Image Credit: Canva
From controlling body temperature and flushing out toxins, adequate hydration plays a vital role in our general health and well-being, water is a life essential. However, while dehydration garners significant attention, overhydration, or drinking excessive amounts of water, is a condition that can have serious and sometimes fatal consequences.
Although it may sound bizarre since drinking water is said to be the solution for most health related problems it is important to recognize how much water is considered "too much" or the risks involved with being overhydrated can maintain a healthy balance.
Water intoxication, also termed hyperhydration, water poisoning or water toxemia, develops when an individual drinks much more water than the kidney can excrete. The main function of the kidneys in the human body is the processing and excretion of excess water. However, the human kidneys can process only up to 0.8 to 1.0 liters of water at a time. Drinking an amount that exceeds this may overwhelm the kidneys and put the electrolyte balance out of sync in the human body.
Electrolytes, especially sodium, are essential in maintaining fluid balance within and outside cells. Hyponatremia is the condition when sodium levels fall below 135 mmol/L, resulting from excessive water intake. This causes water to shift into cells, swelling them. In the brain, this can cause severe complications, including coma or even death.
The symptoms of water intoxication vary from mild to severe. Early symptoms are often similar to dehydration, which makes self-diagnosis challenging. Common symptoms include:
In more serious cases, water intoxication can cause seizures, loss of consciousness, or swelling in the brain. These complications can be fatal if left untreated.
A notable case occurred in 2007 when a woman participating in a water-drinking contest tragically died after consuming nearly two gallons of water in under two hours. More recently, actress Brooke Shields experienced a grand mal seizure attributed to excessive water consumption.
Water intoxication is rare, but certain scenarios can increase the risk:
These endurance athletes are prone to water intoxication, especially if they drink large amounts of water without replacing lost electrolytes. Hyponatremia usually happens during long races or marathons as individuals mistake fatigue and muscle cramps for dehydration and continue drinking water in excess.
Overhydration among military personnel is usually due to severe physical activity in extreme environmental conditions. The total number of hyponatremia cases documented from 2007 through 2022 for the active duty in the United States exceeds 1,600, with a note to this problem on exertion-related overhydration.
Compulsive water drinking, known as psychogenic polydipsia, is linked with some mental illnesses such as schizophrenia and psychosis. People with these conditions tend to drink too much water, causing a hazardous electrolyte imbalance.
Drugs such as MDMA (ecstasy) raise the body temperature and make people thirsty, and at times, some people tend to drink excess water at events like music festivals. MDMA also leads to urine retention, thus exacerbating the dangers of water intoxication.
The exact amount of water that causes intoxication varies from one person to another. However, drinking more than 1 liter of water per hour for several hours raises the risk. For healthy individuals, the risk of overhydration is low unless taking part in extreme physical activity or ignoring thirst cues.
Certain medical conditions, such as kidney or liver disorders, can impair the body's ability to process fluids, and even moderate water intake may be harmful. Similarly, certain medications, such as diuretics and antipsychotics, can affect the perception of thirst or fluid regulation.
The widely touted recommendation of eight 8-ounce glasses of water per day has little basis in fact. According to the National Academy of Medicine, a daily total fluid intake is about 15 cups (3.7 liters) for males and 11 cups (2.7 liters) for females, from beverage sources and from food. Usually, about 20 percent of daily hydration comes from foods such as fruits and vegetables.
A better rule of thumb is to listen to your body and drink water based on thirst. Use the color of your urine as an indicator:
Older adults, whose thirst mechanisms may decline with age, should be proactive about maintaining hydration, especially during illness or hot weather.
The symptoms of water intoxication—such as headaches, fatigue, and muscle weakness—are similar to those of dehydration. If you are unsure which condition you are experiencing, seek medical attention immediately rather than self-treating with more water.
To avoid the dangers of overhydration:
For signs of severe water intoxication-including confusion, drowsiness, seizures, and loss of consciousness-customer is advised to seek medical assistance immediately. In the meanwhile, a salty snack would help to temporarily correct low sodium levels.
Hydration is important to health, but overhydration can be a serious risk; the secret is in finding a balance. Drink enough water to satisfy your body, but not so much that it overwhelms your system. Remember, water is life, but moderation keeps it that way.
Hyponatremia (low sodium level in the blood). National Kidney Foundation. 2023.
