The association between water intake and future cardiometabolic disease outcomes in the Malmö Diet and Cancer cardiovascular cohort

Harriet A Carroll; Ulrika Ericson; Filip Ottosson; Sofia Enhörning; Olle Melander

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0296778

. 2024 Jan 19;19(1):e0296778. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0296778

The association between water intake and future cardiometabolic disease outcomes in the Malmö Diet and Cancer cardiovascular cohort

Harriet A Carroll ^1,^2,^*, Ulrika Ericson ¹, Filip Ottosson ¹, Sofia Enhörning ¹, Olle Melander ¹

Editor: William M Adams³

PMCID: PMC10798487 PMID: 38241317

Abstract

The aim of this study was to explore the longitudinal association between reported baseline water intake and incidence of coronary artery disease (CAD) and type 2 diabetes in the Malmö Diet and Cancer Cohort (n = 25,369). Using cox proportional hazards models, we separately modelled the effect of plain and total (all water, including from food) water on CAD and type 2 diabetes risk, whilst adjusting for age, sex, diet collection method, season, smoking status, alcohol intake, physical activity, education level, energy intake, energy misreporting, body mass index, hypertension, lipid lowering medication, apolipoprotein A, apolipoprotein B, and dietary variables. Sensitivity analyses were run to assess validity. After adjustment, no association was found between tertiles of plain or total water intake and type 2 diabetes risk. For CAD, no association was found comparing moderate to low intake tertiles from plain or total water, however, risk of CAD increased by 12% (95% CI 1.03, 1.21) when comparing high to low intake tertiles of plain water, and by 17% (95% CI 1.07, 1.27) for high versus low tertiles of total water. Sensitivity analyses were largely in agreement. Overall, baseline water intake was not associated with future type 2 diabetes risk, whilst CAD risk was higher with higher water intakes. Our findings are discordant with prevailing literature suggesting higher water intakes should reduce cardiometabolic risk. These findings may be an artefact of limitations within the study, but future research is needed to understand if there is a causal underpinning.

Introduction

Hydration status and fluid intake are often cited as important factors in influencing several health outcomes, such as gluco-regulatory and cardiovascular health [1, 2]. There is value in understanding this relationship considering the accessibility of increasing fluid intake compared to other dietary interventions.

In terms of gluco-regulatory health, previous findings have been mixed, with possible hints towards sex-differences. Roussel et al. [3] found a non-linear relationship between higher water intake and lower risk of hyperglycaemia in a French cohort. Carroll et al. [4] supported these findings in a small UK cohort, demonstrating lower diabetes risk score being associated with increased water intake, whilst in a Swedish cohort, high urine osmolality and copeptin (surrogate marker of arginine vasopressin [AVP]) were associated with higher fasting plasma glucose concentrations [5]. However, in an exclusively female US cohort, no association was found between water intake and type 2 diabetes risk [6]. Such findings may be explained by sex differences; indeed in a UK cohort, higher plain water intake was associated with lower risk of elevated glycated haemoglobin in men but not women [4].

In terms of cardiovascular health, plasma osmolality has been shown to be higher (which may indicate lower fluid intake) in patients presenting with stroke versus healthy controls [7]. In the Adventist Health Study, high and moderate water intake was associated with lower risk of fatal coronary heart disease in men and women, respectively [8]. Conversely, Sontrop et al. [9] found no association between water intake and cardiovascular disease, and Leurs et al. [10] found no association between total fluid or water intake and ischemic heart disease or stroke mortality in neither men nor women.

Many mechanisms have been proposed to explain the link between low water intake and increased risk of cardiometabolic disease, such as cell volume-mediated hormone signalling, blood viscosity, and decreased satiety resulting in positive energy balance [8, 11, 12]. The prevailing mechanism much research has focused on is elevations in AVP induced from low fluid intake. Elevated AVP theoretically could increase hepatic glucose output via acting on the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis resulting in higher cortisol levels via V1b receptors [13]; we have previously proposed that high AVP caused from low fluid intake could elicit a Cushing’s syndrome-like phenotype due to the lack of negative feedback loop in AVP-mediated adrenocorticotropic hormone release [14]. Accordingly, consuming water to reduce AVP should help to inhibit this circuit. Further, AVP acts on V1a receptors which may mediate glycogenolysis, gluconeogenesis, and glucagon release, thus resulting in insulin resistance [15], all implicated in metabolic and cardiovascular health.

Indeed, consuming additional water has been shown to reduce circulating AVP (measured by its surrogate marker, copeptin) [16, 17], and thus may have therapeutic potential. Further, several studies have repeatedly shown predictive value of copeptin (a stable biomarker of AVP) in relation to the metabolic syndrome, type 2 diabetes, and cardiovascular diseases [5, 18–21]. However, methodologies with stronger causal inference have provided less certainty, with some showing improved glycaemia with increasing water to reduce AVP/copeptin [22], whilst others showing no effect [16, 23]. Such controlled studies have thus far been conducted in short-term settings only, potentially explaining the lack of obvious health benefits which may occur only after long-term exposure.

Therefore, there is much to understand regarding the relationship between water intake and cardiometabolic health. Accordingly, the aim of this study is to explore the association between reported water intake at a baseline exam and incidence of coronary artery disease (CAD) and type 2 diabetes during long-term follow-up in the Malmö Diet and Cancer Cohort (MDC). We hypothesise that higher water intakes will be associated with lower CAD and type 2 diabetes risk.

Methods

Study design and population

The present analyses use data from the MDC which is a prospective cohort from Sweden. All men born between 1923 and 1945 and all women born between 1923 and 1950, fluent in Swedish, and residing in Malmö from 1991–1995 were eligible to participate. Participants were chosen via random selection using the municipal registry along with local advertisements and recommendations from other participants. Complete baseline measures were taken between January 1991 and September 1996 from n = 28,098 study volunteers. Detailed descriptions of the cohort have previously been published [24, 25]. At baseline anthropometrics were measured; approximately two weeks later, questionnaires were completed at home and an interview was conducted to complete dietary data collection. A baseline blood draw was taken from a subset of ~6000 participants which identified prevalent type 2 diabetes. The study was approved by the Ethical committee at Lund University (LU-51-90) and written consent was obtained by study participants.

Measure of diet

Dietary data were collected via a modified diet history method designed to capture both current and usual diet (described previously [26]), which included: (i) a 7-day food diary mainly covering lunch and dinner meals; (ii) a 168-item semi-quantitative diet history food frequency questionnaire (FFQ) of regularly eaten foods outside the main meals and not covered by the food diary; (iii) a 45–60 min diet history interview including questions about usual portion sizes, food preparation practices, and to check for overlap between the food diary and the FFQ. The validity of these methods has previously been reported [27]. These data were summarised and converted to nutrient intakes based upon the Swedish Food Database PC KOST2-93. The coding routines were slightly changed in Sept 1994 to shorten the interview time. The change did not have any major influence on the ranking on individuals on dietary intakes [26]. For the present analyses, water was defined in two different ways, with intakes split into tertiles to determine low, moderate, and high intakes for analyses:

Plain water: sum of mineral and tap water intake (average data intake recorded in the food diary)
Total water: reported average daily intake of all foods and beverages ([intake frequencies recorded in the 7-day food diary × portion sizes from the diary or diet history interview] + [intake frequencies × portion sizes from the FFQ]) was converted to water intake by multiplying with factors for water content obtained from PC KOST2-93 and summed

For model adjustment, non-water beverages was also used which included all beverages except plain water (as defined above).

A variable to identify likely energy misreporting was created, based upon having an energy intake to estimated basal metabolic rate ratio outside the 95% confident interval (CI) limits of the estimated physical activity level (from a structured questionnaire), using logistic regression to assess the risk of being a low- or high-energy reporter [28].

Measure of disease

We used record linkage with national registries to retrieve prevalent and incident CAD events (i.e. fatal and non-fatal myocardial infarction, death due to coronary heart disease, or revascularization procedures) as described previously [29]. Diabetes was determined either via questionnaire data on a physician diagnosis of diabetes, being on antidiabetic medication, having a fasting blood glucose ≥ 6.1 mmol·L^-1 (which corresponds to a fasting plasma glucose of 7.0 mmol, L^-1) in the subsample who had a baseline blood sample, or through record linkage with national or local diabetes registries, as described previously [30].

Measure of other variables

Demographic and characteristic data, such as smoking and age, were collected by validated questionnaires at baseline. Current smoking was defined as any smoking within the last year. Blood pressure was measured twice at the baseline visit using a mercury column sphygmomanometer after 5 min rest in the cumbent position. Physical activity was measured using a modified Minnesota leisure time physical activity questionnaire that was later validated within the MDC cohort [31]. For the present analysis, physical activity levels were divided into quintiles of activity. Height, weight, waist, and hip circumference were measured without shoes and rounded to the nearest cm or 0.1 kg (as appropriate). In a subsample, 45 mL blood was drawn in an overnight fasted state, and plasma and serum supernatants were frozen at -80 °C after centrifugation [24].

