Author Topic: The "This Might Be A Stupid Question, But...." Thread  (Read 1014675 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

ladyknight1

  • Super Hero!
  • ****
  • Posts: 7110
  • Operating the logic hammer since 1987.
Re: The "This Might Be A Stupid Question, But...." Thread
« Reply #5985 on: November 02, 2012, 10:56:10 AM »
In the articles I mentioned above, it was drinking copious amounts of liquids while eating that was the issue. The recommended amount was less than 8 oz of water.

EmmaJ.

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1408
Re: The "This Might Be A Stupid Question, But...." Thread
« Reply #5986 on: November 02, 2012, 11:01:17 AM »
If the medication directions say to take with xx amount of water, please encourage your husband to do so.  The water moves the pill to the stomach before dissolving - otherwise it may begin dissolving in the esophagus which may cause irritation or ulceration.

violinp

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 3543
  • cabbagegirl28's my sister :)
Re: The "This Might Be A Stupid Question, But...." Thread
« Reply #5987 on: November 02, 2012, 12:31:18 PM »
Does drinking water with meals or to take pills somehow "dilute" the food or medication?  DH will only take a sip of water to take his medication, even though the directions on the bottle say to take with at least 8 ounces of water.  He says that he was taught that too much water dilutes the medication.  (Yet more Pearls of Wisdom from MIL, no doubt. ::))

Similarly, I have relatives who say that you should never drink water with meals because it dilutes the food.

This seems like nonsense to me.  If you eat 100 calories of food, or 40mg of medication, it's still 100 calories or 40mg, right?  No matter how much water you do or do not drink with it.
 
Now if the med is a liquid and you are supposed to take 1 teaspoon, but instead you mix it half and half with water and then take 1 teaspoon, that's diluting it.

I agree with you. Moreover, if you don't take a full glass of water with some meds, you can end up feeling very dehydrated - Benadryl and NyQuil are ones I can think of off the top of my head.
"It takes a great deal of courage to stand up to your enemies, but even more to stand up to your friends" - Harry Potter


Virg

  • Super Hero!
  • ****
  • Posts: 5879
Re: The "This Might Be A Stupid Question, But...." Thread
« Reply #5988 on: November 02, 2012, 02:04:42 PM »
Elfmama wrote:

"DH will only take a sip of water to take his medication, even though the directions on the bottle say to take with at least 8 ounces of water.  He says that he was taught that too much water dilutes the medication."

Even if it was true (it's not), the instructions say to take the meds with 8 ounces of water so did it ever cross his mind that it's supposed to work that way?  If he believes that the water dilutes the medication, then by taking the medication without the instructed water he's overdosing.  Therefore, no matter what he thinks about dilution, failing to follow the instructions is foolish.

"Similarly, I have relatives who say that you should never drink water with meals because it dilutes the food."

This is simply nonsensical.  To wit, even if it's true (it not in this case either), why does it matter that your food is "diluted"?  Perhaps an argument could be made that you could drink too much and therefore not want to eat enough to get proper nutrition, but you'd have to eat some pretty calorie-sparse stuff to run out of room before you could get enough nutrition to live.  After all, whether you eat a hamburger with no water or with a quart of water, as long as you eat the whole burger it's all inside to be digested.

Virg

sevenday

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 789
Re: The "This Might Be A Stupid Question, But...." Thread
« Reply #5989 on: November 02, 2012, 03:25:03 PM »
I tried the sip thing with a medication once and felt pretty darn icky afterward.  Took the next dose with 8 oz of water (okay, apple juice, but still) as instructed, and no problems.  Medications go through trials to determine how best to deliver it with minimal side effects.  Take with food, etc.  I follow these instructions unless my doctor tells me otherwise.  As others have said, the amount of water/food has a purpose, either to help move medicine, to dilute it properly, to protect the stomach, etc.  I don't advocate blindly following doctors' advice (doctors are human after all) but in the case of medication, what they say goes.  If I have problems following the indications, I call the doctor and ask "Can I do x or Y instead?"  Haven't needed to yet though.

artk2002

  • Super Hero!
  • ****
  • Posts: 12828
    • The Delian's Commonwealth
Re: The "This Might Be A Stupid Question, But...." Thread
« Reply #5990 on: November 02, 2012, 05:54:36 PM »
Does drinking water with meals or to take pills somehow "dilute" the food or medication?  DH will only take a sip of water to take his medication, even though the directions on the bottle say to take with at least 8 ounces of water.  He says that he was taught that too much water dilutes the medication.  (Yet more Pearls of Wisdom from MIL, no doubt. ::))

Similarly, I have relatives who say that you should never drink water with meals because it dilutes the food.

