Should You Drink 3 Liters of Water per Day?
It's no secret that water is vital to your health.
In fact, water comprises 45–75% of your body weight and plays a key role in heart health, weight management, physical performance, and brain function (1Trusted Source).
Studies show that upping your water intake may offer many health benefits (2Trusted Source).
However, the amount of water you need is a subject of controversy — and drinking too much can harm your health.
This article examines the benefits and downsides of drinking 3 liters (100 ounces) of water per day.
Supports Overall Health
Staying well hydrated is incredibly important, as water is needed for a variety of bodily processes and central to nearly every aspect of health and wellness.
Therefore, drinking 3 liters (100 ounces) of water per day may help you meet your hydration needs to support better health.
Drinking enough water is important for many aspects of health, including body temperature, nutrient transport, and brain function.
May Boost Weight Loss
Increasing your water intake may aid weight loss.
Drinking water just before meals can be especially useful, as it can promote feelings of fullness and reduce appetite.
One study in 24 people found that drinking 500 ml (17 ounces) of water before breakfast reduced the number of calories consumed by 13% (5Trusted Source).
Similarly, a small, 12-week study showed that drinking 500 ml (17 ounces) of water before each meal as part of a low-calorie diet increased weight loss by 44%, compared with a control group (6Trusted Source).
Drinking water may also temporarily boost your metabolism, which can increase the number of calories you burn throughout the day.
In a small study in 16 people, drinking 500 ml (17 ounces) of water temporarily increased metabolism by 24% over 1 hour, which may aid weight loss (7Trusted Source).
Water may help you feel full and temporarily increase your metabolism, which may bolster weight loss.
May Improve Skin Health
Some research suggests that drinking more water can help keep your skin supple and smooth.
For example, a month-long study in 49 people determined that increasing water intake by 2 liters (67 ounces) per day improved skin hydration, especially in those who typically drank under 3.2 liters (108 ounces) of water daily (8Trusted Source).
Skin pH plays an integral role in maintaining your skin's barrier, which can influence your risk of certain skin conditions (10).
Additionally, a review of six studies found that increased water intake reduced dryness and roughness, increased skin elasticity, and enhanced hydration (11Trusted Source).
Drinking more water may promote healthy skin by increasing hydration and elasticity while reducing roughness and dryness.
Drinking more water may offer several other benefits as well, including:
- Increased regularity. Multiple studies associate low water intake with a higher risk of constipation. As such, drinking more water may promote bowel movements (12Trusted Source).
- Kidney stone prevention. One review of nine studies tied higher fluid intake to a lower risk of kidney stones (13Trusted Source).
- Headache relief. Research suggests that drinking more water can alleviate headaches caused by dehydration or fluid loss (14Trusted Source, 15Trusted Source).
- Mood improvement. According to one review, increasing water intake may aid both brain function and mood, especially in children and older adults (16Trusted Source).
- Enhanced athletic ability. While dehydration can impair exercise performance, replacing fluids after physical activity can increase endurance and decrease exercise-induced DNA damage (17Trusted Source).
Drinking 3 liters (100 ounces) of water per day may aid bowel regularity, prevent kidney stones, alleviate headaches, improve mood, and strengthen physical performance.
May Not Be the Right Amount for Everyone
While drinking more water may aid your health, 3 liters (100 ounces) may not be the right amount for everyone.
Currently, no official recommendations exist for the intake of plain water alone. The amount you need is based on several factors, such as age, gender, and activity level (18Trusted Source).
However, there are recommendations for total water intake, which includes water consumed through all foods and beverages, such as plain water, fruits, and vegetables.
A total daily intake of around 2.7 liters (91 ounces) for women and 3.7 liters (125 ounces) for men can meet most adults' needs (19).
Depending on the other foods and beverages you consume, you may not need to drink 3 liters (100 ounces) of water per day to meet your fluid requirements.
Simply listening to your body and drinking when you feel thirsty is one of the best ways to ensure that you're staying hydrated. In fact, most people can meet their daily needs by drinking water when they're thirsty (19).
Drinking Too Much Water Can Be Dangerous
Keep in mind that excessive water intake can be dangerous.
Although your kidneys can excrete up to 20–28 liters (4.5–6 gallons) of water per day, they can only process 800–1,000 ml (27–34 ounces) of water per hour (23Trusted Source).