Statistical analysis

Participants who had a history of CAD or type 2 diabetes (meeting any diabetes criteria, as described above) at baseline (in order to assess the relationship with new-onset disease risk), or had missing data of exposures relevant to the analyses, were excluded from further analyses (Fig 1). Based on previous work suggesting potential sex differences [11], an interaction effect was tested by adding a multiplicative factor to the model (sex*tertile water intake treated as continuous).

Descriptive statistics of participant characteristics and dietary intake are presented as the entire sample, and according to tertiles (median [interquartile range, IQR] plain water intakes: low: 199 [93, 298]; moderate: 564 [474, 662]; high: 1140 [945, 1506] mL/d) of plain water. Data were non-normally distributed (according to PP and QQ plots, and Kolmogorov-Smirnov test); as such data are presented as medians and IQR for continuous variables, or percentage of the sample for categorical variables. Kruskal-Wallis (with Dunn-Bonferroni post hoc comparisons) or Chi square were used to analyse descriptive data. Linear trends for continuous descriptive data were assessed with a univariate general linear model. Pearson’s r was used to investigate correlations between different water intakes (plain and total water) and dietary factors.

Cox proportional hazards model was used to estimate the hazard ratio (HR) of tertiles of plain and total water intake to CAD or type 2 diabetes incidence. Tertiles were used to avoid outliers at the upper intakes skewing the coefficients. Models were run without adjustment (model 1), followed by additional adjustment for: age, sex, diet method version, season (model 2); smoking, alcohol intake, physical activity level, education (model 3); energy intake, energy misreporting category, BMI, hypertension, lipid lowering medication, apolipoprotein A, apolipoprotein B (model 4); processed meat, wholegrains, and for plain water only: total water minus plain water (to account for the hydrating properties of non-plain water fluid). All variables were checked for the proportional hazards assumption by including a time-dependent covariate. Some variables violated this assumption. To test their impact, we re-ran the analyses omitting these variables, and also stratified the analyses by these variables (pre-defined categories or median split). Data were analysed using SPSS (version 27, IBM), with α = 0.05.

Sensitivity analyses additionally analysed:

(i) plain and total water in cups (240 mL) per day (as per Carroll et al., 2016 [11]) (as categorisation can reduce power); (ii) model without reporter category adjustment (in case there was collinearity with other included variables such as BMI and as reporting accuracy could not be considered as a confounder as it does not influence disease development); (iii) plausible energy reporters only (to reduce the chance that those more likely reporting inaccurately were influencing results); (iv) removal of the top 10% of fluid intakes (to account for potential illness-induced polydipsia and misreporters); (v) removal of those with type 2 diabetes/CAD within 2 years of baseline measurements (in case recent awareness of ill-health/diagnosis altered health behaviours); (vi) inclusion of hypertensive participants only (to see whether pathology could be influencing results); (vii) inclusion of normotensive participants only (to see whether pathology could be influencing results); (viii) energy adjusted dietary variables (to ensure results were not skewed by relative intake levels); (ix) excluding diet changers (to remove the influence of known dietary changes which could add noise to the data). Sensitivity analyses are presented in the S1 Table.

Results

Mean (± standard deviation) follow-up time to incident diagnosis was 20 ± 7 (median 23, IQR 17, 25) years for CAD, and 20 ± 7 (median 23, IQR 15, 25) years for type 2 diabetes. A total of n = 25,369 participants were included in these analyses (n = 15,789 women). Out of these, 14.7% had new onset CAD, and 16.7% had new onset type 2 diabetes during follow-up. Tertiles of plain water intake represent low, moderate, and high intakes and are defined as a median intake of 199 (IQR 93, 298), 564 (IQR 474, 662), and 1140 (IQR 945, 1506) g/d, respectively. There was no sex interaction, so analyses were not sex-stratified. Table 1 shows baseline participant data overall and split by tertiles of plain water intake. The average (median) age was 57 (IQR 51, 64) years, and median BMI was 25.1 (IQR 22.9, 27.7) kg/m².

Table 1. Participant characteristics according to plain water intake.

	Total sample	Low intake	Moderate intake	High intake	P-value	p _trend
	N = 25,369	n = 8454	n = 8455	n = 8460	P-value	p _trend
Sex (% women)	62.2	63.7	61.6	61.4	0.002	0.002
Age (y)	57 (51, 64)	56 (51, 63)	58 (51, 64)^a	57 (51, 64)^b	< 0.001	0.012
BMI (kg/m²)	25.1 (22.9, 27.7)	25.0 (22.8, 27.5)	25.1 (22.9, 27.7)^a	25.3 (23.0, 28.1)^a^,^b	< 0.001	< 0.001
Apolipoprotein A1 (mg∙L^-1)	155 (138, 174)	152 (136, 171)	155 (139, 175)^a	157 (140, 177)^a^,^b	0.001	< 0.001
Apolipoprotein B (mg∙L^-1)	105 (88, 123)	106 (89, 124)	105 (89, 123)^a	103 (87, 121)^a^,^b	< 0.001	< 0.001
Hypertension (%)	60.0	58.5	60.6	60.9	0.002	0.001
Currently smoke (%)	28.4	32.3	26.2	26.9	< 0.001	< 0.001
Lipid lowering medication use (%)	2.1	1.8	2.2	2.3	0.044	0.021
Dietary changers (%)	21.3	15.5	20.8	27.7	< 0.001	< 0.001
CAD incidence (%)	14.7	15.8	14.4	13.9	0.002	< 0.001
Diabetes incidence (%)	16.7	16.8	16.7	16.7	0.996	0.967
Physical activity score (%):
Quintile 1	20.0	23.6	19.4	16.9	< 0.001	< 0.001
Quintile 2	19.6	19.8	21.0	18.1
Quintile 3	19.8	18.5	20.3	19.5
Quintile 4	19.9	18.4	19.9	21.5
Quintile 5	20.7	18.7	19.4	24.0
Education level (%):
≤ 8 y	41.1	41.9	40.1	41.2	< 0.001	0.159
9–10 y	26.4	24.5	27.1	27.6
11–13 y	17.9	19.1	17.6	17.1
University degree	14.6	14.6	15.2	14.1

Open in a new tab

Data are percentage in each category, or median (interquartile range). Data analysed using Chi square or Kruskal-Wallis with post hoc Bonferroni or Dunn Bonferroni adjustment, respectively

^a P-value ≤ 0.001 compared to low

^b P-value ≤ 0.033 compared to moderate

Table 2 shows a breakdown of dietary variables according to reported plain water intake. Non-water beverages were similar across tertiles of plain water intake, varying by ~100 g/d across quintiles, with similar variation in total water (sum of all water, including that obtained from food). Energy intake had a trend to decrease as plain water intake increased (2298 [IQR 1913, 2764] kcal/d at low plain water intake, decreasing to 2089 [IQR 1745, 2522] kcal/d at high plain water intake; p_trend < 0.001). Macronutrient composition was fairly stable across tertiles of plain water intake. Wholegrain, fish, fruit, and vegetable intake tended to increase with higher plain water intake (all p_trend < 0.001) (Table 2).

Table 2. Dietary variables according to plain water intake.

