Thirst or feeling thristy would drive me nuts and make my body freak from dehydration whereas lack of food would prob make me sick and unable to focus. I think I could deal w lack of food rather than thirst , unless maybe could eat waterbased fruits, haha. Like most women who have done crazy diets, id say liquid diet all the way!!!
2007-02-20 17:39:42
·
answer #1
·
answered by tziamin 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
I think hunger is worse to deal with than thirst. When I wake up in the morning and my mouth is dry, i don't feel like I HAVE to get up and get a drink. But when my stomach starts cramping and I'm so weak I can barely function without food, then I know I've got some serious problems. And I know they say you can go longer without food than water, I just don't understand how!
2007-02-21 02:41:42
·
answer #2
·
answered by #1 Buckeye Fan!!!! 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
I was on the Girls Weightlifting team at my high school and quite often to make weight I would have to starve and dehydrate myself. The longest I went was when I stopped eating on Tuesday for a meet on Saturday; after weigh-ins around 9am you are free to eat and drink as much as you want. So the last food I consumed was on Monday and I didn't eat again until late Saturday morning; I stopped consuming liquids on Wednesday (Tuesday being the last day I had anything to drink).
All in all, I think hunger was more painful, but being that rdiculously dehydrated took a higher toll on my body. I was unable to concentrate on anything, my speech became slightly slurred (due to dryness in my mouth), my lips got chapped, etc.
Side note: after weigh-ins I drank a 1.68 liter bottle of Gatorade at like 10am and honestly didn't have to go to the bathroom until after 5 or 6pm when I got back home. Goes to show ya just how dehydrated my body was.
2007-02-21 01:46:29
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
In my opinion, physical hunger produces more pronounced discomfort than thirst. But for matters of survival, it is much better to go without food than without water.
The average human body contains enough fat stores to keep it alive for roughly a month, depending on each person, their body weight, and metabolism.
Unfortunately, the body can only subsist without water for about a week. Our bodies are comprised mostly of water, and it is necessary for many functions on a short-term basis.
On a personal level, I would prefer to eat, as opposed to drink, because I dislike hunger pangs. Food may contain minute amounts of water, as well. But for matters of survival, I would choose only to drink, so that I can insure that I stay alive for the duration of 5 days.
2007-02-21 01:37:49
·
answer #4
·
answered by Dalarus 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
I recently did not eat for five days straight. Again, recently, I did not eat or drink even water for two. The latter was worse. Thirst is more debilitating.
2007-02-21 02:19:22
·
answer #5
·
answered by Iconoclast 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
thirst is the worst for me. I would be able to cope with hunger. I hate to be thirsty.
2007-02-21 01:38:20
·
answer #6
·
answered by CHAEI 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
If you eat the right foods it would satisfy your thirst as well, so definitely I would rather eat because I get very light-headed and cranky when I don't eat. And if I eat watermelon and other wet and juicy fruit, it would easily satisfy thirst needs.
2007-02-21 01:44:22
·
answer #7
·
answered by ontheroadagainwithoutyou 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
You can live longer without food than you can without water. If I'm hungry I know I can drink water and at least temporarily get rid of the stomach pains that come from hunger.
2007-02-21 01:39:20
·
answer #8
·
answered by PDY 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
Thirst
I would be able to live with hunger because if you drink something it could make the hunger less but nothing you eat will make the first any less
2007-02-21 07:02:32
·
answer #9
·
answered by SAgirl 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
I can't stand to be thirsty. I have gone without eating for three days straight in the past, but I certainly couldn't go very long without something to drink.
2007-02-21 01:36:46
·
answer #10
·
answered by nunya 3
·
0⤊
0⤋