Water Toxicity. NIH. 2023
Exercise-Associated Hyponatremia: 2017 Update. Front Med (Lausanne). 2017
Update: Exertional Hyponatremia Among Active Component Members of the U.S. Armed Forces, 2007–2022
Credit: Unsplash
Often, we underestimate the way our brain works and daydreaming has long been seen as a major sign of creativity. Many artists have used their imagination to bring their work to life. However, science offers a different perspective.
Coined in 2002 Dr. Eliezer Somer, those who experience “maladaptive daydreaming” often fantasize about celebrities, historical figures or idealized versions of themselves. Their imaginations are more elaborate, diverse, and complex as compared to other daydreamers.
A 2012 Consciousness and Cognition study found that maladaptive daydreamers spend, on average, 57 percent of their waking hours daydreaming far more than their counterparts.
Dr Somer explains: "The greatest difference is the maladaptive daydreamers reported that the activity interfered with their daily life. They also reported higher rates of attention-deficit and obsessive compulsive symptoms, and more than 80% used kinesthetic activity or movement when daydreaming, such as rocking, pacing or spinning"
He further noted that while everyone experiences moments of mind-wandering, it usually does not interfere with daily life. But maladaptive daydreaming does interfere in regular life. The condition has not been classified as a mental illness and there is no treatment for it yet.
Many Reddit users have shared their experiences with maladaptive daydreaming, often asking questions such as: “Is it normal to daydream for such long hours?”
While some responses described daydreaming as a form of dissociation when bored, others relied on music or movies to fuel fantasies of being a “better version” of themselves, often struggling to return to reality.
Here are some early signs of maladaptive daydreaming to keep an eye out for:
Rachel Bennett, a member of Dr. Somer’s online community, shared she usually dreams up new episodes of her favorite Japanese animé characters and TV shows. She’s also created four families of fictional characters which have grown with her over the years.
“I’d much rather stay home and daydream than go out,” she said.
Dr. Somer noted that about one-quarter of maladaptive daydreamers are trauma survivors who use daydreaming as an escape. Many report family members with similar tendencies, as well as being shy or socially isolated.
Meanwhile, a Harvard Medical study found that 80 percent of maladaptive daydreamers have ADHD, followed by anxiety disorders, depression, and OCD. Researchers believe daydreaming often acts as a coping mechanism for pent-up emotions that cannot be expressed in real life, so they are released through imagination instead.
Experts emphasize that maladaptive daydreaming is not an extreme condition requiring formal diagnosis, but many people have shared strategies that help:
Credits: iStock
In January 2026, a Guardian investigation uncovered something deeply unsettling. Google’s AI summaries, designed to quickly answer search queries, were giving users inaccurate health information. Some of the advice was not just misleading but potentially dangerous.
One striking example involved liver function tests. The AI presented incorrect “normal ranges,” which could make someone with a serious liver infection believe their reports were fine. Following the investigation, Google quietly removed AI Overviews for certain queries such as “normal range for liver function tests” and similar searches.
Soon after, another finding raised further alarm. Researchers discovered that Google’s AI Overviews frequently relied on YouTube rather than established medical websites when responding to health questions. Considering nearly two billion people use Google search every month, the implications were hard to ignore.
For years, doctors have warned about “Dr Google” and self diagnosis. But the situation has now moved beyond search results. People are increasingly asking AI tools directly for answers to complex medical problems.
The search optimization platform SE Ranking analyzed more than 50,000 health searches in Germany. The most cited source in AI responses was YouTube, which accounted for 4.43 percent of citations. That is about 3.5 times more than netdoktor.de, one of the country’s biggest consumer health portals. It was also cited more than twice as often as the well known medical reference MSD Manuals.
Only 34.45 percent of citations in AI Overviews came from reliable medical sources. Government health institutions and academic journals together contributed roughly one percent. No hospital network, university, or medical association came close to YouTube’s citation numbers.
Read: ChatGPT Health Explained: Will This New OpenAI Feature Replace Doctors?
The concern is simple. YouTube is a video platform, not a medical publisher. While qualified doctors upload educational videos, the platform also hosts wellness influencers, life coaches, and creators without medical training.
In one particularly worrying example, Google’s AI advised pancreatic cancer patients to avoid high fat foods. Medical experts say this recommendation is the opposite of what many patients actually need and could increase mortality risk.
AI Overviews also gave incorrect information about women’s cancer screening tests. Experts warned this could lead people to dismiss serious symptoms and delay diagnosis.
The shift is not limited to search engines. Chatbots are rapidly becoming everyday health advisers. OpenAI estimates about 40 million people globally use ChatGPT for healthcare guidance each day.