	Total sample	Low intake	Moderate intake	High intake	P _diff	p _trend
	N = 25,369	n = 8454	n = 8455	n = 8460	P _diff	p _trend
Plain water (g/d)	564 (297, 945)	199 (93, 298)	564 (474, 662)^a	1140 (945, 1506)^a^,^b	< 0.001	-
Non-water beverages (g/d)	1858 (1534, 2248)	1913 (1586, 2323)	1851 (1537, 2221)^a	1808 (1476, 2203)^a^,^b	< 0.001	< 0.001
Total water (g/d)	2517 (2086, 3041)	2118 (1784, 2517)	2421 (2103, 2806)^a	3071 (2645, 3572)^a^,^b	< 0.001	< 0.001
EI (kcal/d)	2194 (1829, 2640)	2298 (1913, 2764)	2194 (1851, 2619)^a	2089 (1745, 2522)^a^,^b	< 0.001	< 0.001
EI reporter category (%):
Under	15.1	13.3	13.9	18.2	< 0.001	< 0.001
Adequate	81.8	83.2	83.0	79.1
Over	3.1	3.5	3.1	2.7
Healthy diet pattern (%)*:
Quintile 1	15.5	21.6	14.0	10.7	< 0.001	< 0.001
Quintile 2	15.5	18.9	15.5	12.1
Quintile 3	15.6	16.4	16.7	13.7
Quintile 4	15.7	14.6	16.4	16.0
Quintile 5	15.6	12.0	15.8	19.0
Carbohydrate (%E)	46 (42, 50)	46 (42, 50)	46 (42, 50)^a	47 (43, 51)^a^,^b	< 0.001	< 0.001
Sucrose (%E)	8 (6, 10)	8 (6, 11)	8 (6, 10)^a	8 (6, 10)^a^,^b	< 0.001	< 0.001
Fibre (g/1000 kcal)	9 (7, 11)	8 (7, 10)	9 (8, 11)^a	10 (8, 12)^a^,^b	< 0.001	< 0.001
Fat (%E)	38 (34, 42)	39 (35, 43)	39 (34, 42)^a	37 (33, 41)^a^,^b	< 0.001	< 0.001
Saturated fat (%E)	16 (14, 19)	17 (14, 19)	16 (14, 19)^a	16 (13, 18)^a^,^b	< 0.001	< 0.001
MUFA (%E)	13 (12, 15)	14 (12, 15)	13 (12, 15)^a	13 (11, 15)^a^,^b	< 0.001	< 0.001
PUFA (%E)	6 (5, 7)	6 (5, 7)	6 (5, 7)^a	6 (5, 7)^a^,^b	0.108	< 0.001
Protein (%E)	15 (14, 17)	15 (13, 16)	15 (14, 17)^a	16 (14, 17)^a^,^b	< 0.001	< 0.001
Wholegrain (portions/d)	0.7 (0.3, 1.4)	0.5 (0.2, 1.1)	0.8 (0.3, 1.4)^a	0.9 (0.4, 1.6)^a^,^b	< 0.001	< 0.001
Processed meat (g/d)	32 (17, 52)	36 (20, 57)	32 (17, 52)^a	29 (15, 47)^a^,^b	< 0.001	< 0.001
Fish (g/d)	36 (20, 58)	34 (17, 55)	38 (21, 58)^a	38 (22, 60)^a	< 0.001	< 0.001
Fruit (g/d)	171 (106, 261)	146 (86, 228)	174 (111, 260)^a	200 (125, 291)^a^,^b	< 0.001	< 0.001
Vegetables (g/d)	163 (113, 227)	146 (102, 204)	163 (116, 226)^a	179 (124, 253)^a^,^b	< 0.001	< 0.001
Alcohol (g/d)	7 (2, 15)	8 (2, 17)	7 (2, 15)^a	6 (1, 13)^a^,^b	< 0.001	< 0.001
Tea (g/d)	32 (0, 225)	21 (0, 225)	43 (0, 225)^a	32 (0, 225)^b	< 0.001	0.240
Coffee (g/d)	450 (250, 675)	450 (300, 750)	450 (250, 675)^a	450 (225, 675)^a	< 0.001	< 0.001
SSB (g/d)	8 (0, 94)	29 (0, 129)	21 (0, 94)^a	0 (0, 57)^a^,^b	< 0.001	< 0.001
Fruit juice (g/d)	1 (0, 100)	0 (1, 100)	0 (1, 114)^a	1 (0, 86)^b	< 0.001	0.033
Low fat milk (g/d)	102 (0, 293)	95 (0, 281)	111 (0, 298)^a	100 (0, 304)^a	< 0.001	0.003
High fat milk (g/d)	33 (11, 95)	36 (13, 117)	34 (12, 99)^a	30 (10, 75)^a^,^b	< 0.001	< 0.001

Open in a new tab

Data are percentage in each category, or median (interquartile range). Data analysed using Chi square or Kruskal-Wallis with post hoc Bonferroni or Dunn Bonferroni adjustment, respectively. Abbreviations: %E, percent total energy intake; EI, energy intake; MUFA, monounsaturated fatty acid; PUFA, polyunsaturated fatty acid; SSB, sugar-sweetened beverage. Plain water = tap + mineral water

Healthy diet pattern: n = 19,750 (low n = 7066; moderate n = 6629; high n = 6055)

^a P-value < 0.05 compared to low

^b P-value < 0.001 compared to moderate

Fig 2 shows the correlation between different water intakes and diet variables. Plain and total water were strongly positively correlated (r = 0.640), as did non-water beverages and total water (r = 0.718). Healthy eating pattern (described previously [32]) was weakly positively associated with water intake (r = 0.165 plain water; r = 0.175 total water). Energy intake was weakly negatively correlated with plain water (r = -0.130) but weakly positively correlated with total water intake (r = 0.322). Fruit and vegetable intake were both weakly positively correlated to plain and total water intake, reflecting similar associations for fibre intake (Fig 2).

Table 3 shows that in unadjusted models, highest tertile of total water intake (HR 1.10, 95% CI 1.02, 1.19) but not highest tertile of plain water intake (HR 1.01, 95% CI 0.94, 1.09) was associated with higher risk of type 2 diabetes compared to the lowest tertile of intake. After full adjustment, neither were associated with type 2 diabetes (both plain and total water HR 1.07, 95% CI 0.99, 1.16). No association between plain nor total water was found at moderate compared to low intake (Table 3 and S1 Fig).

Table 3. Cox hazard model for tertiles of plain water and total water intake and type 2 diabetes and coronary artery disease.

	HR	95% CI	p	HR	95% CI	p
	Plain water			Total water
	Type 2 diabetes
	Moderate (versus low) intake			Moderate (versus low) intake
Model 1	0.99	0.92, 1.06	0.748	1.03	0.96, 1.11	0.407
Model 2	1.07	0.99, 1.15	0.090	1.03	0.96, 1.11	0.413
Model 3	1.10	1.02, 1.18	0.018	1.08	1.00, 1.16	0.047
Model 4	1.04	0.97, 1.12	0.291	1.03	0.96, 1.12	0.386
Model 5	1.05	0.97, 1.13	0.202	1.04	0.96, 1.12	0.301
	High (versus low) intake			High (versus low) intake
Model 1	1.01	0.94, 1.09	0.813	1.10	1.02, 1.19	0.011
Model 2	1.15	1.07, 1.24	< 0.001	1.12	1.04, 1.21	0.003
Model 3	1.19	1.10, 1.28	< 0.001	1.19	1.10, 1.28	< 0.001
Model 4	1.06	0.98, 1.14	0.167	1.05	0.97, 1.14	0.220
Model 5	1.07	0.99, 1.16	0.075	1.07	0.99, 1.16	0.107
	Coronary artery disease
	Moderate (versus low) intake			Moderate (versus low) intake
Model 1	0.89	0.83, 0.97	0.005	0.96	0.89, 1.04	0.318
Model 2	1.00	0.93, 1.08	0.993	1.00	0.92, 1.08	0.930
Model 3	1.04	0.96, 1.12	0.357	1.03	0.95, 1.11	0.503
Model 4	1.01	0.93, 1.09	0.834	1.03	0.95, 1.12	0.419
Model 5	1.02	0.94, 1.10	0.662	1.04	0.96 1.13	0.335
	High (versus low) intake			High (versus low) intake
Model 1	0.88	0.82, 0.96	0.002	0.99	0.92, 1.08	0.883
Model 2	1.12	1.03, 1.21	0.008	1.13	1.04, 1.22	0.003
Model 3	1.15	1.06, 1.25	< 0.001	1.15	1.06, 1.25	< 0.001
Model 4	1.11	1.02, 1.20	0.013	1.15	1.06, 1.26	0.001
Model 5	1.13	1.04, 1.23	0.004	1.17	1.07, 1.27	< 0.001

Open in a new tab

Abbreviations: CI, confidence interval; HR, hazard ratio

Model 1: unadjusted

Model 2: model 1 + age, sex, diet method, season

Model 3: model 2 + smoking, alcohol intake, physical activity level, education

Model 4: model 3 + energy intake, energy intake misreporting, BMI, hypertension, lipid lowering medication, apolipoprotein A, apolipoprotein B

Model 5: model 4 + processed meat, wholegrains, and for plain water only: total water minus plain water

In the unadjusted model, high intake of total water had no association with CAD (HR 0.99, 95% CI 0.92, 1.08) compared to low water intake (Table 3). Adjustment in model 2 demonstrated an increased associated risk (HR 1.13, 95% CI 1.04, 1.22), which remained similar through further adjustment, resulting in a 17% increased risk associated with consuming high versus low total water (most adjusted model HR 1.17, 95% CI 1.07, 1.27). In terms of plain water, no association was found between CAD and moderate (relative to low) intake (most adjusted model HR 1.02, 95% CI 0.94, 1.10). However, when comparing high to low plain water intake, there was a 12% reduction in CAD risk before adjustment (HR 0.88, 95% CI 0.82, 0.86), which reversed with adjustment (most adjusted model HR 1.13, 95% CI 1.04, 1.23) (Table 3 and S1 Fig). Sensitivity analyses did not yield majorly conflicting results; these are available in the Supplementary Material (S1 Table). Removing and/or stratifying by variables that violated proportional hazard assumptions yielded largely similar results, though some deviations were noted (S2–S5 Tables).

