Positive impact of dietary water on in vivo epidermal water physiology

Abstract

This study clearly suggests that dietary water intake seems to influence skin water content. Nevertheless further in vivo investigations involving other variables, such as biomechanical descriptors, should follow to look deeper into this aspect of skin physiology.

Effect of Fluid Intake on Hydration Status and Skin Barrier Characteristics in Geriatric Patients: An Explorative Study

“…This may indicate that increased water intake in geriatric patients may be related to the water content in the epidermal cells beneath the stratum corneum. This empirical finding is supported by Palma et al [9, 10, 27] who showed increased epidermal hydration after increased water consumption in younger populations. It is well known that increased fluid intake increases the water content in the dermis because the water accumulates in this layer [28].…”

“…We are aware of previous studies showing statistical significant associations between fluid intake and pH [11, 30] and SCH [9, 10, 27]. However, the underlying biological mechanisms are unclear and younger healthy populations are not comparable with geriatric patients.…”

“…An additional intake of water seems to influence skin barrier parameters like stratum corneum hydration (SCH), in particular in individuals with lower prior water consumption [9, 10]. Associations between fluid intake and skin surface pH have also been described [11].…”

Does dietary fluid intake affect skin hydration in healthy humans? A systematic literature review

“…Overall, the risk of bias was high in the experimental studies (Table ). Random sequence generation were judged “high risk” in four studies and were judged “unclear” in one study . None clearly demonstrated adequate allocation concealment, three of the studies were judged as “high risk” and two were judged as “unclear.” Blinding of the participants and those providing interventions were judged “unclear” in all of the studies .…”

“…Random sequence generation were judged “high risk” in four studies and were judged “unclear” in one study . None clearly demonstrated adequate allocation concealment, three of the studies were judged as “high risk” and two were judged as “unclear.” Blinding of the participants and those providing interventions were judged “unclear” in all of the studies . Four studies demonstrated low risk of attrition bias (reporting reasons for withdrawal, missing outcome data balanced in numbers across groups) whereas the remaining one study was judged high risk of bias.…”