Sign up ×
Skeptics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for scientific skepticism. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Claim: Drinking distilled water can actually remove needed minerals from the body, due the lack of minerals in the water, and therefore do damage to the body.

I have a hard time accepting this due to amount of minerals that can be found in the body. However, I know that you can drown the body by drinking to much water and that body does use water to remove waste from it cells.

share|improve this question
Welcome to Skeptics! We want to focus our attention on doubtful claims that are widely held or are made by notable people. Please provide some references to places where this claim is being made. – Oddthinking Jul 29 '11 at 15:46
@Odd I've heard this claim quite a few times now, in variants from just being unhealthy to being lethal. – Mad Scientist Jul 29 '11 at 17:05
@Fabian, I've heard pseudo-science claims that the water you drink must be pure, but I had never heard claims it must be impure! – Oddthinking Jul 29 '11 at 18:17
@Odd, I've just heard it through different conversations with nutritionist. I unaware of any physical or notable source. – Scott Jul 29 '11 at 18:43
I have heard anecdotally about athletes using distilled water to DEHYDRATE themselves (in order to lose weight to make specified weight limits for boxing/wrestling/judo/etc). Supposedly, the distilled water somehow forces more water out through your urine/sweat than is put in via drinking it, kinda like how celery is calorie-negative when you eat it. – Graham Oct 14 at 20:19

3 Answers 3

up vote 10 down vote accepted

This is true.

I did some digging: the Wikipedia article on water purification linked to a study by the WHO that discusses the risks of drinking demineralised water.

It states

It has been adequately demonstrated that consuming water of low mineral content has a negative effect on homeostasis mechanisms, compromising the mineral and water metabolism in the body

This means that it interferes with the body's attempts to keep the pH and mineral composition of internal organs constant, which is a more exact way of saying that it removes minerals from your body.

It reports some of the effects:

Results of experiments in human volunteers evaluated by researchers for the WHO report are in agreement with those in animal experiments and suggest the basic mechanism of the effects of water low in TDS (e.g. < 100 mg/L) on water and mineral homeostasis. Low-mineral water markedly: 1.) increased diuresis (almost by 20%, on average), body water volume, and serum sodium concentrations, 2.) decreased serum potassium concentration, and 3.) increased the elimination of sodium, potassium, chloride, calcium and magnesium ions from the body.

The report warns of other indirect downsides of demineralised water, including corrosion of pipes, and reduction of minerals from food cooked with it.

Ref: Health Risks From Drinking Demineralised Water, Frantisek Kozisek, Water safety plan manual: Step-by-step risk management for drinking-water suppliers, 2009, Chapter 12.

share|improve this answer
To me this seems fairly intuitive. Distilled water has nothing but water and your body moves things around using (among other things) osmosis. Since osmosis tends towards equilibrium, adding some nothing to your body would tend to drain whatever you previously had. But regarding hyponatremic shock, it can happen with any water that doesn't have the required salts or electrolytes normally found in your body. – Mr. Shiny and New 安宇 Jul 29 '11 at 17:28
I disagree. This didn't strike me as intuitive at all. I was surprised by the result. Note: if we are merely talking about replacing the litre or so of water drunk per day with demineralized water and maintaining a healthy diet which includes plenty of minerals in your food, much (not all!) of the evidence in the WHO paper and all of the hyponatremic shock info is irrelevant. – Oddthinking Jul 29 '11 at 18:00
@Oddthinking: If you're saying "Take a normal diet and replace whatever water is consumed with distilled water", then you are probably right in that it is a minor reduction in minerals. If, however, you add a significant quantity of distilled water, it seems obvious to me that it would upset the balance to a greater degree than normal water. – Mr. Shiny and New 安宇 Jul 29 '11 at 18:16
@Mr.ShinyandNew: Okay. Sounds like we agree. And that if you drink 4+ litres of any sort of water in a short period, you are risking hyponatremic shock. (LD50 for water seems to be about 90-190 mL/kg, but I haven't found a reliable source.) – Oddthinking Jul 29 '11 at 18:34
-1; this doesn't make physical sense. The difference in osmotic shock between the ~1 mM concentration of stuff in "normal" water and ~0 mM in distilled water is negligible; rainwater is used in many places and has no appreciable ionic content; the rest of the water doesn't know whether the ions are present, so claims of toxicity and "aggressiveness" are silly; one can gain equivalent salts by eating a couple of potato chips per liter; etc. etc.. No fault of yours, devtesla, but this answer needs much better evidence; I can't in good conscience not downvote something almost surely wrong. – Rex Kerr Oct 6 '11 at 5:51

This is not true, not in any meaningful sense.

