There is ample evidence supporting the theory that the standard western diet high in refined carbohydrates is the root cause or at least primary contributing factor of many of our society’s most common health disorders.
I heartily encourage everyone to try radically different (but nutritionally complete) diets for a month or two, if for no other reason than to see how your body and brain responds. Go vegan, try keto/lchf, try carnivore, try soylent, try sated. See what, if anything, it gets you.
I like spending 80% or so of my life in ketosis (usually for 2-8 weeks at a time), due to the many small changes it causes in my body and mind.
One of the interesting side effects (for me) is a significant reduction in dental buildup, and after a few weeks of not eating sugar, much of the existing buildup (if I haven’t had a professional cleaning recently) will spontaneously crumble and detach.
I've recently realized how Indians in general have such perfect teeth. Some of my Indian colleagues even say they've never been to a dentist in their life.
It seems like anecdotal evidence supporting how diets are that important to teeth health.
Since going keto, my dental health has improved a lot. I've never received such praise from my dentists! Giving the bad bacteria no carbs to feed on has done wonders.
Some anecdotal evidence: In my volunteer work with the homeless, and prisoners, dental care is painfully, ridiculously absent. As much as I am opposed to the idea of universal health care, I think we can all 100% get behind universal dental care.
Maybe on average, but dental care can suck when you need a lot done. Root canals, crowns, and implants are expensive. And dentists often expect payment in full up-front before doing any work.
But it's a definitive payment. Medical bills from hospitals and doctors offices are often padded, or somehow magically they grow in cost. Dental bills don't. It's generally a one-time thing.
I don't want to pay for your decades of poor health, because your poor decisions will lead to a lifetime of expensive care. However, dental care is a finite expense. Replace all the teeth in your mouth and it's still a finite expense. Since when has "health care" ever had a finite expense?
How can anyone be opposed to the idea of universal health care? Does your ideology oppose the general welfare and wellbeing of others? I don't get it. I can understand if you don't think that implementing it is a good idea, but the idea?
Well it's the implementation that counts. Most people opposed to it presume that it will cost more, deliver worse outcomes, and increase authoritarian control in their own lives.
To be clear, I'm not in that camp, but there are rational lines of thought to oppose a state-run healthcare system.
(And also to be clear, I can't personally see how it could possibly be worse than our current system)
I guess that goes back to the implementation. How is it possible to mandate universal coverage without some sort of state-provided funding? Nothing in life is universal without government support. And with that funding comes control and regulation. Things that fierce individualists fear the most.
Sure, the day-to-day administration of such a system could be in a single agency, or distributed among private providers, or some blend. But the core thing that opponents fight is still there.
It's a fair argument, but not personally convincing because what we already have all that control and regulation. It's just that it's handled by a small number of unelected for-profit insurance companies instead of "the government".
Success would be wholly dependent on the implementation in any case. Our current implementation is a local minimum of effectiveness, maximum of overhead. There are better solutions with either public or private bases.
I want to see healthcare coverage for all, but not when hospitals, doctors, device makers, drugs companies, everyone's cousin, is going to pad the bill. At least with dental care it's generally a straight forward thing: crown, root canal, fill a cavity, etc. Dental care - IMO - is easier to manage and control costs. Which, if you're going to have universal care, you absolutely must do.
You're opposed to the idea of universal healthcare? Really? The concept that everyone has the right to quality medical care? Do you really believe that all those folks you volunteer with don't deserve medical care?
Really? You believe doctor and nurses should be slaves? That they must meet the demand for unlimited health care and if there aren't enough of them we should force people to be come them?
There's a limited amount of health care to give because there is a limited amount of people willing to provide it. There is no concept of "right to health care" that doesn't require slavery.
You can argue for universal health care but arguing that people have "a right to health care" makes no sense.
Imagine there is 1 doctor. Doctor doesn't want to treat patient (could be sick, could be tired) but patient "has a right to health care". The only way to honor that right is to force the doctor to treat them.
I'm not sure how "every government worker is a slave" fits. The things most government workers do have nothing to do with "rights". As an example there is no "right to protection" even though we have police. There are rights that prevent the police from doing bad things but there is no right that forces police to help anyone.
I don't know of any universal healthcare system in the world that uses slavery. What you do is have the government pay the salaries of the health workers, just like they do for every other public social service workers like police, fire, military, beat attorney etc. What makes health care so different to any of these?
Most dental care is aesthetic (and expensive). I would absolutely be opposed to subsidizing it. Homeless people in the US already have access to emergency dental care - e.g. pulling infected teeth.
How is dental health not part of bodily health? I mean, I take my mouth off my body (or just mouth off) at night right after I take my eyes out (actually, I leave my contacts in) but really, they're each interconnected aspects of our persons.
The Hacker News community spends a lot of time discussing the surprising importance of our gut biome -- this article does an amazing job bringing that biome all the way to the start of the line. Unsurprisingly, the biome in our mouths has enormous importance as well.
This is actually what got me into flossing daily. I also think dentists doing this to patients, that is flossing their teeth and then having them sniff the floss, would be a lot more effective than simply telling people they should floss.
It is the diet. It is genetic. You don't brush long enough. You time your brushing wrong. You use a too soft/too hard brush. Electric brush is needed. It is your toothpaste, too much/too little fluoride. All problems are caused/prevented by flossing. Mouth wash is the one true answer.