For this reason, it's important to spread your water intake throughout the day rather than drink it all in a single sitting. Additionally, be sure to listen to your body and adjust your water intake accordingly if you're feeling unwell.
Water needs vary based on numerous factors. As drinking too much water can disrupt your body's electrolyte balance and lead to hyponatremia, 3 liters (100 ounces) may be too much for some people.
Reposted with permission from our media associate Healthline.
- 12 Beneficial Fruits to Eat During and After Cancer Treatment ... ›
- The Key Nutrient You Probably Don't Get Enough Of - EcoWatch ›
By Karen L. Smith-Janssen
Colette Pichon Battle gave a December 2019 TEDWomen Talk on the stark realities of climate change displacement, and people took notice. The video racked up a million views in about two weeks. The attorney, founder, and executive director of the Gulf Coast Center for Law & Policy (GCCLP) advocates for climate justice in communities of color. Confronted with evidence showing how her own South Louisiana coastal home of Bayou Liberty will be lost to flooding in coming years, the 2019 Obama Fellow dedicates herself to helping others still reeling from the impacts of Katrina face the heavy toll that climate change has taken—and will take—on their lives and homelands. Her work focuses on strengthening multiracial coalitions, advocating for federal, state, and local disaster mitigation measures, and redirecting resources toward Black communities across the Gulf South.
EcoWatch Daily Newsletter
Between 2000 and 2013, Earth lost an area of undisturbed ecosystems roughly the size of Mexico.
- Planting Projects, Backyard Habitats Can Re-Create Livable Natural ... ›
- Humans Are Destroying Wildlife at an Unprecedented Rate, New ... ›
- UN Biodiversity Chief: Humans Risk Living in an 'Empty World' With ... ›
- Scientists Warn Worse Pandemics Are on the Way if We Don't ... ›
- Coronavirus Pandemic Linked to Destruction of Wildlife and World's ... ›
By Stuart Braun
"These are not just wildfires, they are climate fires," Jay Inslee, Governor of Washington State, said as he stood amid the charred remains of the town of Malden west of Seattle earlier this month. "This is not an act of God," he added. "This has happened because we have changed the climate of the state of Washington in dramatic ways."
'These Aren't Wildfires'<p>Sam Ricketts, who led climate policy and strategy for Governor Jay Inslee's 2020 presidential campaign, tweeted on September 11 that "These aren't wildfires. These are #climatefires, driven by fossil fuel pollution."</p><p>"The rate and the strength and the devastation wrought by these disasters are fueled by climate change," Ricketts told DW of fires that have burnt well over 5 million acres across California, Oregon, Washington State, and into neighboring Idaho. </p><p>In a two-day period in early September, Ricketts notes that more of Washington State burned than in almost any entire fire season until now, apart from 2015. </p><p>California, meanwhile, was a tinderbox after its hottest summer on record, with temperatures in Death Valley reaching nearly 130 degrees Fahrenheit, according to the U.S. National Weather Service. It has been reported as the hottest temperature ever measured on Earth.</p>
<div id="29ad9" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="8346fe7350e1371d400097cd48bf45a2"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1306969603180879872" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">Drought-parched wetlands in South America have been burning for weeks. https://t.co/pjAKdFcKPg #Pantanal https://t.co/ImN2C5vwcp</div> — NASA Earth (@NASA Earth)<a href="https://twitter.com/NASAEarth/statuses/1306969603180879872">1600440810.0</a></blockquote></div><p>As evidenced by Australia's apocalyptic Black Summer of 2019-2020, fires are burning bigger and for longer, with new records set year-on-year. Right now, Brazil's vast and highly biodiverse Pantanal wetlands are suffering from catastrophic fires.</p>
#climatefires Started in Australia<p>Governor Inslee this month invoked the phrase climate fires for arguably the first time in the U.S., according to Ricketts.</p><p>But the term was also used as fires burnt out of control in Australia in late 2019. In the face of a 2000km (more than 1,200 miles) fire front, and government officials and media who <a href="https://www.dw.com/en/trump-climate-change-denial-emissions-environment-germany-fake-heartland-seibt/a-52688933" target="_blank">played down the link to climate change</a>, Greens Party Senator Sarah Hanson-Young and a friend decided that reference to bushfires was inadequate. </p><p>"We both just said, we've got to start calling them climate fires, that's what they are," the Australian Senator told DW.</p><p>Hanson-Young says scientists have been warning for decades that these would be the effects of global heating. "We've been told these kinds of extreme weather events and destruction is what climate change would look like, and it's right here on our doorstep," she said from her home state of South Australia — where by early September fire warnings had already been issued.</p><p>"Calling them climate fires was making it absolutely crystal clear. It is essential that there's no ambiguity," she said </p><p>Having deliberately invoked the term, Hanson-Young soon started to push it on social media via a #climatefires hashtag. </p>