This seems like nonsense to me.  If you eat 100 calories of food, or 40mg of medication, it's still 100 calories or 40mg, right?  No matter how much water you do or do not drink with it.

It is nonsense. The same amount of food or medication makes it into your blood stream no matter what. Will your relatives drink anything other than water with a meal?
Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things that you didn't do than by the ones you did do. So throw off the bow lines. Sail away from the safe harbor. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream. Discover. -Mark Twain

Coruscation

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1188
Re: The "This Might Be A Stupid Question, But...." Thread
« Reply #5991 on: November 02, 2012, 06:09:46 PM »
Does drinking water with meals or to take pills somehow "dilute" the food or medication?  DH will only take a sip of water to take his medication, even though the directions on the bottle say to take with at least 8 ounces of water.  He says that he was taught that too much water dilutes the medication.  (Yet more Pearls of Wisdom from MIL, no doubt. ::))

Similarly, I have relatives who say that you should never drink water with meals because it dilutes the food.

This seems like nonsense to me.  If you eat 100 calories of food, or 40mg of medication, it's still 100 calories or 40mg, right?  No matter how much water you do or do not drink with it.
 
Now if the med is a liquid and you are supposed to take 1 teaspoon, but instead you mix it half and half with water and then take 1 teaspoon, that's diluting it.

They have actually shown that taking water with food helps slow down the absorption. Specifically, if you are dieting, a meal of a piece of chicken, one cup of water and X amount of vegtables clears the stomach much more quickly than a stew made from the same thing, leaving you hungry sooner. I've always assumed that is part of the reason you should take medication with food or drink, the other being to protect your stomach lining from direct contact with the drug. So I guess it dilutes it in the same way that water dilutes cordial base. The same amount of drug gets into your system, with fewer side effects and possibly over a longer time, which is desirable.

jpcher

  • Super Hero!
  • ****
  • Posts: 8616
Re: The "This Might Be A Stupid Question, But...." Thread
« Reply #5992 on: November 02, 2012, 06:20:27 PM »
Certain meds need to be taken with food/liquids ("to protect your stomach lining from direct contact") This should be clearly marked on the prescription bottle.

With other meds, like specific throat-soothing cough syrups or lozenges, water will dilute the effect.

Not all meds are equal.

It comes down to following the instructions on the medication.


Carotte

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1120
Re: The "This Might Be A Stupid Question, But...." Thread
« Reply #5993 on: November 05, 2012, 03:27:14 PM »
Why is there so much disparity between cooking time for Chili con carne?
I was looking at recipes online because I forgot how long my mom cooks it ( and I offered to make it for my bf ) and it goes from 20min to 8hours in a slowcooker, yet most have the same ingredients and preparation.
For what it's worth we use caned whole skinned tomatoes and canned beans and I think we cook it for 2 hours.
I don't think I'll have two hours tomorrow so was wondering if I could halve the cooking time.

CakeBeret

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4247
Re: The "This Might Be A Stupid Question, But...." Thread
« Reply #5994 on: November 05, 2012, 04:05:16 PM »
Why is there so much disparity between cooking time for Chili con carne?

Different people have different interpretations of what "cooked" is when it comes to chili. ;)

Some people consider "heated through" to be cooked. Others believe that a longer cooking time is important for the flavors to meld. My brother in law considers chili cooked for less than four hours to be "raw". I prefer to cook mine for several hours in a crock pot, but I also don't object to cooking it for thirty minutes on the stovetop. So as long as your chili gets hot all the way through, halving your cooking time should be adequate.
"From a procrastination standpoint, today has been wildly successful."

Gwywnnydd

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1645
Re: The "This Might Be A Stupid Question, But...." Thread
« Reply #5995 on: November 05, 2012, 05:28:21 PM »
Why is there so much disparity between cooking time for Chili con carne?

Different people have different interpretations of what "cooked" is when it comes to chili. ;)

Some people consider "heated through" to be cooked. Others believe that a longer cooking time is important for the flavors to meld. My brother in law considers chili cooked for less than four hours to be "raw". I prefer to cook mine for several hours in a crock pot, but I also don't object to cooking it for thirty minutes on the stovetop. So as long as your chili gets hot all the way through, halving your cooking time should be adequate.