Dental care feels like oncology, everything treats and causes problems at the same time.
I have a dream of one day being able to just replace _all_ of my teeth at once with one solid porcelain+titanium prosthetic without any interstitial cracks or crevices.
No more painful cavities. No more cracked teeth. No more need for floss or toothpicks, because there aren't any gaps for food to get stuck in. And it could be trivially sculpted to still have the same outward appearance of bullshit normal teeth.
Implants are a lot like that. The remaining hurdle is that gums actually bond to the enamel of natural teeth, which wards off gum disease somewhat. Gums don't bond to current prosthetics, so good cleaning is allegedly even more imperative as bacteria can get in between the gum & prosthetic.
Hopefully not impossible to fix- osseointegration, for example, works- but currently unsolved.
Maybe one day we'll figure out how grow a fresh layer of enamel on a prosthetic in the lab, and maybe gums will happily bond to that.
Additional problems with the prosthetic are any horizontal forces at all. Without the periodontal ligament, implants just don't behave, mechanically, like natural teeth on the bone.
My dream is that someone invents a fleet of nanobots that I can put in my mouth that will clean up all the plaque and repair any tooth and gum damage. Just pop them in at night, recall them all back in the morning.
Sounds nice on paper, but it would mean somebody could use the same tech for evil things. The reality is that any such tech may set us up for something much worse than covid19.
Considering how many ceramic fillings I have bitten into pieces, I have grown much more respect for my natural teeth. I had to replace one filling with a gold tooth to prevent it bitten into pieces again.
Overall they are amazing in stability. If we could figure out some better way of preserving and repairing them, they should still be the best solution.
The crowns on my incisors are substantially stronger and more resistant to drills than the natural teeth they replaced. The issue with most artificial teeth I’m seeing are related to bone loss and inability to rest as securely into the jaw as natural teeth. Even still, it may be better sometimes in a trauma event to have teeth knocked out or broken than to damage the jaw.
My dream is that someone will create genetically engineered bacteria that would out compete the existing bacteria in a persons mouth thus solving at least one of the problems.
Would be nice if they could somehow culture your own stem cells and then trigger them to turn into the enamel producing cells and spray it into cavities to refill them with fresh enamel.
> I have a dream of one day being able to just replace _all_ of my teeth at once with one solid porcelain+titanium prosthetic without any interstitial cracks or crevices.
How about the ability to grow one's own teeth in a lab so that you can pull one out and put the new one in? I'd prefer that over having a mouthful of fake teeth.
One problem with replacing natural teeth is that you will have bone loss in your jaw. The bone line is slightly lower where my crowns are compared to my other teeth and this is expected according to my dentists. So as a side effect your jaw would become substantially weaker over time, which may not be so terrible but I don’t know the realistic chances of a broken jaw for most people that don’t do MMA or have violent physical occupations.
Part of it is genetics too - I've been cursed with deeply-pitted chewing surfaces that are prone to cavities. A sibling with the same diet was not, and has never needed a filling.
One of my biggest regrets in life is getting amalgam fillings as a kid. Not that I would have known any better, or been able to protest it (they were the cheap and affordable option, after all). But knowing that a mercury compound is in my mouth 24/7 is not comforting.
I am reassured by studies indicating there are no toxic effects[0], but it's still one of those backburner things that one thinks about every once in a while. This fear alone has done more to motivate me to floss and brush properly than anything else. Luckily, I haven't needed a filling in almost a decade - but if I do, it will not be an amalgam one.
Mercury (or rather, Thiomersal) hasn't been used in the vast majority of vaccines since the 90s. It was completely safe as far as we know, but was removed as a precautionary measure during a push to remove all sources of mercury from food and drugs.
Amalgam also requires larger fillings, meaning they remove more healthy tooth to fit it in. And the tooth has to be undercut a bit, since it doesn't bond like composite does. So amalgam also increases the chances of a tooth cracking later on and having to be replaced with a crown.
But! Composite also contains BPA or similar. So there's that.
Never had a cavity in my life, for some reason, and it's not like I'm OCD about my teeth. I just brush multiple times a day, floss less often than that
As a kid, kind of ate whatever, including sugary foods, but I'm not from the US so back then I think I ate less sugar than Americans just as a function of how much sugar there is in American food
Nowadays I try to avoid eating added sugars (i.e. drink my coffee black, no soda, rarely eat deserts), but otherwise eat regular food and try to eat "real meals", like my grandparents would eat when they were my age
Nope. My partner is one of your kind. Perfect teeth. Bloody perfect. She can do away with brushing for a month at a time if she wanted and won’t have a problem. Her dentist has told her multiple times she should model her teeth haha.
Me—and whatever I inherited on top of my B12/Iron deficiencies—I feel it if I miss a day or two. So many problems since I was young. And without proper orthodontic help in health insurance or our public health care my parents couldn’t afford much of the work I needed when I was young. Don’t get me started on outdated rural dentists and their torture methods... I mean... faulty anesthetic.
My wife is the same. Perfect teeth. She often forgets to brush. Perfectly white and straight and zero cavities. Me? Brush twice a day. Floss every single day. Chew gum between meals. Still get cavities.