Discussion

This analysis of > 25,000 Malmö residents showed both higher plain and total water intake to be associated with a marginally (12–17%) higher CAD risk compared to low water intake, after adjusting for relevant variables. These findings overall run contrary to previous studies which typically show plain water intake to either have no association with [9, 10], or lower risk of [8] cardiovascular outcomes. There was no association between plain nor total water intake and type 2 diabetes risk after adjusting for relevant variates. These findings are in line with one study [6], but not others [3, 4, 11, 33]. Contrary to previous research [11], we did not find evidence of these results being moderated by sex. Our findings therefore did not support our hypothesis.

For type 2 diabetes, there seems to be a consistent change in results (for both plain and total water) when adding adjustment for energy intake, energy intake misreporting, BMI, hypertension, lipid lowering medication, apolipoprotein A, apolipoprotein B. This could suggest such factors are affecting the relationship; for example, higher BMI is a risk for type 2 diabetes, and by proxy of higher energy intake and fluid needs, more water is consumed. Considering the relationship between BMI and cardiovascular health, it is unclear why such a consistent trend was not found for CAD. However, our findings for type 2 diabetes are in accordance with an acute randomised controlled trial, finding hypohydration did not impact gluco-regulation [23], thus improving causal inference of our present results.

We ran extensive sensitivity analyses that nearly all agreed with our main analysis, improving the robustness of our findings (discussed further below). One potential explanation for our results is that higher fluid intakes can be caused by pathology, such as polydipsia in uncontrolled type 2 diabetes. If this were the case, it is unclear why this is not a consistent finding in the literature, and indeed we removed baseline type 2 diabetes prevalence to mitigate such an artefact. One reason is that such an association may in part be mitigated by those with healthier lifestyles also consuming higher water intake [34]. Indeed in our analysis, fruit, vegetables, and fibre were positively correlated with higher water intakes. Markers of healthy diet were adjusted for, suggesting an effect of water independent of these lifestyle markers. Including only those who were normotensive removed the association between CAD and plain water intake when comparing high versus low intakes.

Such findings may suggest those with primary pathology are driving the association despite controlling for this statistically—notwithstanding the reduction in sample size which may skew results. Accordingly, we excluded those in the top 10% of water intakes in sensitivity analyses, to determine the effects of pathological polydipsia. Most associations remained similar to the original findings. However, when comparing high versus low intakes, type 2 diabetes risk increased for both plain (HR 1.06, 95% CI 1.00, 1.18) and total (HR 1.11, 95% CI 1.00, 1.23) water intakes (relative to null findings in our original analysis). This suggests those who consumed the highest 10% of water intake were more likely doing so due to behavioural decisions rather than high intakes being pathologically driven; if the polydipsia was pathologically driven, excluding these participants would be expected to attenuate associations. Alternatively, salt sensitivity may play a role; i.e. high salt intake with high fluid retention leading to copeptin suppression [35]. We did not include salt in these analyses due to difficulties accurately determining intake based on the dietary intake methods. However, considering the correlation between water intake and healthy eating patterns (which are lower in salt), there is little evidence from these analyses support this hypothesis.

For plain water, both type 2 diabetes and CAD were associated with 2% higher risk in continuous models, which is discordant with both our original analyses (with null associations between moderate versus low intakes), though suggests the relationship may not be linear as the results are in line with the comparisons between high versus low intakes for CAD. Categorising continuous variables can lead to loss of power and less accurate estimations [36]. We categorised the variables to remove the influence of outliers on linear modelling, particularly in the lower and upper ends of intake, which are known to vary considerably [37]. Indeed, in our cohort, plain and total water intake ranged from 0 to 5.18 L/d and 0.8 to 9.0 L/d, respectively, and in the sensitivity analysis described above excluding the top 10% of consumers suggest the continuous model may not have been skewed by water intake variability.

Our findings largely go against current ideas regarding the cardiometabolic effects of hydration and health physiology. Whilst there is perhaps some debate regarding whether water intake/hydration status can directly improve health [13], there is no widely accepted hypothesis offering an explanation for chronic negative health effects. Some evidence suggests acute water intake prior to eating increases the postprandial glycaemic response, perhaps due to increased gastric emptying [38, 39]; however these effects are not consistent [40]. Additionally, if this was an underlying mechanism, we would expect to find an increase in type 2 diabetes risk primarily rather than an increased CAD risk.

One hypothesis relating water intake to cardiometabolic health is the lack of negative feedback loop when activating the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis via AVP [14]. We did not include AVP (or copeptin) in the present analyses as this was only measured in a subgroup of the cohort making comparisons difficult, and cortisol was not measured at all. However, this hypothesis posits that higher water intake would reduce AVP, thus mitigating the ill-effects of AVP-mediated cortisol elevation. Considering previous studies by our group, using the same cohort as the present analyses [18–21], show copeptin to be predictive of cardiometabolic ill-health, the current findings may suggest these associations may have been driven by pathologically and/or genetically higher copeptin. Accordingly, whilst water intake has been shown to reduce copeptin [22, 23], these reductions may only be as low as individual setpoints allow. Thus, although water intake can reduce copeptin (at least acutely), it may not be able to overcome other factors that more strongly determine (chronic) copeptin levels and health outcomes, offering a potential explanation as to why water intake was not associated with better health outcomes in the present study. This explanation does not offer insight into why water intake was associated with increased risk of CAD, however.

The measurement of fluid intake is a key limitation to these analyses. Fluid, and particularly plain water intake, is difficult to accurately recall and record [41]. Thus, measurement error may have confounded our analyses. Unlike energy intake, for which we can estimate and adjust for implausible reporting, to our knowledge, there is currently no equivalent method available for determine the predicted accuracy of fluid intake. In addition, whilst splitting water intakes into tertiles prevented issues such as sample size differences skewing the results, and whilst we believe we captured sufficient differences in plain water intake between low (199 mL/d) and high (1140 mL/d) intakes, it could be argued that the high intake group still were not consuming high enough intakes to induce meaningful physiological changes.

Whilst this study was a longitudinal study, our findings may still be indicative of reverse causation. Measures were taken at baseline, and such healthful behaviours may have been in response to diagnosis and/or greater awareness of ill-health. Excluding those with a type 2 diabetes or CAD diagnosis in the first two years after baseline measurements (in sensitivity analyses) did not meaningfully change the findings, reducing the likelihood (albeit not removing entirely) of reverse causality explaining our results. In addition, it is likely that drinking behaviours change over time, and we are unable to quantify this change in these analyses. Fluid intake typically decreases with ageing, particularly after 60 years [42]. Based on this, we can assume participants likely reduced their fluid intake during the study period, and assume this is roughly proportional between participants. However, further research should confirm or refute this, and our results should be taken within the context of this unknown.

Excluding those who changed their diet pattern did not change hazard estimates for low compared to moderate water intakes for type 2 diabetes, though the comparison between low and high plain water intakes resulted in an increased risk (high compared to low plain water: HR 1.10, 95% CI 1.01, 1.21; total water: HR 1.13, 95% CI 1.01, 1.26). Results for CAD and plain and total water remained similar (increased risk for low versus high intake only). Speculatively, this may suggest that post-baseline dietary changes were conducive to maintaining gluco-regulatory health, and perhaps indicate some reverse causality such as those at higher risk improved their diet. It is unclear why these dietary changes would not similarly influence CAD risk though; such findings may be due to limitations such as loss of power in sensitivity analyses. Equally, we do not have data for post-baseline dietary changes.

We also found some assumption violations. Removing these variables from our model yielded some differences in results (S2 and S3 Tables), but it is unclear whether this was due to controlling for fewer variables or removing violations. To partially overcome this, we stratified our analyses by the offending variables, yielding largely similar results, though some differences were found (S4 and S5 Tables). Therefore some caution is required when interpreting our findings, and we emphasise the need for replication alongside mechanistic research.

In our analyses, plain and total water intake as the predictor variables yielded concordant results. Total water intake is more directly influenced by type and amount of food consumed, whereas plain water intake is primarily a behavioural decision. The agreement in our results between these two measures of water intake is interesting as they have many opposing correlations across other dietary variables, such as energy intake, processed meat, alcohol, and coffee. These dietary factors all may have the potential to independently influence CAD and type 2 diabetes. That our results were concordant between plain and total water perhaps suggests our statistical adjustment was sufficient to isolate effects of the water consumed.

Finally, our data are from a cohort of participants residing in Malmö, Sweden, between 1991–1995. The sampling method employed helped to improve representativeness but the generalisability of our results out with this cohort is unclear. Thus, our results may be an artefact of the study population, emphasising the need for similar work to replicate our analyses in other cohorts. That there were inconsistencies with some of our sensitivity analyses compared to our main analyses also raises the possibility that our findings are not reliable, further warranting more research.

Overall, we found that neither plain nor total water intake had an association with future type 2 diabetes risk, but when comparing high (not moderate) to low water intakes, CAD risk was increased by 12–17%. These findings are not explained by currently known mechanisms regarding hydration and health physiology, though should be taken in the context of the study design which cannot strongly infer causality. Future research should explore whether these findings are artefactual or have a mechanistic and causal explanation.

Supporting information

S1 Fig. Hazard ratios of the fully adjusted analyses across plain and total water and type 2 diabetes and coronary artery disease.

Data represent moderate or high tertiles of intake compared to low intake (reference). Error bars are 95% confidence intervals. * indicates HR is significant (p ≤ 0.05). Black dots (●) indicate plain water and type 2 diabetes; empty dots (○) indicate total water and type 2 diabetes; black triangles (▲) indicate plain water and coronary artery disease; empty triangles (Δ) indicate total water and coronary artery disease.

(TIF)

Click here for additional data file.^{(199.6KB, tif)}

S1 Table. Sensitivity analyses for type 2 diabetes and coronary artery disease.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.^{(25.8KB, docx)}

S2 Table. Type 2 diabetes analyses with variables that violate proportional hazard assumptions removed.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.^{(17KB, docx)}

S3 Table. Coronary artery disease analyses with variables that violate proportional hazard assumptions removed.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.^{(16.6KB, docx)}

S4 Table. Type 2 diabetes analyses stratified by variables that violate proportional hazard assumptions.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.^{(19.3KB, docx)}

S5 Table. Coronary artery disease analyses stratified by variables that violate proportional hazard assumptions.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.^{(18.6KB, docx)}

Data Availability

Due to ethical and legal restrictions related to the Swedish Biobanks in Medical Care Act (2002:297) and the Personal Data Act (1998:204) regarding deposition of data, data are available upon request via the authors or by contacting registrator@lu.se. Lund University, represented by the authors, is the authority obliged to follow Swedish legislation and can be contacted at registrator@lu.se.

Funding Statement

This project was funded by the Esther Olssons stiftelse II & Anna Jönssons Minnesfond (HC). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

1.Manz F. Hydration and Disease. J Am Coll Nutr. 2007;26: 535S–541S. doi: 10.1080/07315724.2007.10719655 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
2.Manz F, Wentz A. The Importance of Good Hydration for the Prevention of Chronic Diseases. Nutr Rev. 2005;63: S2–S5. doi: 10.1111/j.1753-4887.2005.tb00150.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
3.Roussel R, Fezeu L, Bouby N, Balkau B, Lantieri O, Alhenc-Gelas F, et al. Low Water Intake and Risk for New-Onset Hyperglycemia. Diabetes Care. 2011;34: 2551–2554. doi: 10.2337/dc11-0652 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
4.Carroll HA, Davis MG, Papadaki A. Higher plain water intake is associated with lower type 2 diabetes risk: a cross-sectional study in humans. Nutr Res. 2015;35: 865–872. doi: 10.1016/j.nutres.2015.06.015 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
5.Brunkwall L, Ericson U, Nilsson PM, Enhörning S. High water intake and low urine osmolality are associated with favorable metabolic profile at a population level: low vasopressin secretion as a possible explanation. Eur J Nutr. 2020;59: 3715–3722. doi: 10.1007/s00394-020-02202-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
6.Pan A, Malik VS, Schulze MB, Manson JE, Willett WC, Hu FB. Plain-water intake and risk of type 2 diabetes in young and middle-aged women. Am J Clin Nutr. 2012;95: 1454–1460. doi: 10.3945/ajcn.111.032698 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
7.Rodriguez GJ, Cordina SM, Vazquez G, Suri MFK, Kirmani JF, Ezzeddine MA, et al. The Hydration Influence on the Risk of Stroke (THIRST) Study. Neurocrit Care. 2009;10: 187–194. doi: 10.1007/s12028-008-9169-5 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
8.Chan J. Water, Other Fluids, and Fatal Coronary Heart Disease: The Adventist Health Study. Am J Epidemiol. 2002;155: 827–833. doi: 10.1093/aje/155.9.827 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
9.Sontrop JM, Dixon SN, Garg AX, Buendia-Jimenez I, Dohein O, Huang S-HS, et al. Association between Water Intake, Chronic Kidney Disease, and Cardiovascular Disease: A Cross-Sectional Analysis of NHANES Data. Am J Nephrol. 2013;37: 434–442. doi: 10.1159/000350377 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
10.Leurs LJ, Schouten LJ, Goldbohm RA, van den Brandt PA. Total fluid and specific beverage intake and mortality due to IHD and stroke in the Netherlands Cohort Study. Br J Nutr. 2010;104: 1212–1221. doi: 10.1017/S0007114510001923 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
11.Carroll HA, Betts JA, Johnson L. An investigation into the relationship between plain water intake and glycated Hb (HbA1c): a sex-stratified, cross-sectional analysis of the UK National Diet and Nutrition Survey (2008–2012). Br J Nutr. 2016;116: 1770–1780. doi: 10.1017/S0007114516003688 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
12.Watso JC, Farquhar WB. Hydration Status and Cardiovascular Function. Nutrients. 2019;11: 1866. doi: 10.3390/nu11081866 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
13.Carroll HA, James LJ. Hydration, Arginine Vasopressin, and Glucoregulatory Health in Humans: A Critical Perspective. Nutrients. 2019;11: 1201. doi: 10.3390/nu11061201 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
14.Melander O. Vasopressin, from Regulator to Disease Predictor for Diabetes and Cardiometabolic Risk. Ann Nutr Metab. 2016;68: 24–28. doi: 10.1159/000446201 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
15.Aoyagi T, Birumachi J, Hiroyama M, Fujiwara Y, Sanbe A, Yamauchi J, et al. Alteration of Glucose Homeostasis in V1a Vasopressin Receptor-Deficient Mice. Endocrinology. 2007;148: 2075–2084. doi: 10.1210/en.2006-1315 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
16.Enhörning S, Tasevska I, Roussel R, Bouby N, Persson M, Burri P, et al. Effects of hydration on plasma copeptin, glycemia and gluco-regulatory hormones: a water intervention in humans. Eur J Nutr. 2019;58: 315–324. doi: 10.1007/s00394-017-1595-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
17.Lemetais G, Melander O, Vecchio M, Bottin JH, Enhörning S, Perrier ET. Effect of increased water intake on plasma copeptin in healthy adults. Eur J Nutr. 2018;57: 1883–1890. doi: 10.1007/s00394-017-1471-6 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
18.Enhörning S, Hedblad B, Nilsson PM, Engström G, Melander O. Copeptin is an independent predictor of diabetic heart disease and death. Am Heart J. 2015;169: 549–556.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.ahj.2014.11.020 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
19.Enhörning S, Bankir L, Bouby N, Struck J, Hedblad B, Persson M, et al. Copeptin, a marker of vasopressin, in abdominal obesity, diabetes and microalbuminuria: the prospective Malmö Diet and Cancer Study cardiovascular cohort. Int J Obes. 2013;37: 598–603. doi: 10.1038/ijo.2012.88 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
20.Enhörning S, Struck J, Wirfält E, Hedblad B, Morgenthaler NG, Melander O. Plasma Copeptin, A Unifying Factor behind the Metabolic Syndrome. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2011;96: E1065–E1072. doi: 10.1210/jc.2010-2981 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
21.Enhörning S, Wang TJ, Nilsson PM, Almgren P, Hedblad B, Berglund G, et al. Plasma Copeptin and the Risk of Diabetes Mellitus. Circulation. 2010;121: 2102–2108. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.109.909663 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
22.Enhörning S, Brunkwall L, Tasevska I, Ericson U, Persson Tholin J, Persson M, et al. Water Supplementation Reduces Copeptin and Plasma Glucose in Adults With High Copeptin: The H2O Metabolism Pilot Study. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2019;104: 1917–1925. doi: 10.1210/jc.2018-02195 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
23.Carroll HA, Templeman I, Chen Y-C, Edinburgh RM, Burch EK, Jewitt JT, et al. Effect of acute hypohydration on glycemic regulation in healthy adults: a randomized crossover trial. J Appl Physiol. 2019;126: 422–430. doi: 10.1152/japplphysiol.00771.2018 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
24.Berglund G, Elmståhl S, Janzon L, Larsson SA. Design and feasibility. J Intern Med. 1993;233: 45–51. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2796.1993.tb00647.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
25.Manjer J, Carlsson S, Elmståhl S, Gullberg B, Janzon L, Lindström M, et al. The Malmö diet and cancer study: representativity, cancer incidence and mortality in participants and non-participants: Eur J Cancer Prev. 2001;10: 489–499. doi: 10.1097/00008469-200112000-00003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
26.Wirfält E, Mattisson I, Johansson U, Gullberg B, Wallström P, Berglund G. A methodological report from the Malmö Diet and Cancer study: development and evaluation of altered routines in dietary data processing. Nutr J. 2002;1: 3. doi: 10.1186/1475-2891-1-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
27.Riboli E, Elmståhl S, Saracci R, Gullberg B, Lindgärde F. The Malmö Food Study: validity of two dietary assessment methods for measuring nutrient intake. Int J Epidemiol. 1997;26 Suppl 1: S161–173. doi: 10.1093/ije/26.suppl_1.s161 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
28.Mattisson I, Wirfält E, Aronsson CA, Wallström P, Sonestedt E, Gullberg B, et al. Misreporting of energy: prevalence, characteristics of misreporters and influence on observed risk estimates in the Malmö Diet and Cancer cohort. 2005; 11. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
29.Larsen HG, Marinkovic G, Nilsson PM, Nilsson J, Engström G, Melander O, et al. High Plasma sRAGE (Soluble Receptor for Advanced Glycation End Products) Is Associated With Slower Carotid Intima-Media Thickness Progression and Lower Risk for First-Time Coronary Events and Mortality. 2019; 9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
30.Enhörning S, Sjögren M, Hedblad B, Nilsson PM, Struck J, Melander O. Genetic vasopressin 1b receptor variance in overweight and diabetes mellitus. Eur J Endocrinol. 2016;174: 69–75. doi: 10.1530/EJE-15-0781 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
31.Li C, Aronsson CA, Hedblad B, Gullberg B, Wirfält E, Berglund G. Ability of physical activity measurements to assess health-related risks. Eur J Clin Nutr. 2009;63: 1448–1451. doi: 10.1038/ejcn.2009.69 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
32.Ericson U, Brunkwall L, Alves Dias J, Drake I, Hellstrand S, Gullberg B, et al. Food patterns in relation to weight change and incidence of type 2 diabetes, coronary events and stroke in the Malmö Diet and Cancer cohort. Eur J Nutr. 2019;58: 1801–1814. doi: 10.1007/s00394-018-1727-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
33.de Koning L, Malik VS, Rimm EB, Willett WC, Hu FB. Sugar-sweetened and artificially sweetened beverage consumption and risk of type 2 diabetes in men. Am J Clin Nutr. 2011;93: 1321–1327. doi: 10.3945/ajcn.110.007922 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
34.Kant AK, Graubard BI, Atchison EA. Intakes of plain water, moisture in foods and beverages, and total water in the adult US population—nutritional, meal pattern, and body weight correlates: National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys 1999–2006. Am J Clin Nutr. 2009;90: 655–663. doi: 10.3945/ajcn.2009.27749 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
35.Tasevska I, Enhörning S, Burri P, Melander O. High Salt Intake Increases Copeptin but Salt Sensitivity Is Associated with Fluid Induced Reduction of Copeptin in Women. Int J Hypertens. 2014;2014: 1–5. doi: 10.1155/2014/641587 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
36.Bennette C, Vickers A. Against quantiles: categorization of continuous variables in epidemiologic research, and its discontents. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2012;12: 21. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-12-21 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
37.Institute of Medicine. Dietary Reference Intakes for Water, Potassium, Sodium, Chloride, and Sulfate. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press; 2005. p. 10925. [Google Scholar]
38.Torsdottir I, Andersson H. Effect on the postprandial glycaemic level of the addition of water to a meal ingested by healthy subjects and Type 2 (non-insulin-dependent) diabetic patients. Diabetologia. 1989;32: 231–235. doi: 10.1007/BF00285289 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
39.Young KW, Wolever TM. Effect of volume and type of beverage consumed with a standard test meal on postprandial blood glucose responses. Nutr Res. 1998;18: 1857–1863. doi: 10.1016/S0271-5317(98)00155-9 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
40.Yolanda V, Antono L, Kurniati A. Water intake, Glycemic response, Blood glucose, Healthy subjects. Int J Diabetes Res. 2018; 5. [Google Scholar]
41.Johnson EC, Péronnet F, Jansen LT, Capitan-Jiménez C, Adams J, Guelinckx I, et al. Validation Testing Demonstrates Efficacy of a 7-Day Fluid Record to Estimate Daily Water Intake in Adult Men and Women When Compared with Total Body Water Turnover Measurement. J Nutr. 2017;147: 2001–2007. doi: 10.3945/jn.117.253377 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
42.Rosinger A, Herrick K. Daily Water Intake Among U.S. Men and Women, 2009–2012. NCHS Data Brief. 2016; 1–8. [PubMed]

