Calorie consumption is not homeostatic: If it were, then obesity wouldn’t be a problem. Calories consumed minus calories burned will reach an equilibrium at some weight, but what that equilibrium weight is depends on how many calories you’re consuming. And high-sugar beverages are a very easy way to significantly increase your calorie intake, since they don’t provide much satiety.
It is fairly simple. If your diet lacks vitamin C and calories, then drinking HiC would be better for you than water. I you are short calories, calcium, and protein, then milk would be a better choice than water.
If you are eating a carefully balanced diet, well there may be people that do, then water may be your best choice.
What is good for you is something with what you are otherwise lacking.
Fruit juices are worse than water. They’re mostly sugar. It’s better to eat the fruit than drink the juice…at least you get fiber then. The idea that fruit juice is a healthy alternative to soda is a marketing ploy. It’s just soda with a better PR firm.
Some studies indicate that diet soda encourages weight gain. One hypothesis is that they throw off the body’s ability to judge and regulate caloric intake.
potable, n. Suitable for drinking. Water is said to be potable; indeed, some declare it our natural beverage, although even they find it palatable only when suffering from the recurrent disorder known as thirst, for which it is a medicine. Upon nothing has so great and diligent ingenuity been brought to bear in all ages and in all countries, except the most uncivilized, as upon the invention of substitutes for water. To hold that this general aversion to that liquid has no basis in the preservative instinct of the race is to be unscientific – and without science we are as the snakes and toads.
You clearly have never drunk with Polish people. 
(emphasis added)
There’s a very vocal subgroup that argue that milk is detrimental as well.
There seems to be a very vocal subgroup of nutcases for nearly any topic!
The human body really wasn’t built for cow’s milk, especially past an early age. Not to say it isn’t a convenient source for a lot of things our body needs. But it’s not the only place to get protein and calcium.
The body wasn’t “made” to eat almost anything we eat these days.
Hardly any food item we eat even existed when we evolved, almost all have been “genetically modified” buy us over time including cow milk.
Recent studies are finding that the majority of so called food allergies are typically psychosomatic, especially lactose intolerance.
Some people may not produce the enzyme that will break lactose into glucose and galactose and they may have some gas issues when bacteria in the GI tract take advantage of this unused resource but the number of people who actually can’t tolerate or have a true allergy are fairly rare.
Better get your asbestos undies ready.
While this is true for the most part, cow’s milk is a specific exception. We can point to the exact mutations which enabled (some) humans to express lactase (the enzyme which breaks down lactose) after childhood. It appears that these mutations happened at around the time humans started to domesticate cattle. To the extent that evolution “makes” anything, we are made to drink cow milk (those of European descent, at least).
Nitpick: it appears that these mutations began to be increasingly common in the population at about that time. Presumably the mutation occurred/occurs at some steady rate across all populations, but usually drifts right back out of the gene pool through lack of selection.
In the case of my well-supplied tap water, it has many more minerals than Hi-C, which accounts for the way the water goes *>thunk< *into the sink and how you can divert the direction of the flow with a magnet.
But obviously your mileage may vary on that one.
Cite, please. This is GQ, not the place to throw out such claims, unproven. All I know is when I eat eggplant in the skin, or too many kiwis, or shellfish, the resultant swelling/itchiness in my mouth is not my imagination.
I can’t say for lactose intolerant, as I am not. I believe you when you say that some people lie about having food allergies. I don’t believe you when you say they are psychosomatic.
The group has pretty well debunked the idea that high sugar or high fake sweetener drinks are somehow beneficial as the OP claims.
Turning now to tea & coffee …
Both contain a host of chemicals. Some are probably net good for most people most times, while some are net bad for most people most times. I admit this is not my area of professional expertise, but I don’t know of any reputable scientific study which addresses whether the actual net net result is positive or negative. People have been drinking it for enough centuries that if it was really poisonous, we’d have noticed by now. Other than that, we can make no anecdote-based claims to healthfulness or lack thereof.
But …
All contain enough caffeine that they are net diuretics. i.e. drinking 6 oz of coffee leaves your body more dehydrated than before you drank it. So the “antidote” to coffee or tea is plain water. Or water with other additives (e.g. HiC or OJ or cola), but in sufficient higher quantity to offset all the other diuretic and other adverse additives *they *contain.
High caffeine colas are net diuretics too. You can no more reduce actual physiological thirst with them than you can with sea water. And we all know how that ends.
If indeed people drank their 6 oz of coffee and an additional (WAG) 3 oz of plain water to offset the diuretic effect, then it would be difficult to argue that coffee or tea are net bad for most people most times, at least on the dehydration front.
But people don’t work that way either. It seems most folks drink coffee or tea *instead *of straight water, not *in addition *to. The net result is chronic mild dehydration. Which, like chronic mild overeating, or chronic mild vitamin <X> deficiency, produces its own extra wear & tear on the body.
And all this is before we consider the amount of sugar, artificial sweetener, milk, cream, or fake creamer (Science!) which many people add to their coffee. Particularly with modern “froo-froo” coffee-based drinks, it seems the coffee itself serves as just a way to morally disguise what’s essentially a thin high-calorie milk shake. It’s coffee, it can’t be fattening, right? seems to be the dominant self-deluding attitude.
I conclude that net, net, net coffee & tea are not health promoting beverages as consumed by most people. That doesn’t stop me from having some (black) coffee almost every day. But I do drink enough plain water to more than offset the diuretic effect of what I drink. And I’m not under some misguided belief system that I’m getting healthful side effects from whatever leached out of those beans.
Also, lactose intolerance is NOT an allergy. I am lactose intolerant, but I’m NOT allergic to milk or dairy products.
It’s possible that many self-diagnosed cases of lactose intolerance in the US are psychosomatic, but lactose intolerance itself is widespread outside of European descended humans.
It is true, however, that many people use ‘allergy’ as a catch-all term for other non-allergic food intolerances or food preferences. That’s actually a bit of a problem, since it means some people don’t take real allergies (and their potentially serious consequences) all that seriously.
Pity this isn’t the old-rules Pit where I could really tell you what I think of that. But let’s just hit the high points, shall we?
- lactose intolerance is not an allergy.
- most adult human beings are lactose intolerant, those descended from certain European populations and a few in Africa being the exception
- those people who wind up in the hospital or dead from allergic reactions to food will dispute your claims of allergies being “psychosomatic”.
When come back bring facts. Until then, I consider you in the the “not to be taken seriously” category of poster.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/12/health/research/12allergies.html
Which is a journalistic “distillation” of this study.
http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/303/18/1848.short
or here,
or if you have access to the articles
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1398-9995.2008.01849.x/full
http://www.jacionline.org/article/S0091-6749(07)00991-8/abstract
The data on how many “self reported” sufferers of food allergies fail a food challenge is quite well known if not communicated to parents and or patients as often as it should.
OK,
The inability to break a disaccaride into a monosacarides does not infer an “intollerance”
For many people it just passes through the GI unused, just as the Cellulose, a polysaccharide does as “fiber”
And don’t get me wrong…I do understand that the placebo effect is real.