Interestingly my children have the exact same tooth brushing regime. My eldest has had zero problems whatsoever, yet my youngest has a bunch of problems. Same household, same tooth brushing, same diet. Our doctor said some people just have weaker teeth but I don't know anything about the science.
I've no doubt this is true. However, folks often forget what kind of damage can be done by a decade of neglect. Yes, I have some experience in the area.
There seems to be wide variation in tooth enamel in the general population. I have colleagues who have never been to the dentist, hardly brush and have never had a dental problem; other colleagues who brushed and flossed several times a day and ended up with full dentures before they were 25.
Are you exaggerating? Or were they really brushing more than 3 times a day?
Brushing obsessively and brushing hard will strip enamel that's been softened by acids. Brushing right after a meal can lead to damage because the enamel hasn't remineralized.
I only had a painful dentist memory because I fell off my bike and landed on a tooth. Poor hospital doctor had to pick broken bits of tooth out of my lip and then seal it up again with superglue. Other than that, absolutely no dental problems at all. I put it down to the fact that when I was growing up, I hardly ever had chocolate or other sugary sweets.
This has been popping up in the news periodically for a few years now. However, as a parent of young children, I'm still trying to figure out the next step. That is, what to feed them that is nutritious, tasty, and also works the jaw. Raw carrots and overcooked meat are not tolerated for long.
Even if I don't serve them mush, al dente pasta and tender-cooked meats are quite soft. Home-made jerky and artisan-style bread (with a really tough crust) are the best I've come up with so far.
I did have an insatiable desire to chew on gum for a year or so while a teenager. In retrospect I wonder if it was innate. Didn't save my wisdom teeth though.
A parent of a youngin' also, I am realizing there is balance needed. Technological prowess is part of the balance... we have orthodontic abilities to correct our teeth when tough food is lacking... and rub teeth with fluoride twice a day to help offset enamel breakdown.
Seriously - kids often chew on pens and other random household objects. Something less likely to make a mess/be gross or dangerous would seem preferable.
I agree! A great thing would be chew toys for kids. Probably a nice business. I mean, the core of this is that teeth are strengthened by exercise (and fluoride).
Huge benefits, and cheap in the long term.
Always been a side business I have been intrigued by, but never saw a way that I brought enough to this particular table to start it.
Have you tried slathering them in an unhealthy amount of peanut butter (+extra salt, sans palm oil)? It's basically food crack on par with roasted Brussels sprouts. Heck, skip roasting the Brussels and serve those raw with peanut butter, too!
I don't know about cultural constraints, but as a kid, one my favorite parts of food was goat bone marrow. In South Asian goat curries, you add sliced-in-half bone. Getting the marrow out is a combination of sucking and biting and chewing, which helps a lot with Jaw strength.
The article posits the "soft foods" explanation for our poor teeth, but there is another, which starts with the research of Weston A Price: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weston_Price
Price studied traditional cultures and observed that, when traditional diets were followed, people had perfect teeth. When an industrialized, Western diet was followed, tooth decay resulted. His book has the evidence, and is an easy read that you can browse in a few evenings. Edit: I found the whole book free online: http://www.journeytoforever.org/farm_library/price/pricetoc....
His research has been taken up by various doctors in the "evolutionary medicine" subfield, here are some introductory lectures:
That site is the definition of midwit pulp. Citing rationalwiki, referring to raw meat as "dangerous", vast overconfidence compared to the actual predictive power available. Sure, WAPF has some wacky stuff, but they also have some obviously good advice, and for most of the disputable claims they make, we don't actually have especially good evidence that they're wrong, so it's not something I'm going to waste energy arguing about.
> Sure, WAPF has some wacky stuff, but they also have some obviously good advice, and for most of the disputable claims they make, we don't actually have especially good evidence that they're wrong
Here's WAPF recommending homeopathy for alcoholism, sinus infections, and cancer:
Here's WAPF arguing against vaccines, calling Bill Gates (what?) a "delusional global dictator" (double what?) and saying that if you do have to give a child a vaccine that you should "keep him quiet for at least 24 hours after a shot" (triple what?)
Homeopathy doesn't work in a literal sense, but it's fine because it keeps people distracted from going to the doctor to get loaded up on pills until their condition goes away naturally. Cancer is probably the exception there.
Like I said, they have some wacky stuff, but a lot of WP's advice is good
I've seen/read this site before. What really bothers me about it and the similar arguments found on quackwatch, they are pretty much all based on crap from The Weston A. Price Foundation that Price himself never even wrote/promoted.
If SBM did ANY due diligence, I'm Pretty sure they'd notice that the foundation, (founded in 1999) is pretty far apart from Price's book, "Nutrition and Physical Degeneration". He died in 1948 and thus, had no connection to the foundation bearing his name. It's like they didn't read his book at all and just assumed The Weston A. Price Foundation was echoing his findings. The Weston A. Price Foundation is essentially wack fanfic, very loosely based on his findings, with tonnes of other "holistic" horse shit thrown in.
Dr. Price himself was a proponent of many things that are coming into favor now, such as not overly processing food, not having white bread, getting adequate amounts of vit. d, vit. a, calcium and some others.
Source: Unlike SBM/QW, I've actually read his book.
