Water has no nutritional value but yet it is a body necessity. Does that make it healthy or is there a better word to describe it. Would you describe it as healthy even though it does not directly supply nutrients to you? A little talk that came up when my son asked me.
Studies have shown that 100% of people, animals, and any sentient being ever that have come into contact with dihydrogenmonoxide have in fact died eventually. No, it is definitely not healthy. Avoid it if you can!
Everyone's gonna flame you, but it's an interesting point in semantics. It's certainly not even slightly unhealthy. In fact, it's 0% unhealthy, which you probably can't say about anything else (sugars, fats, etc.). So it's something that's necessary for you to function, and it's 0% unhealthy But if you define "healthy" as "having nutrients", then it's not that either. If "healthy" is "necessary for the body to function", then sure, it's that. But fats and sugars are necessary too--but fat itself isn't "healthy".
Water itself is a nutrient, so to say it doesn't directly supply nutrients isn't quite right. Your body is 60-70% water and requires it to function.
I've only been drinking water for the past month and a half. I haven't touched a coke or any juice in that span of time. I can tell you I feel better, more energized and on the plus side i've lost 10 pounds. So yeah, water is healthy.
A side note, Oxygen (air) has no nutritional value. As a matter of fact, anything that has breathed in air has and or will eventually die. STOP breathing! Breathing leads to death.
A few of you are replying back with what I already said though so I don't understand how you act as if I didn't realize it? I already put down its a body necessity.
