Study Reveals Water Isn't Actually Best Drink For Hydration
Water is one of the fundamental blocks to life itself and is arguably the most important resource for humans on the entire planet. But a study recently found that H2O may not be the best option if you're simply looking for hydration.
In a 2016 study completed by Scotland's Saint Andrews University, researchers actually found that milk was a better hydration option compared to water and other drinks.
The researchers concluded that the combination of sugar, fat and protein present in milk slows the emptying of fluid from the stomach, which maintains hydration for a longer period of time. The addition of sodium in milk also "acts like a sponge" for the body to allow it to hold onto water.
'This study tells us much of what we already knew: Electrolytes — like sodium and potassium — contribute to better hydration, while calories in beverages result in slower gastric emptying and therefore slower release of urination,' dietician Melissa Majumdar of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics said in 2019.
The final ranking of beverages was that skim milk was the best drink for hydration. Oral hydration-specific solutions such as Pedialyte or Liquid I.V. came in second, followed by full fat milk, then orange juice and finally cola.
Here is the full ranking:
Skim milk
Oral rehydration solutions
Full fat milk
Orange juice
Cola
Diet cola
Cold tea
Tea
Sports drinks
Sparking water
Lager beer
Coffee
For ages milk has been associated with post-workout meals. Many people drink milk for the protein and often mix in most dense protein snacks to help restore their bodies after an intense workout.
But for ages, the drink of choice during a workout, a game or any major physical activity has been either water or sugary drinks with electrolytes.
It would be interesting to see if any follow-up studies show whether drinking milk during a workout would have better effects on them.
All of this may be small comfort for people who are lactose intolerant or have other restrictions that keep them from drinking milk.Study Reveals Water Isn't Actually Best Drink For Hydration first appeared on The Spun on Jul 1, 2025
This story was originally reported by The Spun on Jul 1, 2025, where it first appeared.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Medscape
an hour ago
- Medscape
Brain Changes Linked to Dementia Found in Ex-Rugby Players
Two studies led by researchers at Imperial College London (ICL) have identified structural brain changes and blood biomarkers linked to dementia in former professional rugby players. The findings provide the first prospective evidence of physical brain and blood abnormalities in this group. Previous research had already shown that elite rugby players face a higher risk of neurodegenerative diseases later in life. The studies examined links between repeated head impacts in rugby and conditions such as Alzheimer's disease and chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE). Post-mortem examinations of former players have shown neuropathologies consistent with repetitive brain trauma. Traumatic brain injury, already a known risk factor for neurodegeneration, contributes to an estimated 3%-15% of dementia cases in the general population. While recent advances in fluid and imaging biomarkers have transformed dementia diagnosis, these techniques have not been systematically applied to rugby players previously exposed to multiple head impacts. Study Cohort and Methods The research involved 200 ex-professional rugby players aged 30-61 (median age, 44), all of whom had self-referred with brain health concerns but had no dementia diagnosis at baseline. At least one previous concussion while playing was reported by 193 (96.5%) of the former players, with a median of seven concussions. The rugby group was compared with 33 age- and sex-matched healthy controls with no evidence of previous head trauma or dementia onset. Participants were 90% male. The median rugby career lasted 10.5 years, with 63% playing as forwards and 37% as backs. Mental Health and Behavioural Symptoms The former players scored higher on self-rated scales of depression, anxiety, and post-concussion symptoms than those in the control group, though not on sleep quality. These symptoms, along with behaviour ratings of executive dysfunction and neuropsychiatric symptom severity, were more prevalent among individuals who had experienced a greater number of self-reported concussions. However, this was unrelated to the number of years played, or position of play. Despite frequent subjective memory complaints, the performance of players in cognitive testing did not differ significantly from that of the control group. However, 24 former players, particularly those who had played as forwards and those who had reported more concussions, met the research criteria for CTE syndrome based on neurobehavioural disturbance. This was determined with low provisional levels of certainty: 21 were classed as 'suggestive.' three as 'possible.' and none as 'probable/definite.' Seven of the 24 had cognitive impairment, 12 had neurobehavioral dysregulation, and five had both. Imaging Findings 3T MRI imaging showed the presence of cavum septum pellucidum in 24% of players, compared with 12% of controls. This was more common in those who had experienced more concussions. They also showed reduced volumes in the frontal and cingulate cortices, with reduced white matter and lower hippocampal volume associated with longer career durations. Only 4.6% showed trauma-associated white matter changes on diffusion tensor imaging. Elevated Blood Biomarkers Using ultrasensitive digital enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays, researchers analysed fluid biomarkers associated with neurodegeneration. Key findings included: Phospho-tau217 levels were 17.6% higher in former players 23.1% had elevated phospho-tau217 9.0% had raised plasma neurofilament light While levels were lower than in late-onset Alzheimer's patients, players with elevated markers had more severe neuropsychiatric symptoms, including depression and anxiety. Frontal brain volumes correlated negatively with neurofilament light, and hippocampal volumes correlated negatively with phospho-tau217. The findings were published simultaneously in two papers in the journal Brain . Professor David Sharp, director of the UK Dementia Research Institute Centre for Care Research & Technology at ICL, who co-led the work, said: 'We didn't see any cases of early dementia in this group of former players, which is reassuring. However, the changes in blood biomarkers and brain imaging abnormalities show some long-term effects of repeated head impacts on the brain.' The studies are set to continue for a further 4 years. Calls for Action on Player Safety 'Nearly half of dementia cases are linked to known health and lifestyle risk factors, including traumatic brain injury from contact sports like rugby,' said Dr Jacqui Hanley, head of research at Alzheimer's Research UK. While not much is known about how such injuries cause changes to the brain, 'deepening our understanding could ultimately help lower dementia risk for professional sportspeople.' Hanley called for stronger efforts to reduce head injury in contact sports, stating: 'Reducing traumatic brain injury in contact sports is critical to help prevent brain damage and minimise dementia risk for the players.' The Alzheimer's Society echoed the concern, noting that professional rugby players face approximately twice the risk of dementia. They called for accurate data on injury patterns and their long-term effects. However, they also stressed that physical activity remains one of the most effective ways to reduce dementia risk. The Dementia Trust has warned that repeated tackles, scrums, and collisions can contribute to CTE among rugby players and noted a rise in early-onset dementia among retired professional players. In 2023, a group of 260 former professionals launched a lawsuit against World Rugby, the Welsh Rugby Union, and the Rugby Football Union. They alleged negligence in failing to protect players from the risk of neurodegenerative diseases.
Washington Post
2 hours ago
- Washington Post
This French astronaut's food in space? Foie gras and lobster bisque.
French cuisine has a reputation for being among the world's best. So what's a French astronaut do to when faced with the prospect of spending months aboard the International Space Station eating freeze-dried food straight from the packaging? Recruit a Michelin-starred chef to reimagine French classics like foie gras and lobster bisque was the answer for Sophie Adenot, who is due to undertake her first space mission in 2026.
Medscape
3 hours ago
- Medscape
Evolving Approaches in Melanoma Treatment
This transcript has been edited for clarity. Hello, everybody. I am Teresa Amaral, head of the Skin Cancer Clinical Trials Center at Tübingen University Hospital in Germany. I'm here directly from ASCO 2025 to discuss with you a couple of works that have been presented here and I think are important for you to know about and discuss. We are already in June, but last month was Melanoma and Skin Cancer Awareness Month. I think it's interesting that one of the posters and one of the works that was selected to be discussed here was associated with strategies and interventions to prevent melanoma and other skin cancers — namely, works and interventions that have been done in kids and young adults in order to prevent ultraviolet exposure. This is something that you don't see often. It's talked about frequently, but these kinds of interventions are not very common. It's very interesting to see that this has been selected to be discussed here. Well, that was part of the prevention, and now we go to early-stage melanoma. As you can imagine, and as you probably know, the majority of the patients that are diagnosed with melanoma are actually diagnosed at an early stage. This means stage I and stage II. Being the majority of the population that is diagnosed with melanoma, it's also the population for which we don't have any approved therapy, especially until stage IIA. What can we do for these patients? There have been a couple of works presented here at ASCO using artificial intelligence to look at slides from patients and from primary tumors of patients diagnosed with early-stage melanoma. Actually, these have been pretty promising for predicting the risk for recurrence of these early-stage patients. In this transcript to accompany the video, we've linked the posters and you can get more information if you want to look into more detail at the data that have been presented. Another work that I would like to call your attention to, for which I definitely have some bias because it's the poster that I presented here, is a gene expression profile also using the primary tumor of patients diagnosed with early-stage melanoma — so stage I and stage II. The majority of the patients had stage IA disease. We looked into the primary tumors and tried to identify the patients that are at higher risk of developing a recurrence without having the information of the sentinel lymph node biopsy. Looking into those who have high risk is one of the ways to look into this population, but also looking into those who have low risk and can safely forgo other evaluations or other interventions such as further follow-up, skin checks, ultrasounds, blood tests, and so on. Then moving into the adjuvant setting, where we already have some therapy that is reimbursed. For stage II, we have immunotherapy. For stage III, we have immunotherapy and targeted therapy for the patients with BRAF mutation. Some of the data that has been presented here are looking into different ways of not only clinical data, but also gene expression profile, next-generation sequencing, and other assays such as circulating tumor DNA, and combining all this information to try to understand who are the patients that will have a recurrence, and if we can see it from the very beginning in those patients who received adjuvant therapy. There were a couple of posters looking into this, showing that in principle, and based on these data, we might not have only one biomarker that can tell us which patients are those who, despite therapy, will recur, or which patients