How to Talk About the Urgency of Global Heating<p>The need to use more explicit language when talking about extreme weather events linked to climate change is part of a broader push to express the urgency of global heating. In 2019, activist Greta Thunberg tweeted that the term "climate change" did not reflect the seriousness of the situation. </p><p>"Can we all now please stop saying 'climate change' and instead call it what it is: climate breakdown, climate crisis, climate emergency, ecological breakdown, ecological crisis and ecological emergency?" she wrote. </p><p>"Climate change has for a long time been talked about as something that is a danger in the future," said Hansen-Young. "But the consequences are already here. When people hear the word crisis, they understand that something has to happen, that action has to be taken."</p><p><span></span>Some terms are now used in public policy, with state and national governments, and indeed the EU Parliament, declaring an official climate emergency in the last year. </p>
Words That Reflect the Science<p>But while the West Coast governors all fervently link the fires to an unfolding climate crisis, U.S. President Donald Trump continues to avoid any reference to climate. In a briefing about the fires, he responded to overtures by Wade Crowfoot, California's Natural Resources Secretary, to work with the states on the climate crisis by stating: "It'll start getting cooler. You just watch." Crowfoot replied by saying that scientists disagreed. Trump rejoined with "I don't think science knows, actually." </p><p>It was reminiscent of the anti-science approach to the coronavirus pandemic within the Trump administration, <a href="https://www.dw.com/en/donald-trump-admits-playing-down-coronavirus-risks/a-54874350" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">at least publicly</a>. Fossil fuel companies are also benefiting from his disavowal of climate science, with the Trump administration having <a href="https://www.dw.com/en/opinion-trumps-paris-climate-accord-exit-isnt-really-a-problem/a-51124958" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">pulled out of the Paris Agreement</a> and reopened fossil fuel infrastructure like the Keystone XL pipeline. </p><p>But the science community has responded, with Scientific American magazine endorsing Trump's Democratic presidential challenger Joe Biden, the first presidential endorsement in its 175-year history. </p><p>Hanson-Young says the use of explicit language like climate fires has also been important in Australia due to the climate denialism of politicians and the press, especially in publications owned by Rupert Murdoch. As fires burnt out much of Australia's southeast coast, they were commonly blamed on arson — a tactic also recently used in the U.S.</p>
Climate Rhetoric Could Help Decide Election<p>The language of climate has begun to influence the U.S. presidential election campaign, with Democratic nominee Joe Biden labelling President Trump a "climate arsonist."</p><p>Biden is touting a robust climate plan that includes a 2050 zero emissions target and a return to the Paris Agreement. Though lacking the ambition of The New Green Deal, it has been front and center of his policy platform in recent days, at a time when five hurricanes are battering the U.S. Gulf Coast while smoke blanketing the West Coast spreads all the way to the East. </p><p>People are experiencing the climate crisis in a visceral way and almost universally relate to the language of an emergency, says Ricketts. "They know something is wrong."</p>
- The Vicious Climate-Wildfire Cycle - EcoWatch ›
- How Climate Change Ignites Wildfires From California to South Africa ›
- 31 Dead, 250,000 Evacuated in California Fires as Governor ... ›
World's Richest One Percent Are Producing More Than Double the Carbon Emissions as the Bottom 50 Percent
A new report from Oxfam found that the wealthiest one percent of the world produced a carbon footprint that was more than double that of the bottom 50 percent of the world, The Guardian reported. The study examined 25 years of carbon dioxide emissions and wealth inequality from 1990 to 2015.
If you are taking medication for an underactive thyroid, check your prescription.