improves glucose metabolism, thus lowering blood sugars and indirectly leading (potentially) to weight loss, but even if not, lowered blood sugars are good for most people most of the time, right?
However, there are just a few problems:
Full of gas?
Many people self-report enjoying sparkling water as a way to feel fuller while fasting (or even while eating). However, the plural of “anecdote” is not “data”, so, here be data… Ish:
❝In order to determine whether such satiating effects occur through oral carbonic stimulation alone, we conducted modified sham-feeding (SF) tests (carbonated water ingestion (CW), water ingestion (W), carbonated water sham-feeding (CW-SF), and water sham-feeding (W-SF)), employing an equivalent volume and standardized temperature of carbonated and plain water, in a randomized crossover design.
Thirteen young women began fasting at 10 p.m. on the previous night and were loaded with each sample (15ºC, 250 mL) at 9 a.m. on separate days. Electrogastrography (EGG) recordings were obtained from 20 min before to 45 min after the loading to determine the power and frequency of the gastric myoelectrical activity. Appetite was assessed using visual analog scales. After ingestion, significantly increased fullness and decreased hunger ratings were observed in the CW group. After the load, transiently but significantly increased fullness as well as decreased hunger ratings were observed in the CW-SF group. The powers of normogastria (2-4 cpm) and tachygastria (4-9 cpm) showed significant increases in the CW and W groups, but not in the CW-SF and W-SF groups. The peak frequency of normogastria tended to shift toward a higher band in the CW group, whereas it shifted toward a lower band in the CW-SF group, indicating a different EGG rhythm.
Our results suggest that CO2-induced oral stimulation is solely responsible for the feeling of satiety.❞
~ Dr. Maki Suzuki et al.
Now, that’s self-reported, and a sample size of 13, so it’s not the most airtight science ever, but it is at least science. Here’s the paper, by the way:
Oral Carbonation Attenuates Feeling of Hunger and Gastric Myoelectrical Activity in Young Women
Here’s another small study with 8 people, which found that still and sparkling water had the exact same effect:
Effect of carbonated water on gastric emptying and intragastric meal distribution
However, drinking water (still or sparkling) with a meal will not have anywhere near the same effect for satiety as consuming food that has a high water-content.
See also: Some Surprising Truths About Hunger And Satiety ← our main feature in which we examine the science of volumetrics, including a study that shows how water incorporated into a food (but not served with a food) decreases caloric intake.
As an aside, one difference that carbonation can make is to increase ghrelin levels—that’s the hunger hormone (the satiety hormone is leptin, by the way). This one’s a rat study, but it seems reasonable that the same will be true of humans:
…which is worth bearing in mind even if you yourself are not, in fact, a male rat.
The glucose guzzler?
This one has simply been the case of a study being misrepresented, for example here:
Fizzy water might aid weight loss by providing a small boost to glucose uptake and metabolism
The idea is that higher levels of carbon dioxide in the blood mean faster glucose metabolism, which is technically true. Now, often “technically true” is the best kind of true, but not here, because it’s simply not useful.
In short, we produce so much carbon dioxide as part of our normal respiratory processes, that any carbon dioxide we might consume in a carbonated water is barely a blip in the graph.
Oh, and that article we just linked? Even within the article, despite running with that headline, the actual scientists quoted are saying such things as:
❝While there is a hypothetical link between carbonated water and glucose metabolism, this has yet to be tested in well-designed human intervention studies❞
~ Professor Sumantra Ray
Note: the word “hypothetical” means “one level lower than theoretical”. This is very far from being a conclusion.
And the study itself? Wasn’t even about carbonated water, it was about kidney dialysis and how the carbon dioxide content can result in hypoglycemia:
The mechanism of hypoglycemia caused by hemodialysis
…which got referenced in this paper (not a study):
Can carbonated water support weight loss?
…and even that concluded:
❝CO2 in carbonated water may promote weight loss by enhancing glucose uptake and metabolism in red blood cells.
However, the amount is so small that it is difficult to expect weight loss effects solely from the CO2 in carbonated water.
Drinking carbonated water may also affect blood glucose measurements.❞
Note: the word “may”, when used by a scientist and in the absence of any stronger claims, means “we haven’t ruled out the possibility”.
What breaking news that is.
Stop the press! No, really, stop it!
So… What does work?
There are various ways of going about actually hacking hunger (and they stack; i.e. you can use multiple methods and get cumulative results), and we wrote about them here:
Enjoy!
Don’t Forget…
Did you arrive here from our newsletter? Don’t forget to return to the email to continue learning!
Learn to Age Gracefully
Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails:
-
Apricot vs Banana – Which is Healthier?
10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.
Our Verdict
When comparing apricot to banana, we picked the banana.
Why?
Both are great, and it was close!
In terms of macros, apricot has more protein, while banana has more carbs and fiber; both are low glycemic index foods, and we’ll call this category a tie.
In the category of vitamins, apricot has more of vitamins A, C, E, and K, while banana has more of vitamins B1, B2, B3, B5, B6, B7, B9, and choline, giving banana the win by strength of numbers. It’s worth noting though that apricots are one of the best fruits for vitamin A in particular.
When it comes to minerals, apricot has slightly more calcium, iron, and zinc, while banana has a lot more magnesium, manganese, potassium, and selenium, meaning a moderate win for banana here.
Adding up the sections makes for an overall win for banana—but of course, by all means enjoy either or both!
Want to learn more?
You might like to read:
Top 8 Fruits That Prevent & Kill Cancer ← we argue for apricots as bonus number 9 on the list
Take care!
Don’t Forget…
Did you arrive here from our newsletter? Don’t forget to return to the email to continue learning!
Learn to Age Gracefully
Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails:
