4.5 Review

Hydration for health hypothesis: a narrative review of supporting evidence

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF NUTRITION
卷 60, 期 3, 页码 1167-1180

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s00394-020-02296-z

关键词

Water; Renal; Metabolic; Arginine vasopressin; Copeptin

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Optimal chronic water intake has positive impacts on health, with simple urinary markers such as urine color or frequency being used to monitor and adjust intake.
Purpose An increasing body of evidence suggests that excreting a generous volume of diluted urine is associated with short- and long-term beneficial health effects, especially for kidney and metabolic function. However, water intake and hydration remain under-investigated and optimal hydration is poorly and inconsistently defined. This review tests the hypothesis that optimal chronic water intake positively impacts various aspects of health and proposes an evidence-based definition of optimal hydration. Methods Search strategy included PubMed and Google Scholar using relevant keywords for each health outcome, complemented by manual search of article reference lists and the expertise of relevant practitioners for each area studied. Results The available literature suggest the effects of increased water intake on health may be direct, due to increased urine flow or urine dilution, or indirect, mediated by a reduction in osmotically -stimulated vasopressin (AVP). Urine flow affects the formation of kidney stones and recurrence of urinary tract infection, while increased circulating AVP is implicated in metabolic disease, chronic kidney disease, and autosomal dominant polycystic kidney disease. Conclusion In order to ensure optimal hydration, it is proposed that optimal total water intake should approach 2.5 to 3.5 L day(-1)to allow for the daily excretion of 2 to 3 L of dilute (< 500 mOsm kg(-1)) urine. Simple urinary markers of hydration such as urine color or void frequency may be used to monitor and adjust intake.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据