what we appear to have are several reasonable, highly educated, folks participating on this thread, and there seems to be some difference of opinion on the literature. in truth, i've seen a lot of literature on both sides. yes, andy is right, there is certainly a plethora of literature that states the ill effects of dehydration.
i guess i have two questions, i'm happy to have anyone answer, and my questions are pursuant to a framing of the issues and the nature of the literature.
first, it seems to me that a lot of noakes' writings are born of the work he's done at races, that is, he performs his "study" at ironman south africa, or comrades, or some sort of ultra ultra distance triathlon. is this what you mean, andy, when you say he hasn't conducted a single experimental study, that the studies about which noakes writes are often just a grouping of 20, or 200, or 2000, "anecdotes" collected an athletic event? does this explain the difference in the views expressed on this thread regarding "literature," that noakes' "literature" consists of these sorts of "field tests," plus his manifestos on hydration protocols, and these are not considered in the same class as that which would be conducted in a lab setting?
second, i wonder if we might parse between performance and medical danger. when we're talking about dehydration, are people talking past each other because noakes' interest is in who lives and who dies, versus the consequences of dehydration or salt intake on performance? in other words, how fair or unfair would it be to characterize noakes' view as: "follow my hydration protocol and you may go slower, but you're also more likely to survive the race with your life."?