PLoS One. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0296778.r001

Decision Letter 0

William M Adams

24 Jul 2023

PONE-D-23-13468The association between water intake and future cardiometabolic disease outcomes in the Malmö Diet and Cancer Cardiovascular CohortPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Carroll,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please address the concerns brought up by the reviewers.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Sep 07 2023 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

William M. Adams

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript:

“This project was funded by the Esther Olssons stiftelse II & Anna 429 Jönssons Minnesfond (HC). The funders had no role in study design, data collection 430 and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.”

We note that you have provided additional information within the Acknowledgements Section that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. Please note that funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form.

Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows:

“This project was funded by the Esther Olssons stiftelse II & Anna Jönssons Minnesfond (HC). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.”

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

3. Thank you for stating the following in the Competing Interests section:

“HAC has received research funding from the Economic and Social Research Council, the European Hydration Institute, and the Esther Olssons stiftelse II & Anna Jönssons Minnesfond; has conducted research for Tate & Lyle; and has received speakers fees from Danone Nutricia Research. HAC, SE and OM have received conference, travel and accommodation fees from Danone Nutricia Research. O.M. has received a research grant for another study and consultancy fees from Danone Nutricia Research. No other authors declare any conflicts of interest.”

Please confirm that this does not alter your adherence to all PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials, by including the following statement: "This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.” (as detailed online in our guide for authors http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests). If there are restrictions on sharing of data and/or materials, please state these. Please note that we cannot proceed with consideration of your article until this information has been declared.

Please include your updated Competing Interests statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

4. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability.

Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized.

Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access.

We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter.

5. Please include your full ethics statement in the ‘Methods’ section of your manuscript file. In your statement, please include the full name of the IRB or ethics committee who approved or waived your study, as well as whether or not you obtained informed written or verbal consent. If consent was waived for your study, please include this information in your statement as well.

6. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: I Don't Know

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: This study provided a longitudinal analysis on the association between baseline water intake and incidence of CAD and type 2 diabetes among a large cohort using cox proportional hazards models. This study adds to the existing literature on hydration and health, with results suggesting an association between water and CAD risk (opposite to the expected relationship) but not type 2 diabetes risk in this cohort. I have a few suggestions which may enhance the quality of this paper.

• The cox proportional hazards analyses include quite a lot of covariates for this type of model despite the large sample size. Can you please provide the concordance statistics as some indication of model fit changes with the inclusion or omission of some of these variables? Additionally, given the complexity with these additional variables, can you confirm if the models met the proportional hazards assumptions for each covariate?

• Can you provide more rationale for the covariates used in the models?

• Line 175 and Line 260 – change “waiter” to “water”

• Can you comment somewhere on the expected persistence (or changes) in the fluid intake and dietary behaviors over the course of the ~20 years until follow up?

• Thank you for including a continuous model as well!

Reviewer #2: 1) The manuscript is not well written and in many sections is ambiguous.

2) Cardiometabolic factors are mentioned in the title of the article, but only diabetes and CAD have been investigated.

3) The final results of the study do not seem logical. According to the amount of water intake reported in the participants in table 2, the mechanism proposed in the discussion section is not correct (page 18, line 303). According to Table 1, the incidence of CAD was lower in subjects who received more water, while the final result of this study shows the opposite.

4) While appreciating the efforts of the authors, it seems that measurement error, out of date data, and the way of statistical analysis have caused disruption in the results.

Sincerely yours

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2024 Jan 19;19(1):e0296778. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0296778.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0

14 Oct 2023

Thank you to the reviewers for taking the time to assess our manuscript. Our reply contains tables so we have attached a Word document with our full response. We hope we have adequately addressed all points raised.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file.^{(58.8KB, docx)}

PLoS One. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0296778.r003

Decision Letter 1

William M Adams

22 Nov 2023

PONE-D-23-13468R1The association between water intake and future cardiometabolic disease outcomes in the Malmö Diet and Cancer Cardiovascular CohortPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Carroll,

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jan 06 2024 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

William M. Adams

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments:

Please address the comments below from the reviewers.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

Reviewer #4: (No Response)

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: Partly

Reviewer #4: Partly

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: I Don't Know

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1: Thank you for addressing my comments. Please note very minor grammatical error in line 60, I believe this should be "mediated". Otherwise, I appreciate you incorporating my suggestions into the manuscript and am happy to accept this manuscript.

Reviewer #3: Thank you for your great study and I am sure you had to put a lot of efforts.

In general, methods are too vague. More details are required.

Line 103-106: Precise information is required here, including how to process this data, how to assess plain and total water intake by these measurements, how to capture water intake outside of meals, how 1,2, and 3 methods used to calculate total water intake etc.

Line 146: What is the justification to exclude participants who had a history of CAD or type 2 diabetes from analyses? This might change the results as the number of CAD and diabetes is intentionally decreased, and water intake may already (or may not) associate with them at baseline for some participants.

Line 154: what is the cut point of low, moderate, and high intake, and the citation is required here.

Line 182-188: Justifications and citations are required for each cut point for sensitivity.

Line 190: When is referring to follow-up time?

Line 194-196: Even 1140 g/d can be categorized as “low drinker” in some previous studies, so these cut points might not capture results appropriately. At least, it is not appropriate to call “high” at this level.

Table 1 &2: Need to reorganize as it is hard to see.

Discussion needs to be changed accordingly.

Reviewer #4: Thank you for the opportunity to review the current manuscript regarding the relationship between recorded water intake and longitudinal risk for development of T2DM and CAD within a population of the Malmo Diet and Cancer Cohort. There are a few questions regarding the statistical approach that I hope the authors can provide clarity for.

It appears that the collinearity between the data used to group participants into tertiles (i.e., plain water or total water) and the covariate of model 5 (plain water) would limit the ability of the grouping to account for any other variation in the dependent variables (i.e., T2DM or CAD). Additionally, the description of the "plain water only" variable as total water minus plain water is confusing because by that math, the difference would be every source of water intake except plain water. If the covariate was indeed "other water sources" that could answer the question if T2DM or CAD risk differs by plain water tertile, however it does not address the underlying physiological question/hypothesis related to water intake and disease.

The authors mention that the purpose of converting a continuous variable into a categorical variable was done so to reduce the impacts of outliers. However, the concerns of such practice remain as outlined in the following reference, Howard Wainer, Marc Gessaroli & Monica Verdi (2006) Visual Revelations, CHANCE, 19:1, 49-52, DOI: 10.1080/09332480.2006.10722771

There is also mention of a continuous model on line 338 of the Discussion, however I am not able to locate this analysis within the methods or results section.

The results of this investigation are compelling as they do not agree with previous research in the area. The authors have devoted considerable space within the current manuscript to controls and checks which should enhance the readers confidence in the outcomes. Addressing the two concerns above will provide further confidence for the reader when reading something they may not have previously believed to be the case and avoid the misappropriated sentiment of "Well, this is just a case of fancy p hacking."

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #3: No

Reviewer #4: No

**********

PLoS One. 2024 Jan 19;19(1):e0296778. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0296778.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1

7 Dec 2023

We have submitted a Word document with our full response to reviewers.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file.^{(32.2KB, docx)}

PLoS One. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0296778.r005

Decision Letter 2

William M Adams

19 Dec 2023

The association between water intake and future cardiometabolic disease outcomes in the Malmö Diet and Cancer Cardiovascular Cohort

PONE-D-23-13468R2

Dear Dr. Carroll,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

William M. Adams

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #4: (No Response)

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: I Don't Know

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Reviewer #3: No more comments. Thank you for addressing previous comments. I believe this paper will add information to the field.

Reviewer #4: Thank you for the edits and clear explanations. My one remaining point of confusion is the terminology within Table 3 and the associated text. Specific to Model 5, the explanation provided states that this model controlled for "total water minus plain water", however the label given to this variable is "plain water only", while the actual variable is all sources of water except plain water. There must be a rationale for the "plain water only" label that I am not understanding. I assume that if I'm having a hard time, the readers may as well.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #3: No

Reviewer #4: No

**********

PLoS One. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0296778.r006

Acceptance letter

William M Adams

10 Jan 2024

PONE-D-23-13468R2

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Carroll,

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team.

At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following:

* All references, tables, and figures are properly cited

* All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission,

* There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset

If revisions are needed, the production department will contact you directly to resolve them. If no revisions are needed, you will receive an email when the publication date has been set. At this time, we do not offer pre-publication proofs to authors during production of the accepted work. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few weeks to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps.

Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. William M. Adams

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

S1 Fig. Hazard ratios of the fully adjusted analyses across plain and total water and type 2 diabetes and coronary artery disease.

(TIF)

Click here for additional data file.^{(199.6KB, tif)}

S1 Table. Sensitivity analyses for type 2 diabetes and coronary artery disease.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.^{(25.8KB, docx)}

S2 Table. Type 2 diabetes analyses with variables that violate proportional hazard assumptions removed.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.^{(17KB, docx)}

S3 Table. Coronary artery disease analyses with variables that violate proportional hazard assumptions removed.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.^{(16.6KB, docx)}

S4 Table. Type 2 diabetes analyses stratified by variables that violate proportional hazard assumptions.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.^{(19.3KB, docx)}

S5 Table. Coronary artery disease analyses stratified by variables that violate proportional hazard assumptions.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.^{(18.6KB, docx)}

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file.^{(58.8KB, docx)}

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file.^{(32.2KB, docx)}

Data Availability Statement

[pone.0296778.ref001] 1.Manz F. Hydration and Disease. J Am Coll Nutr. 2007;26: 535S–541S. doi: 10.1080/07315724.2007.10719655 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0296778.ref002] 2.Manz F, Wentz A. The Importance of Good Hydration for the Prevention of Chronic Diseases. Nutr Rev. 2005;63: S2–S5. doi: 10.1111/j.1753-4887.2005.tb00150.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0296778.ref003] 3.Roussel R, Fezeu L, Bouby N, Balkau B, Lantieri O, Alhenc-Gelas F, et al. Low Water Intake and Risk for New-Onset Hyperglycemia. Diabetes Care. 2011;34: 2551–2554. doi: 10.2337/dc11-0652 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0296778.ref004] 4.Carroll HA, Davis MG, Papadaki A. Higher plain water intake is associated with lower type 2 diabetes risk: a cross-sectional study in humans. Nutr Res. 2015;35: 865–872. doi: 10.1016/j.nutres.2015.06.015 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0296778.ref005] 5.Brunkwall L, Ericson U, Nilsson PM, Enhörning S. High water intake and low urine osmolality are associated with favorable metabolic profile at a population level: low vasopressin secretion as a possible explanation. Eur J Nutr. 2020;59: 3715–3722. doi: 10.1007/s00394-020-02202-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0296778.ref006] 6.Pan A, Malik VS, Schulze MB, Manson JE, Willett WC, Hu FB. Plain-water intake and risk of type 2 diabetes in young and middle-aged women. Am J Clin Nutr. 2012;95: 1454–1460. doi: 10.3945/ajcn.111.032698 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0296778.ref007] 7.Rodriguez GJ, Cordina SM, Vazquez G, Suri MFK, Kirmani JF, Ezzeddine MA, et al. The Hydration Influence on the Risk of Stroke (THIRST) Study. Neurocrit Care. 2009;10: 187–194. doi: 10.1007/s12028-008-9169-5 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0296778.ref008] 8.Chan J. Water, Other Fluids, and Fatal Coronary Heart Disease: The Adventist Health Study. Am J Epidemiol. 2002;155: 827–833. doi: 10.1093/aje/155.9.827 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0296778.ref009] 9.Sontrop JM, Dixon SN, Garg AX, Buendia-Jimenez I, Dohein O, Huang S-HS, et al. Association between Water Intake, Chronic Kidney Disease, and Cardiovascular Disease: A Cross-Sectional Analysis of NHANES Data. Am J Nephrol. 2013;37: 434–442. doi: 10.1159/000350377 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0296778.ref010] 10.Leurs LJ, Schouten LJ, Goldbohm RA, van den Brandt PA. Total fluid and specific beverage intake and mortality due to IHD and stroke in the Netherlands Cohort Study. Br J Nutr. 2010;104: 1212–1221. doi: 10.1017/S0007114510001923 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0296778.ref011] 11.Carroll HA, Betts JA, Johnson L. An investigation into the relationship between plain water intake and glycated Hb (HbA1c): a sex-stratified, cross-sectional analysis of the UK National Diet and Nutrition Survey (2008–2012). Br J Nutr. 2016;116: 1770–1780. doi: 10.1017/S0007114516003688 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0296778.ref012] 12.Watso JC, Farquhar WB. Hydration Status and Cardiovascular Function. Nutrients. 2019;11: 1866. doi: 10.3390/nu11081866 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0296778.ref013] 13.Carroll HA, James LJ. Hydration, Arginine Vasopressin, and Glucoregulatory Health in Humans: A Critical Perspective. Nutrients. 2019;11: 1201. doi: 10.3390/nu11061201 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0296778.ref014] 14.Melander O. Vasopressin, from Regulator to Disease Predictor for Diabetes and Cardiometabolic Risk. Ann Nutr Metab. 2016;68: 24–28. doi: 10.1159/000446201 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0296778.ref015] 15.Aoyagi T, Birumachi J, Hiroyama M, Fujiwara Y, Sanbe A, Yamauchi J, et al. Alteration of Glucose Homeostasis in V1a Vasopressin Receptor-Deficient Mice. Endocrinology. 2007;148: 2075–2084. doi: 10.1210/en.2006-1315 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0296778.ref016] 16.Enhörning S, Tasevska I, Roussel R, Bouby N, Persson M, Burri P, et al. Effects of hydration on plasma copeptin, glycemia and gluco-regulatory hormones: a water intervention in humans. Eur J Nutr. 2019;58: 315–324. doi: 10.1007/s00394-017-1595-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0296778.ref017] 17.Lemetais G, Melander O, Vecchio M, Bottin JH, Enhörning S, Perrier ET. Effect of increased water intake on plasma copeptin in healthy adults. Eur J Nutr. 2018;57: 1883–1890. doi: 10.1007/s00394-017-1471-6 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0296778.ref018] 18.Enhörning S, Hedblad B, Nilsson PM, Engström G, Melander O. Copeptin is an independent predictor of diabetic heart disease and death. Am Heart J. 2015;169: 549–556.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.ahj.2014.11.020 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0296778.ref019] 19.Enhörning S, Bankir L, Bouby N, Struck J, Hedblad B, Persson M, et al. Copeptin, a marker of vasopressin, in abdominal obesity, diabetes and microalbuminuria: the prospective Malmö Diet and Cancer Study cardiovascular cohort. Int J Obes. 2013;37: 598–603. doi: 10.1038/ijo.2012.88 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0296778.ref020] 20.Enhörning S, Struck J, Wirfält E, Hedblad B, Morgenthaler NG, Melander O. Plasma Copeptin, A Unifying Factor behind the Metabolic Syndrome. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2011;96: E1065–E1072. doi: 10.1210/jc.2010-2981 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0296778.ref021] 21.Enhörning S, Wang TJ, Nilsson PM, Almgren P, Hedblad B, Berglund G, et al. Plasma Copeptin and the Risk of Diabetes Mellitus. Circulation. 2010;121: 2102–2108. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.109.909663 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0296778.ref022] 22.Enhörning S, Brunkwall L, Tasevska I, Ericson U, Persson Tholin J, Persson M, et al. Water Supplementation Reduces Copeptin and Plasma Glucose in Adults With High Copeptin: The H2O Metabolism Pilot Study. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2019;104: 1917–1925. doi: 10.1210/jc.2018-02195 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0296778.ref023] 23.Carroll HA, Templeman I, Chen Y-C, Edinburgh RM, Burch EK, Jewitt JT, et al. Effect of acute hypohydration on glycemic regulation in healthy adults: a randomized crossover trial. J Appl Physiol. 2019;126: 422–430. doi: 10.1152/japplphysiol.00771.2018 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0296778.ref024] 24.Berglund G, Elmståhl S, Janzon L, Larsson SA. Design and feasibility. J Intern Med. 1993;233: 45–51. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2796.1993.tb00647.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0296778.ref025] 25.Manjer J, Carlsson S, Elmståhl S, Gullberg B, Janzon L, Lindström M, et al. The Malmö diet and cancer study: representativity, cancer incidence and mortality in participants and non-participants: Eur J Cancer Prev. 2001;10: 489–499. doi: 10.1097/00008469-200112000-00003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0296778.ref026] 26.Wirfält E, Mattisson I, Johansson U, Gullberg B, Wallström P, Berglund G. A methodological report from the Malmö Diet and Cancer study: development and evaluation of altered routines in dietary data processing. Nutr J. 2002;1: 3. doi: 10.1186/1475-2891-1-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0296778.ref027] 27.Riboli E, Elmståhl S, Saracci R, Gullberg B, Lindgärde F. The Malmö Food Study: validity of two dietary assessment methods for measuring nutrient intake. Int J Epidemiol. 1997;26 Suppl 1: S161–173. doi: 10.1093/ije/26.suppl_1.s161 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0296778.ref028] 28.Mattisson I, Wirfält E, Aronsson CA, Wallström P, Sonestedt E, Gullberg B, et al. Misreporting of energy: prevalence, characteristics of misreporters and influence on observed risk estimates in the Malmö Diet and Cancer cohort. 2005; 11. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0296778.ref029] 29.Larsen HG, Marinkovic G, Nilsson PM, Nilsson J, Engström G, Melander O, et al. High Plasma sRAGE (Soluble Receptor for Advanced Glycation End Products) Is Associated With Slower Carotid Intima-Media Thickness Progression and Lower Risk for First-Time Coronary Events and Mortality. 2019; 9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0296778.ref030] 30.Enhörning S, Sjögren M, Hedblad B, Nilsson PM, Struck J, Melander O. Genetic vasopressin 1b receptor variance in overweight and diabetes mellitus. Eur J Endocrinol. 2016;174: 69–75. doi: 10.1530/EJE-15-0781 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0296778.ref031] 31.Li C, Aronsson CA, Hedblad B, Gullberg B, Wirfält E, Berglund G. Ability of physical activity measurements to assess health-related risks. Eur J Clin Nutr. 2009;63: 1448–1451. doi: 10.1038/ejcn.2009.69 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0296778.ref032] 32.Ericson U, Brunkwall L, Alves Dias J, Drake I, Hellstrand S, Gullberg B, et al. Food patterns in relation to weight change and incidence of type 2 diabetes, coronary events and stroke in the Malmö Diet and Cancer cohort. Eur J Nutr. 2019;58: 1801–1814. doi: 10.1007/s00394-018-1727-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0296778.ref033] 33.de Koning L, Malik VS, Rimm EB, Willett WC, Hu FB. Sugar-sweetened and artificially sweetened beverage consumption and risk of type 2 diabetes in men. Am J Clin Nutr. 2011;93: 1321–1327. doi: 10.3945/ajcn.110.007922 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0296778.ref034] 34.Kant AK, Graubard BI, Atchison EA. Intakes of plain water, moisture in foods and beverages, and total water in the adult US population—nutritional, meal pattern, and body weight correlates: National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys 1999–2006. Am J Clin Nutr. 2009;90: 655–663. doi: 10.3945/ajcn.2009.27749 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0296778.ref035] 35.Tasevska I, Enhörning S, Burri P, Melander O. High Salt Intake Increases Copeptin but Salt Sensitivity Is Associated with Fluid Induced Reduction of Copeptin in Women. Int J Hypertens. 2014;2014: 1–5. doi: 10.1155/2014/641587 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0296778.ref036] 36.Bennette C, Vickers A. Against quantiles: categorization of continuous variables in epidemiologic research, and its discontents. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2012;12: 21. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-12-21 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0296778.ref037] 37.Institute of Medicine. Dietary Reference Intakes for Water, Potassium, Sodium, Chloride, and Sulfate. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press; 2005. p. 10925. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0296778.ref038] 38.Torsdottir I, Andersson H. Effect on the postprandial glycaemic level of the addition of water to a meal ingested by healthy subjects and Type 2 (non-insulin-dependent) diabetic patients. Diabetologia. 1989;32: 231–235. doi: 10.1007/BF00285289 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0296778.ref039] 39.Young KW, Wolever TM. Effect of volume and type of beverage consumed with a standard test meal on postprandial blood glucose responses. Nutr Res. 1998;18: 1857–1863. doi: 10.1016/S0271-5317(98)00155-9 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0296778.ref040] 40.Yolanda V, Antono L, Kurniati A. Water intake, Glycemic response, Blood glucose, Healthy subjects. Int J Diabetes Res. 2018; 5. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0296778.ref041] 41.Johnson EC, Péronnet F, Jansen LT, Capitan-Jiménez C, Adams J, Guelinckx I, et al. Validation Testing Demonstrates Efficacy of a 7-Day Fluid Record to Estimate Daily Water Intake in Adult Men and Women When Compared with Total Body Water Turnover Measurement. J Nutr. 2017;147: 2001–2007. doi: 10.3945/jn.117.253377 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0296778.ref042] 42.Rosinger A, Herrick K. Daily Water Intake Among U.S. Men and Women, 2009–2012. NCHS Data Brief. 2016; 1–8. [PubMed]

PERMALINK

The association between water intake and future cardiometabolic disease outcomes in the Malmö Diet and Cancer cardiovascular cohort

Harriet A Carroll

Ulrika Ericson

Filip Ottosson

Sofia Enhörning

Olle Melander

Roles

Abstract

Introduction

Methods

Study design and population

Measure of diet

Measure of disease

Measure of other variables

Statistical analysis

Fig 1. Flow chart of sample size.

Results

Table 1. Participant characteristics according to plain water intake.

Table 2. Dietary variables according to plain water intake.

Fig 2. Correlation coefficients between plain (black bars, grey if p ≥ 0.05), and total (white bars) water intake and other dietary variables.

Table 3. Cox hazard model for tertiles of plain water and total water intake and type 2 diabetes and coronary artery disease.

Discussion

Supporting information

Data Availability

Funding Statement

References

Decision Letter 0

William M Adams

Roles

Author response to Decision Letter 0

Decision Letter 1

William M Adams

Roles

Author response to Decision Letter 1

Decision Letter 2

William M Adams

Roles

Acceptance letter

William M Adams

Roles

Associated Data

Supplementary Materials

Data Availability Statement

ACTIONS

PERMALINK

RESOURCES

Similar articles

Cited by other articles

Links to NCBI Databases