It also has to do with whether the recipe calls for canned beans (already cooked), or dry (cook time for the beans needs to be included).

CakeBeret

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4247
Re: The "This Might Be A Stupid Question, But...." Thread
« Reply #5996 on: November 05, 2012, 05:47:42 PM »
Why is there so much disparity between cooking time for Chili con carne?

Different people have different interpretations of what "cooked" is when it comes to chili. ;)

Some people consider "heated through" to be cooked. Others believe that a longer cooking time is important for the flavors to meld. My brother in law considers chili cooked for less than four hours to be "raw". I prefer to cook mine for several hours in a crock pot, but I also don't object to cooking it for thirty minutes on the stovetop. So as long as your chili gets hot all the way through, halving your cooking time should be adequate.

It also has to do with whether the recipe calls for canned beans (already cooked), or dry (cook time for the beans needs to be included).

I've never seen a chili recipe that included dry beans, because (I'm pretty sure) dry beans are not supposed to be cooked with tomatoes and most chili has tomatoes, in some form, in it. I believe that the acid in tomatoes will prevent the beans from becoming tender.
"From a procrastination standpoint, today has been wildly successful."

ladyknight1

  • Super Hero!
  • ****
  • Posts: 7110
  • Operating the logic hammer since 1987.
Re: The "This Might Be A Stupid Question, But...." Thread
« Reply #5997 on: November 05, 2012, 07:30:24 PM »
Why is there so much disparity between cooking time for Chili con carne?

Different people have different interpretations of what "cooked" is when it comes to chili. ;)

Some people consider "heated through" to be cooked. Others believe that a longer cooking time is important for the flavors to meld. My brother in law considers chili cooked for less than four hours to be "raw". I prefer to cook mine for several hours in a crock pot, but I also don't object to cooking it for thirty minutes on the stovetop. So as long as your chili gets hot all the way through, halving your cooking time should be adequate.

My DFIL does not believe anything needs to simmer longer than absolutely necessary to ensure everything is up to temperature. I do not miss those days. Get a pot of chili, stew or soup ready and simmering on the stove for a few hours, come back an hour later to check it and half of it is gone. Some of the ingredients hadn't even been added!

I cook my chile con carne for two hours once the browning has occurred and the liquids added. I cook it for one hour with the lid on, and one with the lid off. Just be sure to stir all the way to the bottom of the pot. I have had a few pots scorch from the bottom not being stirred.

VorFemme

  • Super Hero!
  • ****
  • Posts: 12774
  • Strolls with scissors! Too tired to run today!
Re: The "This Might Be A Stupid Question, But...." Thread
« Reply #5998 on: November 05, 2012, 07:58:47 PM »
Why is there so much disparity between cooking time for Chili con carne?

Different people have different interpretations of what "cooked" is when it comes to chili. ;)

Some people consider "heated through" to be cooked. Others believe that a longer cooking time is important for the flavors to meld. My brother in law considers chili cooked for less than four hours to be "raw". I prefer to cook mine for several hours in a crock pot, but I also don't object to cooking it for thirty minutes on the stovetop. So as long as your chili gets hot all the way through, halving your cooking time should be adequate.

My DFIL does not believe anything needs to simmer longer than absolutely necessary to ensure everything is up to temperature. I do not miss those days. Get a pot of chili, stew or soup ready and simmering on the stove for a few hours, come back an hour later to check it and half of it is gone. Some of the ingredients hadn't even been added!

I cook my chile con carne for two hours once the browning has occurred and the liquids added. I cook it for one hour with the lid on, and one with the lid off. Just be sure to stir all the way to the bottom of the pot. I have had a few pots scorch from the bottom not being stirred.

VorGuy came in one day and started eating out of the crock pot while I was still adding ingredients.  Fortunately for him, the recipe was intended to be made with "leftover" cooked turkey (recipe was turned in to the recipe thread years ago - Turkey Machacha) and he was amazed to find that it tasted even better the next day....after it cooked overnight on low heat.
Let sleeping dragons be.......morning breath......need I say more?

ladyknight1

  • Super Hero!
  • ****
  • Posts: 7110
  • Operating the logic hammer since 1987.
Re: The "This Might Be A Stupid Question, But...." Thread
« Reply #5999 on: November 05, 2012, 08:36:44 PM »
It was just so frustrating to me, like someone eating half the cake batter before I baked the cake. If I am cooking dinner and do not ask for help with it, leave it alone! There were snacks everywhere in the house, so I don't know why DFIL did that!