A 2026 Health and Media Tracking Survey by the Canadian Medical Association found roughly half of Canadians consult Google AI summaries or ChatGPT for medical concerns.
Read: AI Therapy Gone Wrong: Psychiatrist Reveals How Chatbots Are Failing Vulnerable Teens
The outcome has not been reassuring. People who followed AI advice for self diagnosis and treatment were five times more likely to experience negative health effects than those who did not.
Studies help explain why. A 2025 University of Waterloo study found GPT 4 answered open ended medical questions incorrectly about two thirds of the time. Another 2025 Harvard study showed chatbots often agreed with flawed assumptions instead of correcting users, such as confusion between acetaminophen and Tylenol.
Researchers say AI systems tend to be overly agreeable and confident, prioritizing helpful responses rather than critical reasoning.
Despite knowing AI can be wrong, many people still rely on it. Long waits for specialists, lack of family doctors, and limited access to healthcare make instant answers appealing.
The real concern is not curiosity but unquestioned trust. Looking up symptoms is one thing. Acting on AI advice without verification is another.
The technology is powerful and useful, but when confident sounding answers replace medical judgement, the consequences can affect real lives.
Credits: Canva
A new review published in The Lancet highlights how close this shift may be. The study underscores a hard truth: despite having effective medicines for years, global blood pressure control remains disappointingly poor. The real challenge, experts say, is not the absence of drugs—but problems with adherence, health systems, and long-term patient engagement.
Hypertension continues to be the leading cause of heart attacks, strokes and premature deaths worldwide. The World Health Organization (WHO) defines high blood pressure as readings at or above 140 mm Hg systolic and/or 90 mm Hg diastolic. A normal reading is below 120/80 mm Hg.
The numbers are staggering. Between 2024 and 2025, an estimated 1.4 billion adults aged 30 to 79—roughly one in three people in this age group—are living with hypertension globally. Nearly 44 percent do not even know they have it. Among those diagnosed, fewer than one in four have their blood pressure adequately controlled.
India reflects this alarming trend. The ICMR-INDIAB study (2023) estimated that about 315 million Indians—35.5 percent of the population—have hypertension. Data from NFHS-5 further showed that nearly half of hypertensive men and more than a third of hypertensive women in India do not have their condition under control.
For decades, hypertension treatment has relied on daily oral medications—often combinations of two or more drugs. These may include ACE inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers paired with calcium channel blockers, and thiazide diuretics.
On paper, these regimens are effective. In reality, adherence is the weak link.
Many patients with hypertension also manage diabetes, obesity or high cholesterol. The result is polypharmacy—multiple pills, multiple times a day. Over time, missed doses, side effects and simple “treatment fatigue” erode consistency. Therapeutic inertia—where doctors do not intensify treatment despite poor control—further worsens outcomes.
This is where long-acting injectable therapies come in. According to Dr Mohit Gupta, cardiologist at G B Pant Hospital and UCMS, the field is now moving toward therapies that may be administered just twice a year.
Unlike traditional medicines that work downstream to reduce blood pressure numbers, these new drugs target upstream molecular pathways that drive hypertension.
One promising approach involves small interfering RNA (siRNA) therapies that inhibit angiotensinogen production in the liver. By silencing this protein, they dampen the renin–angiotensin system—central to blood pressure regulation. Zilebesiran, developed by Roche and Alnylam, is currently in global phase 3 trials.
Another candidate, ziltivekimab by Novo Nordisk, targets inflammatory pathways increasingly linked to cardiovascular risk. There are also newer strategies aimed at selectively modulating aldosterone, a hormone that increases blood volume and pressure.
The appeal is simple: durability. A twice-yearly injection could eliminate the daily burden of pill-taking, improve adherence and provide more stable blood pressure control over time.
However, excitement is tempered by concern. Cost remains a major question. The recent introduction of inclisiran, an injectable cholesterol-lowering therapy priced between Rs 1.8 and 2.4 lakh annually in India, highlights affordability challenges.
Long-term safety is another critical issue. Hypertension is lifelong. Patients may require these treatments for decades. Experts stress the need for robust long-term data across diverse populations before widespread adoption.
The promise is undeniable. A twice-yearly injection that reliably controls blood pressure could transform preventive cardiology. But its true impact will depend not only on scientific success—but on accessibility, affordability and sustained safety.
© 2024 Bennett, Coleman & Company Limited