>>>>>>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7520756.stm
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I drink at least a gallon (128 ounces) of water every day. She was drinking about 80 ounces. Why don't I sea any sighed effects from the amuont that I drunk?
>>>>>
>>>>>It looks like she undertook a sudden increase in water intake and suffered hyponatremia.
>>>>>
>>>>>If you've been doing it for a while, your body has adjusted. Clearly you're getting enough electrolytes in the food and drink you consume to offset what you lose via urination, sweat etc. Normal healthy kidneys can handle a quite wide range of fluid and salt intake levels.
>>>>
>>>>I just wish there was a way to stop paying people for throwing common sense out the window and doing stupid things by which they damage themselves. Unfortunately, had they not ponied up, the courts might well have awarded a larger sum.
>>>
>>>Well, if you consult with someone who is, or presents themselves to be, a professional, you'll at least give their advice serious consideration. How can you tell if that advice is "stupid"?
>>
>>Common sense and a little research? Remember, this was an unregulated 'professional'. My sister is one of those who goes to 'professionals' and gets idiotic advice about purging her toxins, aromatherapy, crystals, pyramids and all the rest of the fad crap. She actually made the statement that if she got cancer, she wouldn't go near a doctor. She'd only go to a 'wellness professional' to have her toxins purged and that would cure the cancer.
>
>Not only is common sense anything but, it's overrated as well. There are countless examples where "common sense" is just plain wrong.
>
>As for research - physicians have been telling people for literally years to increase their fluids intake. It's also well known that for athletes to achieve peak performance they must hydrate to levels normal people would consider absurd, because the performance loss associated with even the slightest dehydration is significant. If an elite athlete isn't getting up at least once in the middle of each night to urinate, they aren't sufficiently hydrated. Bearing all this in mind, increasing fluid intake sounds like a very reasonable way to improve one's health.
>
>Also, this isn't about your sister, and comparing the victim to your sister may be very unfair.
>
>>
>>I've had to listen to this nonsense for years. Would you take advice like that? Liposuction, botox treatments, etc, etc. - all condoned by some 'professional' or other. When people stop critical thinking, they get into trouble, and I have not a lot of sympathy.
>>
>>You want to lose weight; you diet (eat nutritious foods) and exercise. Any 'professional' who tells you differently, [imho] is a either a quack, or a con artist.
>
>Any doctor will tell you that if you're contemplating going on a diet you should consult a professional in that field. In that regard the victim actually did better than millions of other people, who just blindly start "diet du jour" with no research whatsoever. She went to a nutritionist (unregulated) for advice. Her blunder was in not going to a dietician (regulated). In your view I suppose that, as a result, this woman deserves everything that happened to her.
>
>But wait a minute - by your own definition the nutritionist is a quack - are you advocating that she gets off scot-free?
>
>I agree about critical thinking, but not everyone has the temperament or education to do it well, or at all.
>
>>
>>>It looks to me like a very clear-cut case of incompetence. Insurance companies are usually very hard-nosed but the nutritionist's coughed up over C$1.6M without a court fight - not a trivial sum.
>>
>>But less than the suit amount, and I still think that's because in a court of law, especially these days, the chance of ending up paying more regardless of the facts of the case, are too high. Judges love giving people money for all sorts of perceived wrongs and that money ultimately will come out of your pocket and mine.
>
>I imagine the suit amount was not exactly on the low side. If the two parties settled then the amount is by definition fair. They have all the facts of the matter, we don't, so we're in no position to gainsay them.
>
>I'd be interested in hearing how the insurance settlement amount ultimately comes out of our pockets.
>
>>
>>How do you feel about people who send money or bank account information to someone from whom they received a letter from Nigeria?
>
>I believe they should be fully reimbursed for all losses and legal fees - in Zimbabwean dollars < g >