“For the 13 per cent alcohol content of most wines, that equilibrium point would still leave you badly dehydrated (not to mention hopelessly drunk), but it should prevent you from dying of thirst”
Very similar situation to the news story we’re commenting on.
Oh, thanks for that, I read different but here’s the key thing that I think was missing from the analysis I read:
But the concentration of alcohol required for this increases as you get thirstier. If you just drank wine on your desert island, you would initially lose more water than you gain from wine, but as your body became more dehydrated, it would produce more ADH to compensate and you’d eventually reach an equilibrium point.
Wine will dehydrate you faster because alcohol is a diuretic.
Wine will hydrate you.
Well you’re wrong, alcohol is a diuretic and a typical wine contains enough alcohol that you will lose water by drinking it.
BBC science News today says it will hydrate you enough to keep you alive. The guy in the news story stayed alive too.
https://www.sciencefocus.com/the-human-body/on-a-desert-island-would-it-be-better-to-drink-wine-or-go-thirsty
You’re not wrong, but also common knowledge is you can survive 3 days without water.
The threshold for dehydration is about 2% alcohol, so no it won’t
Wine would provide enough hydration to prevent you from dying of thirst.
Source On a desert island, would it be better to drink wine or go thirsty? - BBC Science Focus Magazine https://www.sciencefocus.com/the-human-body/on-a-desert-island-would-it-be-better-to-drink-wine-or-go-thirsty
“For the 13 per cent alcohol content of most wines, that equilibrium point would still leave you badly dehydrated (not to mention hopelessly drunk), but it should prevent you from dying of thirst”
Very similar situation to the news story we’re commenting on.
Oh, thanks for that, I read different but here’s the key thing that I think was missing from the analysis I read: