demineralized water

Other than specified below
User avatar
RRM
Administrator
Posts: 8164
https://cutt.ly/meble-kuchenne-wroclaw
Joined: Sat 16 Jul 2005 00:01
Contact:

Post by RRM »

fictor wrote:If urine always consist of a fixed amount of minerals, the same proportions no matter what you eat/drink, then it would make sense that de-mineralized water would "leach" minerals from your body.
No, it ALWAYS leaches minerals from your water.
this would mean that the best water to drink would be water that contained exactly the same amount of the same minerals as urine.
No, it wouldnt mean that.
Maybe your body NEEDED to eliminate those minerals. Maybe not.
What is required is not at all defined by what is excreted.
Urine contents do not represent the total loss of minerals; minerals are also excreted through sweating and bowel movement..
so that I could figure out if the water I drink is "too high" or "too low" in minerals, compared to urine.
You cannot make that comparison.
if you are on a high mineral diet, you urine will be high mineral urine, but if your mineral intake is quite low, like when drinking low mineral or no mineral water, your body will retain minerals and the urine will contain little minerals.
Exactly.
Does this not mean that you can drink low mineral or de-mineralized water, and your body will just adapt the mineral retention and maximize the mineral uptake?
To an extend; your body tries to counteract too low and too high levels, but this is not prevention; its a response to what has already happened.
Before these minerals are excreted, they may first have constituted too high levels, which may result in various ailments.
fictor
Posts: 517
Joined: Wed 09 Jan 2008 19:35

Post by fictor »

RRM: OK, so urine always contains SOME minerals, but not always the same amount (it depends on what you eat/drink), right?
User avatar
RRM
Administrator
Posts: 8164
Joined: Sat 16 Jul 2005 00:01
Contact:

Post by RRM »

Yes, depending on what you eat, and on how much the body wants to get rid off.
fictor
Posts: 517
Joined: Wed 09 Jan 2008 19:35

Post by fictor »

RRM wrote:Yes, depending on what you eat, and on how much the body wants to get rid off.
Ok, then it is all clear to me. I understood from older posts by you that urine always contained a fixed mineral makeup, but I guess I misunderstood.

Thanks for clearing it up for me :)
Rivera
Posts: 172
Joined: Mon 18 Aug 2008 05:49

Post by Rivera »

I'm little confused: in the wai diet, is the mineral water recommended or not? I think I saw that it was not?
Which is better: tap water or mineral/source etc... water?
User avatar
Oscar
Administrator
Posts: 4350
Joined: Mon 15 Aug 2005 00:01

Post by Oscar »

IF you want/need to drink water, then water with a low mineral content is preferred.
Rivera
Posts: 172
Joined: Mon 18 Aug 2008 05:49

Post by Rivera »

Why the low ones are better than the high ones?
User avatar
Oscar
Administrator
Posts: 4350
Joined: Mon 15 Aug 2005 00:01

Post by Oscar »

Because it doesn't interfere with our mineral balance. On the first page(s) of this thread there's more discussion about it.
silviya
Posts: 20
Joined: Sun 27 Dec 2009 02:26
Location: Minneapolis

water

Post by silviya »

i am confused on this water issue too

\I read the whole threat and what i understood is this:

Drinking demineralized water will make your body looses more minerals
Drinking Low mineral body will not interfere with your body mineral level thus it wont cause your body to looses more minerals

And Drinking highly mineralized water like ( http://www.watershed.net/product/IonizerStick/ , http://waterworks4u.com/ra-stick-rastick.php and http://www.ionlifesystems.com/ionwater.html ) will give plenty of minerals but the body can decide how much to take which make sense and releases the rest of unneeded minerals through urine CORRECT?

SO does that means that is better to drink water high in minerals this way you are guaranteed your body will have access to minerals , compared to drinking demineralized or filtered water where the body will not gain any minerals but it will loose???

AM i correct??? Please help
User avatar
RRM
Administrator
Posts: 8164
Joined: Sat 16 Jul 2005 00:01
Contact:

Re: water

Post by RRM »

silviya wrote:Drinking highly mineralized water like ... will give plenty of minerals but the body can decide how much to take ... and releases the rest of unneeded minerals through urine CORRECT?
No.
If that would be the case, it wouldnt matter how much minerals you consume;
it would never lead to increased blood levels.
That is not true; high intakes come with elevated blood levels (within margins, of course).
Yes, excretion is elevated as well, and absorption rates will be lower,
but blood levels will be higher too.
And many metals in particular readily cause damage, due to their pro-oxidative properties.
does that means that is better to drink water high in minerals this way you are guaranteed your body will have access to minerals , compared to drinking demineralized or filtered water where the body will not gain any minerals but it will loose???
Too much is equally bad as too little.
So that drinking water low in minerals is the best;
preventing both elevated levels and deficiencies.
Rivera
Posts: 172
Joined: Mon 18 Aug 2008 05:49

Re: demineralized water

Post by Rivera »