FWIW, I enjoyed copious amounts of milk as a kid until about the age of 20, its just about all I drank. My vit. a/d levels must have been through the roof vs the average person. (In Canada vit. d3 has to be added to milk by law.) I'm 37, have all 32 teeth, sans cavities, yes even the wisdom teeth. Now adays, I prefer to just drink water and get vits. a/d from cod liver oil. My diet mostly consists of much vegetables and animal foods. Cooked veg and meat are always cooked in butter. I've never been overweight, my bp is 115/65. I'm super sedentary in the winter, quite active in the summer.
Yeah, I've eaten a decent amount of raw animal products of good quality and never gotten sick from them. Beef 4 times or so, pork once, sashimi and non sashimi grade fish, eggs, (daily), beef liver, cow tongue, oddly never milk yet.
I don't think there is actually any good evidence that what I've done in that regard should be promoted. Price's book never promoted these things either.
Drinking raw milk from a local farm has been one of the best things I've done in the past year for my health and nutrition. I drink almost a liter a day.
I believe personal experience is important in this matter. Here are some more experiences of people who drank raw milk for their health:
Kylee Young was just about to turn 2 years old when she drank raw (unpasteurized) milk contaminated with E. coli O157:H7 bacteria in April of 2012. She first fell ill with bloody diarrhea. Next, Kylee developed hemolytic uremic syndrome, a complication of E. coli infection that can lead to kidney damage and central nervous system impairment. Kylee's kidneys shut down and she suffered a stroke while being treated for her E. coli infection and HUS. Less than 2 years later, before she turned 4, Kylee received a transplanted kidney from her mom. This is her family's story.
Larry Pedersen had just turned one year old when he developed an E. coli O157:H7 infection in May 2008. When his diarrhea turned bloody, his parents took him for medical treatment. He was admitted to the hospital on May 8. Shortly thereafter, Larry developed hemolytic uremic syndrome (HUS) and was transferred to a specialty care facility. As is typical of HUS, Larry was then suffering from acute renal failure. He was started on dialysis, which was necessary at that point for his survival. He required 15 days of dialysis before his kidneys recovered enough to function on their own. Larry was discharged on May 29, to continue recovery and treatment on an outpatient basis. The medical bills associated with his care approached $90,000. As the result of damage to his kidneys suffered during his bout with HUS, Larry is at significant risk for severe renal complications in the future. These complications include end stage renal disease (ESRD) and kidney transplant.
Nicole Riggs developed an E. coli O157:H7 infection in May 2008. She was nine years old at the time. Nicole suffered from symptoms typical of E. coli O157:H7 infections – bloody diarrhea, cramping, and nausea – that quickly intensified and led to her hospitalization on May 8, 2008. Once hospitalized, Nicole developed renal failure, anemia, and thrombocytopenia (low platelet count) indicating that she was developing HUS. She was transferred to a Children’s hospital and started on dialysis in order to save her life. She received dialysis for 18 days. Nicole’s renal function slowly returned to the point that she was deemed healthy enough for discharge on June 1. After discharge, she remained under the care of a nephrologist. In addition, damage suffered during her HUS required that her gall bladder be removed. Medical costs associated with Nicole's E. coli infection and HUS exceed $180,000. As the result of damage to her kidneys suffered during her bout with HUS, Nicole is at significant risk for severe renal complications in the future.
Mari Tardiff became ill with a Campylobacter infection after drinking raw milk in 2008. As a result of her Campylobacter infection, Mari developed Guillain Barré syndrome, or GBS, a potentially fatal inflammatory disorder. GBS is an infrequent, but well-known risk of Campylobacter infection. By the time she was hospitalized in mid June, Mari was essentially paralyzed. On June 15, Mari was intubated and placed on mechanical ventilation. For weeks on end, Mari’s condition remained unchanged. She was heavily sedated, unable to move, and entirely dependent on mechanical ventilation for survival. In August, there were indications of slight improvement, and the very slow process of weaning Mari off mechanical ventilation began. At the outset, it was not clear that the process was successful. Through incredible effort on Mari’s part, she was fully weaned off mechanical ventilation by August 20, and discharged to a rehabilitation facility. She spent more than two months at the rehabilitation facility diligently attempting to re-acquire the ability to speak, breathe, and move her arms and legs on her own. She was discharged home on November 1, still in need of essentially 24-hour care. Since that time, she has worked every day toward achieving her goal, as yet unreached, of walking a...
Pasteurized milk causes illness too. The key factors are the health of the cows and handling of the milk. If the cows are unhealthy, or if the dairy processing is done in an unclean space, then there could be problems. See The Untold Story of Milk for analysis/references
Of course. Pasteurised milk is not 100% safe to drink. However, it is much safer than raw milk:
The rate of outbreaks caused by unpasteurized milk (often called raw milk) and products made from it was 150 times greater than outbreaks linked to pasteurized milk, according to a study by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The 13-year review also revealed that the states where the sale of raw milk was legal had more than twice the rate of outbreaks as states where it was illegal.
Additionally, illnesses caused by pasteurised milk and dairy products tend to be less severe than those caused by raw milk:
Thirteen percent of patients in raw milk outbreaks were hospitalized compared to 1 percent in pasteurized milk outbreaks. This may be because raw milk outbreaks were all caused by bacteria, such as E. coli O157, which tend to produce more severe illnesses, according to the study.
Pasteurized milk and cheese outbreaks were often caused by relatively mild infections like norovirus and Staphylococcus aureus.
(Same source as above).
>> If the cows are unhealthy, or if the dairy processing is done in an unclean space, then there could be problems.
Raw milk from healthy animals, produced and handled under the most strict hygiene standards can still cause illness:
Can I still get a disease from raw milk and raw milk products if the animals are healthy, clean, and grass-fed or if the dairy is especially careful and clean when collecting the milk?
Yes. Even healthy animals may carry germs that can contaminate milk. Small numbers of bacteria can multiply and grow in milk from the time it is collected until the time a person drinks it. If the milk is not pasteurized to kill germs, people who drink it can get sick. Methods for collecting milk have improved over the years but cannot be relied on to be sure milk is safe to drink. Raw milk from “certified,” “organic,” or “local” dairies is not guaranteed to be safe. Only pasteurization can make milk safe to drink. You can find pasteurized organic milk and products made from it at many local, small farms.
>> See The Untold Story of Milk for analysis/references
I'm sorry, but the book you recommend is a commercial publication and I don't wish to pay to read it.
Could you please provide alternative references or analysis, that are free to read? For example, references or analysis from public health bodies, or scientific publications, etc would tend to be freely available.
> I'm sorry, but the book you recommend is a commercial publication and I don't wish to pay to read it
I'm sure you'll find it via your uni library. Also realmilk.com has plenty of data and arguments, but ofc you won't read those because you think it is biased
It's important to separate the research produced by the man Weston A Price from the foundation that has adopted his name. I'm referencing the man and his research, and citing lectures from the Ancestral Health Society, which actually publishes a scientific journal of its own.
Right, The WAPF and people who cant separate the man vs a foundation that was made over 50 years after he died, have probably done a huge amount of damage in this regard.
Price theorized that the missing element in Western diets was vitamin K, which is acquired in high amounts from animal fats. Every traditional diet had an adequate amount of animal fat, either in meat they ate, raw cheese, or raw whole milk.
According to the Linus Pauling Institute, Vitamin K2 is found most plentifully in certain non-animal fermented foods, cheeses (no mention of them having to be 'raw'), and animal liver, rather than animal fat in general.
It seems animal (and human) fat doesn't store much Vitamin K which is why a steady dietary supply is necessary.
Also did ancient societies have higher average lifespans than today? I don't quite understand claims ancient people were healthier.. Of course modern lifestyles have severe inadequacies, but it's complex, and for example many Japanese have quite long life spans despite eating a lot of rice.
Being healthy is not the only factor for long lifespan, there are also accidental risks (disease, being eaten by a tiger, ...) mitigated by our modern way of life and access to advanced healthcare.
A Masai is probably healthier than a cliche westerner fueled processed carbs and sitting all day, but the latter will certainly live longer.
As for Japanese eating lots of rice, portion control ? I'd guess they get a large proportion of their calories from rice, but don't over-eat. I used to live in Thailand, Thais eat all the time, mostly carbs but small portions, and there are still fewer fat people than in the West.
We are not talking about ancient 'societies' but rather ancient hunter gather people. Civilisation is only around 12,000 years old, modern humans have been around for 200,000 years and hominids for millions of years. Different time scale.
Think obesity, heart disease and diabetes. These don't exist in hunter gatherer people alive today and there is no record that humans ever had these problems before agriculture and civilization. We are better at treating health problems when they do arrise but we also have health problems that are caused by our lifestyle.
Why do people get dental work? Because good teeth are a sign of good health. We have far more problems with our teeth than hunter gatherer people but you don't see it because it is masked by dentistry. We have problems with blood pressure but it's masked with statins. We have problems with blood sugar but it's masked by insulin injections. We have problems with fatigue but its masked by coffee and sugar. We have problems with our joints and well... we haven't figured out what to do about that one yet. The list goes on.
I'll admit that fermented food was also a common factor among all traditional societies, and yes its a good source of K. Price simply theorized K was the important factor, didn't prove it. But it almost doesn't matter what the single factor was (if there is a single factor), if we just eat an ancestral diet then we should get the benefits. Also animal fat has other benefits that Price was not aware of at the time, like inducing ketosis etc, which is why I mentioned it specifically.
Also perhaps the Japanese have long life spans in spite of eating lots of rice. Wheat grains seem to be harmful, whereas rice is a neutral carb, and Japanese get plenty of animal fats from pork in ramen, raw fish, etc.
They don't eat as much rice as you would think as a proportion of calories. Rice portions in most asian cultures can fit in the palm of your hand typically. Lots of veggies, fish and meats too.
>> Every traditional diet had an adequate amount of animal fat, either in meat they ate, raw cheese, or raw whole milk.
Why the stress on "raw" cheese and milk? Heat-treated milk and dairy have the same amounts of animal fats as raw.
Edit:
Ah, I see:
The [Weston A. Price ] Foundation is an advocate for the consumption of unpasteurized milk, or raw milk. One of its goals is to remove health regulations requiring pasteurization of milk products, so that raw milk can be legally purchased in all states. Supporters of this campaign believe pasteurization removes or destroys beneficial parts of raw milk, leading to a less healthy product that is associated with numerous diseases.[14]
So the foundation named after the author of the book you discuss supports the idea that drinking raw milk is beneficial to health and that pasteurised milk causes disease.
To clarify, is this why your comment is talking of raw cheese and milk? Do you also believe that raw milk is healthier than pasteurised milk?
On average, the Western diet contains far more processed carbohydrates and far less uncooked fiber than traditional diets. Were you really not aware of that?
Different indigenous peoples ate very different diets, from zero carb to mostly carb, but each group ate a smaller variety of foods because they were constrained by their geography. Most diets were high in animal fats though, and even the ones that were high in carbohydrate had adequate amounts of animal fat in the form of cheese and (raw, whole) milk.
It's not carb-rich diets, it's processed carbohydrates. Every culture on earth eats predominately carbohydrates, with a very small few exceptions like Inuit or some peoples in Africa. Asia has mostly rice, Africa various roots, South/North America it was corn, etc. Humans are (loosely) starch-ivores
Price observed that the great majority of traditional diets were high in animal fats. He theorized that vitamin K, which is mostly acquired from animal fat, was the key health-promoting factor. Humans are more likely facultative carnivores than grain-eaters.
Traditional to whom, to hunter gatherers? Early farmers living in tribes? Or people living under strong states that developed over past few thousands years?
Based on my visit to India, travels around middle east, and third world countries. Oils, and fats are the most affordable way to get a high enough amount of calories in a diet for the poor masses. So even if you're poor, and eating rice everyday. It will be typically with something oily and some spices to add flavour.
I read the book, he travelled to multiple continents and generally this is pre- industrial diets, or prior to introduction of vegetable and seed oils, refined sugars, processed carbs, etc. Because he was able to do this research in the 20s, the industrial diet hadn't quite taken over. He also studied mummies in South America. They overwhelmingly had perfect teeth, prior to introduction of modern junk food.
K1 comes from veggies. K2 is almost exclusively from animal products (except for natto, yum!).
Apparently our bodies can synthesize some K2 from K1 but my understanding is that's quite variable and should not assumed to be adequate.
There's a fair amount of research linking arteriosclerosis to a deficiency of K2, so it's part of my supplement regimentation. It's definitely worth researching if you're interested in optimizing your health in a very lazy manner :-).
the evidence for that was mostly based on Ancel Keys' work around the 1950s and it has been pretty clearly shown that he cherry picked the data in his observational study. When analyzed properly, the link between any kind of heart disease and red meat disappears. Look up Gary Taubes work for thorough references
As I gather, we still believe that red meat consumption leads to heart disease, but we're becoming less sure of his hypothesis that the elevated cholesterol resulting from saturated fat (found in red meat) causes heart disease.
It turns out the research for that doesn't meet evidence-based medicine standards. Almost all observational studies of human nutrition are junk science with small effect sizes and poor controls.
There is an assumption here that there is one diet is the best in all respects. But I don't think that's the case. Diets have benefits and drawbacks. Like over the years we have adapted a little bit in this direction and then later a little bit in that direction and that's how we are where we are.
What a load of b. We have herbivore teeth, all our closest primate ancestors are herbivore, we have a long, herbivore intestine, an appendix, etc. Feels like you have an agenda to push here.
We have a short omnivore intestine and many of the plants our primate ancestors ate would give you a very bad stomach ache.
We don't look like other predators because our main weapon is our brain and tools rather than claws and strength. We also cook our meat which means we need less powerful jaws and less sharp teeth. Keep in mind that you still have incisors and canines specifically for eating meat. You could even run your tongue along then right now and feel how sharp they are.
This is correct. The Expensive Tissue Hypothesis of brain/gut development pretty clearly shows that a switch to eating meat and hunting coincided with a shortening of our intestines and enlarging of our brain, making us human.
Incorrect. ETH postulates that there could be a correlation between gut length and brain development, the paper explicitly states that there could be an alternative methodology for how we manage the metabolic requirements for our brains. Back to the point on humans having canines. Herbivores also have canines to tear through fibrous plant material see (gorilla, baboon and hippo).
There's a very interesting and long 6-year old discussion in the comments of the YouTube video you posted. In it, Marcinmd1 makes a lot of very good points, against the premise of the video...
What is a processed carbohydrate to you? Only refined wheat flower, white rice, and sucrose? These issues started with the shift to agriculture, and the cultures I believe you're describing are all agricultural. That's why civilization exists at all.
Hunter gatherers ate all sorts of things. But starch and sugar was not easily accessible. Wild rice, for instance, would be painstaking to gather and consume in large amounts. Roots and tubers would be small and have lots of antinutrients, keeping you from eating a lot of them. Fruits were seasonal and generally tiny.
If I were a hunter gatherer, in the absence of fresh hunted meat, I would get more nutritional value out of worms or larvae in the dirt than a handful of tubers that may give me a stomachache. Insects are animal protein (and fat).
No the people he studied were in the 1920s. Traditional diets vs newer modern industrial diets. Vast majority of cultures were agricultural since 5000BC. It's seed and vegetable oils (not used as dietary fat source until industrial methods made it possible in early 20th century), white bread, enriched flour, high fructose corn syrup, excessive sugar, etc.
Every agricultural culture eats primarily carbs. And the onset of agriculture is associated with the onset of tooth decay (and many signs of malnutrition) in the archaeological record.
I thought that link between agriculture and tooth decay was due to the early "milling" techniques which introduced bits of stone into the food, causing mechanical wear? I don't remember where I got this from, however.