First of all, non-distilled water has extremely widely varying levels of various minerals; for example among U.S. cities magnesium concentration varies by 300-fold (and other minerals also vary widely). Since leeching is proportional to concentration difference, the difference between zero and a tiny trace is much less chemically significant than the difference between a tiny trace and a 300-fold larger trace.

Second of all, the minerals in drinking water are, for a balanced diet, overwhelmed by the minerals present in food. For example, in the U.S. cities list, if you drink 2L of water of the highest mineral concentration, you would get 120, 180, 220, and 30 mg of magnesium, calcium, sodium, and potassium, respectively. The daily recommended intake (linked from here) for 19-30 year old males is 400, 1000, 1500, and 4700 mg. These differences are vast, and are similarly large for the other minerals I've checked. Certainly, since water has no memory, drinking distilled water wouldn't take away more than 120 mg of magnesium beyond what drinking the highest magnesium concentration tap water in the U.S., and this is a negligible amount compared to the daily intake.

However, if one has poor nutrition to begin with, water may provide (no guarantees, given the large variations!) enough of some mineral to alleviate negative impacts on health. Still, that distilled water is "removing minerals" is not a useful way to think about it. Yes, of course when we excrete waste products, some minerals go along; if you're short of some mineral, you'll then be even shorter. If you're lucky enough to have the deficiency covered by the water you drink, then you'll of course do better if you don't change water supplies. But the mineralization of water is widely variable, and it is not the distinction between distilled and undistilled but the particular concentration of particular minerals in particular water that is important. For example, if you're desperately short of calcium, 180 mg/day from water is going to be a lot better for you than 0 mg/day!

Short version: mineral content in water has a minimal to negligible impact in the context of good nutrition; it is possible for there to be enough of a mineral in a water supply to make a difference in the context of poor nutrition.

share|improve this answer
Interesting: In this answer we have a plausible-sounding speculation that the reduced minerals in the water would be covered by those in a balanced diet. In the accepted answer, we have a link to a WHO report which summarises experimental results, and says "Apparently the reduced mineral intake from water was not compensated by their diets, even if the animals were kept on standardized diet that was physiologically adequate in caloric value, nutrients and salt composition." Can you give reasons why we should ignore this experimental data over an (apparently untested) hypothesis? – Oddthinking Nov 7 '11 at 0:49
@Oddthinking - Did you read the report? Almost all the "data" is from a single study from the USSR, briefly summarized, with almost no information about experimental protocol. Unless someone can find the original article in Russian, I'm not sure we really have data. The rest is consistent with my summary that minerals in water can partially make up for poor nutrition but not with the original claim that "distilled water can actually remove needed minerals from the body, due the lack of minerals in the water". (Calcium and magnesium seem to exert a mild protective effect.) – Rex Kerr Nov 7 '11 at 4:05

I looked this up and this is what I found (with statements from multiple doctors and health experts to back up the preceding article and all it's information-including the Q&A section):

The information is all presented very clearly.

share|improve this answer

We're looking for long answers that provide some explanation and context. Don't just give a one-line answer; explain why your answer is right, ideally with citations. Answers that don't include explanations may be removed.

Welcome to Skeptics! Thanks for providing a reference, but this reference is, frankly, terrible. There's no empirical evidence for any of its claims. Most of the "experts" aren't. The quotes are cherry-picked. Almost every claim made is fictional. And to top it off, it quotes the bible as a scientific source. I highly recommend discarding any advice you learnt from this document. – Oddthinking Oct 12 at 5:32

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.