who, under therapy, will have a benefit. Interestingly enough, we also have other trials being presented on Tuesday, and we'll have another session looking into detail at trial data on targeted therapy in the adjuvant setting — the COLUMBUS-AD study— and also a negative trial, the Bristol Myers Squibb trial RELATIVITY-098, which looked into programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) vs PD-1 plus lymphocyte activation gene 3 in patients in stage III. I think this is a very important trial, and it's important that these negative trials are also presented and are discussed so that we can understand which patients really don't benefit and what we can use from these trials to move the investigation forward. Another interesting poster that was presented here is looking into patients receiving adjuvant therapy with immunotherapy or targeted therapy if they have a BRAF mutation. Why is this poster interesting? I would say that there are some conflicting data on what type of therapy you should use in the adjuvant setting if the patients have a BRAF mutation. There are some retrospective data showing that targeted therapy upfront might be better. The poster presented here shows that immunotherapy actually seems to do better, although the majority of the patients were indeed treated with immunotherapy, not targeted therapy. I think real-world data and retrospective data are more important every day because I don't expect to have any trial in the future looking into adjuvant targeted therapy or immunotherapy for patients with stage III melanoma. Besides the BRAF mutation, we will definitely need other biomarkers that will help to guide our decisions for patients who have BRAF -mutated stage III melanoma. Moving into the advanced setting, the most important questions that we want to get answered are not what we should use in first-line therapy because this is, I would say, pretty clear for the majority of patients. We have data from the SECOMBIT trial. We have data from the DREAMseq trial saying that patients will probably benefit more from immunotherapy upfront, even when they have a BRAF mutation. Very particular patients will be candidates for having targeted therapy upfront, as the majority of them will receive immunotherapy. This is exactly what is going to be presented on Tuesday from the DREAMseq study. The data will show that after 5 years, there is almost twice as high overall survival rate in patients that started with immunotherapy and three times better progression-free survival for patients that started with immunotherapy as compared to targeted therapy alone. There are some nuances from this trial because not all the patients that started with immunotherapy or targeted therapy did the crossover; many had brain metastases, which was one of the exclusion criteria for the crossover. Still, it shows that for the majority of the patients, you should start, if possible, with immunotherapy in the first line. It will be interesting to understand what to do for patients for whom we don't have a benefit using PD-1 therapy. There come the second-line therapies and more, I would say, experimental data on other strategies that include cell therapy and tumor-infiltrating lymphocyte (TIL) therapy. There have been some data presented in a poster, showing that patients who received TIL therapy have a good long-term outcome 5 years after this therapy. This might be a therapy that could possibly be given to a specific subgroup of patients in a very selected population. Also interesting would be to look into the same strategy without using the lympho depletion that is normally associated with this type of therapy and the interleukin-2 that is also given because this is, first, one of the limitations to select the patients that will get this therapy, and second, these two therapies are responsible for the majority of the toxicity that we see with this therapy. These are really interesting data to see how we can bring this therapy to our patients, but also how we can do it with reducing toxicity. Finally, one of our other treatments that has been discussed here and will also probably come in our future discussions are treatment-directed therapies — so local therapies such as injection therapies and viral therapies. These have been coming on the scene again, with new data from a different type of viral therapy but also with a combination of PD-1 therapy, which I think is quite interesting because they are looking into patients that really didn't benefit from PD-1 therapy. For the future, these would be my two or three populations where I think we need more data and we should definitely invest more in future trials. First, for early-stage trials, and again, looking into trials that are biomarker-selected. I don't think we can go on doing adjuvant trials in all the populations of patients with stage II and stage III. Second, for patients who did not benefit from PD-1 therapy in the advanced setting, but also those who received PD-1 in the adjuvant setting and did not benefit from that. And third, for patients with brain metastasis, which is obviously a difficult-to-treat population for which we don't have many options. Finally, there were some posters also analyzing treatment for patients with acral melanoma and mucosal melanoma, which again are populations that normally are excluded. It's nice to see that some companies are still investing in that. Also, there are some retrospective data showing that, despite the fact that patients do not benefit as much as those with normal cutaneous melanoma, there is still plenty of space to investigate new treatment avenues for this population that normally is excluded from clinical trials. This was my summary from what we know so far from ASCO 2025. I'll get back to you with a second take on this interesting meeting when we have the late-breaking abstracts presented in the rapid oral communications, and also in the oral communications, which I think might also come in handy when you want to decide what to do with your patients in the clinics next week. I hope you enjoyed the meeting, and I'm looking forward to seeing you again soon. Thank you.