Yeah but mentioned Begg and doesn't mention Price. Begg advocated for mechanical intervention, Price advocated for nutritional intervention. Only mentioning Begg presents a biased view on possible therapies.
Carbs are actually not bad, but if you do not have the proper micronutrients in place they’ll just mess your teeth and your health. Cue obesity, diabetes, dental issues, poor resistance to infection
Its complex, but Price suggested vitamin K from animal fats was the key element. All traditional diets were heavy in animal fats, either meat or raw dairy/cheese. Vegetables and fruit were only eaten seasonally, and not in high volume.
Yes it is. Pasteurization destroys the nutrients and beneficial bacteria. Raw milk from healthy cows is a probiotic like yogurt and extremely health promoting. People that are supposedly lactose intolerant are often able to drink raw milk after an adjustment period, probably because they improve their microbiome. See https://www.realmilk.com/ (one of the good things the WAPF has done) and the book "The Untold Story of Milk" for a fascinating tell-all,including how pasteurization was initially used because producers were spiking milk with chalk and embalming fluid and literally feeding dairy cows shit, public health officials had no other way to control the milk supply.
realmilk.com is the website of a campaign for raw milk by the Weston A. Price Foundation. Being the website of an activist organisation it is not a source that is likely to be objective. Especially troublesome is the clear attempt to rebrand raw milk as "real milk", possibly to avoid the negative associations that most people rightly make with raw milk.
I cite below from the wikipedia page on raw milk, which is more likely to be an objective source:
With the exception of an altered organoleptic [flavor] profile, heating (particularly ultra high temperature and similar treatments) will not substantially change the nutritional value of raw milk or other benefits associated with raw milk consumption."[20]
Raw milk advocates, such as the Weston A. Price Foundation, say that raw milk can be produced hygienically, and that it has health benefits that are destroyed in the pasteurization process.[2] Research shows only very slight differences in the nutritional values of pasteurized and unpasteurized milk.[12][20]
Three studies have found a statistically significant inverse relationship between consumption of raw milk and asthma and allergies.[28][29][30] However, all of these studies have been performed in children living on farms and living a farming lifestyle, rather than comparing urban children living typical urban lifestyles and with typical urban exposures on the basis of consumption or nonconsumption of raw milk. Aspects of the overall urban vs. farming environment lifestyle have been suggested as having a role in these differences, and for this reason, the overall phenomenon has been named the "farm effect".
Also see webpages (and a pdf report) on drinking raw milk from the US FDA and CDC, UK FSA and EU EFSA, below:
The Dangers of Raw Milk: Unpasteurized Milk Can Pose a Serious Health Risk
I have looked at all of these arguments in depth and recommend you read at least "The Untold Story of Milk" before making conclusions.
The history of raw milk has been tainted with misinformed public policy. The dangers of unpasteurized milk are highly over-exaggerated. To put it bluntly, I don't trust the government's assessments about raw dairy.
On a practical level, consider this: people drank milk for thousands of years, but we only started pasteurizing it in the early 1900s. Do you really think people before 1900 were just living with these supposed diseases of raw milk, completely unawares? No, they drank raw milk and they were fine.
> Do you really think people before 1900 were just living with these supposed diseases of raw milk, completely unawares? No, they drank raw milk and they were fine.
Except for the ones who died. Life expectancy has gone up dramatically since 1900.
>> On a practical level, consider this: people drank milk for thousands of years,
but we only started pasteurizing it in the early 1900s. Do you really think
people before 1900 were just living with these supposed diseases of raw milk,
completely unawares? No, they drank raw milk and they were fine.
People fall ill from drinking raw milk and even die today, when we have a
better understanding of the causes of disease and have much better hygiene
standards. I don't understand why you expect that this happened less, or not
at all (?) in the past.
>> To put it bluntly, I don't trust the government's assessments about raw dairy.
Which government's? I linked to sites from the US, the UK and the EU. They are representative of health agencies from around the world.
In any case, this is from the WHO, i.e. not a governmental source:
Salmonella, Campylobacter, and Enterohaemorrhagic Escherichia coli are among the most common foodborne pathogens that affect millions of people annually – sometimes with severe and fatal outcomes. Symptoms are fever, headache, nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain and diarrhoea. Examples of foods involved in outbreaks of salmonellosis are eggs, poultry and other products of animal origin. Foodborne cases with Campylobacter are mainly caused by raw milk, raw or undercooked poultry and drinking water. Enterohaemorrhagic Escherichia coli is associated with unpasteurized milk, undercooked meat and fresh fruits and vegetables.
Listeria infection leads to miscarriage in pregnant women or death of newborn babies. Although disease occurrence is relatively low, listeria’s severe and sometimes fatal health consequences, particularly among infants, children and the elderly, count them among the most serious foodborne infections. Listeria is found in unpasteurised dairy products and various ready-to-eat foods and can grow at refrigeration temperatures.
It's interesting to note that some of the diesease associated with raw milk consumption are also caused by consumption of other foods, e.g. raw meat or raw eggs etc. It doesn't make a lot of sense to think that it's possible to get, e.g. E. coli from raw meat, but not from raw milk.
> People fall ill from drinking raw milk and even die today, when we have a better understanding of the causes of disease and have much better hygiene standards. I don't understand why you expect that this happened less, or not at all (?) in the past.