RRM, what about ionized water? Some people claim it's the best water. True?
Ionized, Energized Alkaline Water helps to naturally flush toxins and acidic waste from the body and is a powerful antioxidant. Ionized Microwater makes more oxygen available to our cells than distilled, reverse osmosis, filtered only, bottled or tap water. The advantage of drinking alkaline water is that while being absorbed by the body, it helps neutralize acidic wastes, making them more soluble in the blood vessels. Thus, acidic wastes will be easily drained out of the body in the form of urine or sweat. Cancer and other diseases won't thrive in an oxygenated, alkaline body
User avatar
RRM
Administrator
Posts: 8164
Joined: Sat 16 Jul 2005 00:01
Contact:

Re: demineralized water

Post by RRM »

Check this out:
http://www.chem1.com/CQ/ionbunk.html
* "Ionized water" is nothing more than sales fiction; the term is meaningless to chemists.
* Pure water (that is, water containing no dissolved ions) is too unconductive to undergo signficant electrolysis by "water ionizer" devices.
* Pure water can never be alkaline or acidic, nor can it be made so by electrolysis. Alkaline water must contain metallic ions of some kind — most commonly, sodium, calcium or magnesium.
* The idea that one must consume alkaline water to neutralize the effects of acidic foods is ridiculous; we get rid of excess acid by exhaling carbon dioxide.
* If you do drink alkaline water, its alkalinity is quickly removed by the highly acidic gastric fluid in the stomach.
* Uptake of water occurs mainly in the intestine, not in the stomach. But when stomach contents enter the intestine, they are neutralized and made alkaline by the pancreatic secretions — so all the water you drink eventually becomes alkaline anyway.
* The claims about the health benefits of drinking alkaline water are not supported by credible scientific evidence.
* "Ionized"/alkaline water is falsely claimed to be an anti-oxidant. It is actually an oxidizing agent, as can be seen by its ability to decolorize iodine (see video)
* There is nothing wrong with drinking slightly acidic waters such as rainwater. "Body pH" is a meaningless concept; different parts of the body (and even of individual cells) can have widely different pH values. The pH of drinking water has zero effect on that of the blood or of the body's cells.
* If you really want to de-acidify your stomach (at the possible cost of interfering with protein digestion), why spend hundreds of dollars for an electrolysis device when you can take calcium-magnesium pills, Alka-Seltzer or Milk of Magnesia?
* Electrolysis devices are generally worthless for treating water for health enhancement, removal of common impurities, disinfection, and scale control. Claims that "ionized" waters are antioxidants are untrue; hypochlorites (present in most such waters) are in fact oxidizing agents.
Rivera
Posts: 172
Joined: Mon 18 Aug 2008 05:49

Re:

Post by Rivera »

RRM wrote:
johndela1 wrote:So the concept of minerals being inorganic or organic is not realted to assimilatability?
It certainly is related.
But either the relation is relative and not absolute, or water also contains 'organic' minerals.
What about mineral supplements? Is it true than because mineral supplements are inorganic, the body cannot assimilate or use them? The opposite view states that the most important factor is the size and the form they are in. Minerals are most effectively delivered in a water base fully ionized (in their atomic state) as in nature. That an ionic liquid supplement derived from the elemental mineral is essentially the same process but processed by man. Once ingested, one’s body knows intuitively what mineral is available and exactly what to do with it regardless of its source. nNd that the important thing to remember is that it does not matter if we consume minerals from plant sources, water base, or solid pills or even dirt. What matters is how much time it takes the body to break down the minerals into their atomic (ionic) state in order to be effectively utilized at the cellular level.

And what would be the danger with inorganic mineral supplements? Taking too much? But we can take too much with the organic ones too?
User avatar
RRM
Administrator
Posts: 8164
Joined: Sat 16 Jul 2005 00:01
Contact:

Re: Re:

Post by RRM »

Rivera wrote: What about mineral supplements? Is it true than because mineral supplements are inorganic, the body cannot assimilate or use them?
Even in chemistry, there are various definitions of "organic" and therefore what is "inorganic".
1) Organic compounds contain carbon, though some compounds that do contain carbon (or carbon-likes), are not considered organic (eg diamonds and steel).
2) Organic compounds contain C-H bonds
3) Organic compounds contain C-H and/or C-C bonds
4) Organic compounds are natural (produced by plants / animals), not synthetic.

And what are minerals?
They may be simple elements or extremely complex silicates,
but even extremely complex silicates do not contain any C or H.
They may also be salts, and salts are composed of charged ions,
organic (eg acetate) as well as inorganic ones (eg chloride).
So, if sodium-chloride may be considered inorganic, the body cannot assimilate it?
Nonsense, of course.
Both organic and inorganic compounds may be assimilated,
containing C and/or H, or not and regardless of synthetically or naturally produced.
User avatar
Oscar
Administrator
Posts: 4350
Joined: Mon 15 Aug 2005 00:01

Re: Re:

Post by Oscar »

RRM wrote: 3) Organic compounds contain C-H and/or C-C bonds
They can also contain other bonds, like C=O and O-H bonds, but the C-H and C-C bonds are the most common ones.
RRM wrote: 4) Organic compounds are synthetic, not natural (produced by plants / animals).
Don't you mean Inorganic here?
Post Reply