# Just read Waterlogged by Noakes - Whoa!!



## eri (Sep 4, 2012)

I just got (and read) the book 'Waterlogged' by Noakes.

I searched and found discussions from back when the book was published in 2012. Figure there should be a sticky in this forum with 'books you should read.'

The book is an overview and commentary on a bunch of hydration studies, discusses what can and cannot be concluded from the various studies.

He seems to debunk a bunch of stuff I was taught, and also many current health guidelines (drink before you're thirsty!)

TLDR: The stunning conclusion is: trust what your body tells you!

His main points are:
- Drink when you are thirsty
- Don't take salt tablets
- There's no correlation between heat stroke and dehydration.

Anyone else read it? What did you think?


----------



## Ryder1 (Oct 12, 2006)

eri said:


> Anyone else read it?


I haven't, but probably should. For 20+ years I've drank too much water (habit? thirsty? fear of constipation? I don't know...). I have chronically low sodium, so I've been cutting back, and my sodium count has nudged up a bit, but still borderline out-of-range. I'm seeing an endocrinologist Friday to see if it's a brain hormone issue.

Does Noakes address this subject?


----------



## eri (Sep 4, 2012)

The book does discuss studies that give some idea how salt is managed in body, mostly to refute some existing theories. It was a pretty complicated system and I only skimmed that section. Several different feedback loops and hormones. Noakes conclusion seems to be that if you listen to your body all major the systems like water and sodium tend to balance everything perfectly. In a low salt environment the body will adapt to maintain itself on a very small amount of salt per day (cant remember the number, I think like 2-3 grams/day.) When you eat more salt body will buffer some up to a point, but then efficiently rid itself of the rest.

He discussed a study where the research victims (including the researcher of the study) lived at the researchers house and were fed a strict salt-free diet prepared by the researcher's wife. They laid under heat lamps for hours a day losing 5-8 liters per. They were allowed to rehydrate with water whenever they like. Salt present in urine and sweat dropped quickly (body started rationing the salt) but it was only after 3-3.5 days of no salt and lots of sweat that the blood sodium started to drop.

And the symptoms of low salt: minor muscle cramps (not the big cramps that coal minors were getting), irritability, and number 1: an overwhelmingly intense craving for salt. The one study participant that stayed in their own house never saw their sodium levels drop (even in urine and sweat) and they never showed any other symptoms either. Conclusion was that the participant had cheated and that its really dang difficult to perform a low salt study on your own. 

I got it at the library. I think its a great read.


----------



## Ryder1 (Oct 12, 2006)

Thanks. I am an ardent believer in listening to your own body, within limits. You can't just read studies, then assume you can directly apply them directly to yourself. So many studies gloss over confounding factors, that you must take scientific studies with a [wait for it...] grain of salt. I review a lot of studies on fitness/athletics/supplements, and who the test subjects are often makes a significant difference: gender, age, metabolic condition, fitness level, specie (I'm not a rat!), etc., not to mention who's paying for the study [insert rant about financial greed ruining Western institutions, including science].



eri said:


> Conclusion was that the participant had cheated


Ha! When you don't get the results you sought, blame the subjects. Or, like my father did with his PhD, delete an outlier's data in order to get the statistical significance you were seeking. There should be more emphasis on "repeatability" in science, especially on the media/layman end of things (I won't hold my breath).

Sorry for the cynical post...


----------



## Geralt (Jul 11, 2012)

Ryder1 said:


> There should be more emphasis on "repeatability" in science


I saw this recent article about that. Seems to be a bigger problem than I would have thought.

Most scientists 'can't replicate studies by their peers' - BBC News


----------



## Ryder1 (Oct 12, 2006)

You might like this blog. He post every couple days. It's more oriented towards lifting weights, but still lots of good stuff. Very current.

SuppVersity - Nutrition and Exercise Science for Everyone


----------