The illnesses associated with raw milk are caused by improperly handled milk, diseased cows, or something else entirely. Its human error, not some inherent quality of milk that is dangerous. Seriously take a look at the book The Untold Story of Milk, it has done all of the intellectual work to weigh the evidence and analyze the history already.
>> Its human error, not some inherent quality of milk that is dangerous.
I agree that it's not an "inherent quality of milk" that is dangerous. For instance, it's not the fact that milk is liquid, or that its colour is white/yellow that makes it dangerous. It is the presence of pathogenic bacteria in raw milk that make drinking raw milk dangerous.
However, the presence of pathogenic bacteria in raw milk is not the result of "human error". Indeed, one would say that it is the natural state of things that bacteria will populate everything we eat, drink or breathe. It just happens that some of those bacteria can cause illness or kill us.
>> Seriously take a look at the book The Untold Story of Milk, it has done all of the intellectual work to weigh the evidence and analyze the history already.
So have the WHO, FDA, CDC, EFSA, FSA, etc etc. Does the book you recommend arrive at different results?
Edit: To be a bit more precise about "human error". Animals do not need to be diseased and humans don't need to make errors for raw milk to cause illness. See for example the campylobacter outbreak caused by raw milk produced by Kendal Farm in the UK:
In August the farm won a National Trust fine farm produce award for its unpasteurised milk.
Meaning the highest possible hygiene standards were observed at that farm. This being a UK farm, hygiene standards means that ill animals are separated from the herd and their milk destroyed and that animals and their milk are tested at least twice a year to ensure they're free from infection. You will not find more stringent hygiene procedures the world over. And yet, an outbreak did occur.
It may seem more problematic to speak of the bias of scientific articles, because many people do not want to see “unscientific” views covered in encyclopedia articles. If such articles are “biased in favor of science,” some people naturally find that to be a feature, not a bug. The problem, though, is that scientists sometimes do not agree on which theories are and are not scientific. On such issues, the “scientific point of view” and the “objective point of view” according to the Establishment might be very much opposed to neutrality. So when the Establishment seems unified on a certain view of a scientific controversy, then that is the view that is taken for granted, and often aggressively asserted, by Wikipedia.
The global warming and MMR vaccine articles are examples; I hardly need to dive into these pages, since it is quite enough to say that they endorse definite positions that scientific minorities reject. Another example is how Wikipedia treats various topics in alternative medicine—often dismissively, and frequently labeled as “pseudoscience” in Wikipedia’s own voice. Indeed, Wikipedia defines the very term as follows: “Alternative medicine describes any practice that aims to achieve the healing effects of medicine, but which lacks biological plausibility and is untested, untestable or proven ineffective.” In all these cases, genuine neutrality requires a different sort of treatment.
Again, other examples could be found, in no doubt thousands of other, perfectly unexciting topics. These are just the first topics that came to mind, associated as they are with the culture wars, and their articles on those topics put Wikipedia very decidedly on one side of that war. You should not be able to say that about an encyclopedia that claims to be neutral.
Clearly, for you raw milk is not a scientific topic related to human health. Perhaps it is a mystery, or a thriller, or something else. For the rest of the readers here, Sanger's message is perfectly clear.
Please don't be a jerk on HN. Apart from breaking the site guidelines, it gives people a reason to dismiss what you're saying, which is not in your interest and particularly bad if what you're saying is true.
So the records of tooth decay we have during the beginnings of agriculture are not “traditional”? Curious where your line of “traditional” is. I have a hunch it lines up with your dietary preferences.
A really good start is to only buy and eat things that contain one ingredient. Mostly everything else is bad for you (and your teeth).
# Yes, yes, there are exceptions, but I'd say it holds true at least 95% of the time.
EDIT/UPDATE: I was actually being serious. Fruit, vegetables, grains, meat. Cook and eat those things, and you'll do fine. Of course you can combine them, but do so at home so you control what's actually in there.
Worth noting that any modern fruit you'll find in a shop has been bred for generations to contain far far far more sugar than they would have had prior to industrialisation.
Oh nice stuff! Glad to see educated people here. I think Weston Price was definitely onto something, however please be very skeptical of the claims about the cod liver oil and similar. They are a very poor source all things considered of vitamin a d and k; they also contains tons of rancid fat which I think everyone even the mainstream agree is damaging to health.
One thing Weston made me realize and saddens me is how even the upper classes of many countries nowadays follow pretty poor diets and food ideas. Like even they who could afford proper nutrition are not getting it, let alone the aspirants who emulate all the latest diet fads and trends.
Interesting. So, it seems to be beneficial to have children chew on hard things when small to develop a larger jaw so that their teeth don't crowd. I guess chewing on ice would be beneficial in this sense. As long as they're chewing on it with teeth that will fall out as to not worry about damaging them...
I wonder what the aesthetic differences would be though. In a western beauty sense, I can imagine having a larger jaw being somewhat preferential for men but for women - isn't it not? Would it be enough to notice?
Wish I had known this growing up. Ironically, I felt like I did eat some hard foods but I wonder how much you have to eat in order for it to have a real effect.
Growing up in Nigeria, my grandmother encouraged me to chew bones and consume bone marrow. It's quite common and also a badge of honor as a kid if you can open a bottle of pop with your teeth. I often get compliments on my teeth and have no issues as an adult.
It's not about chewing on something hard, but about pulling on something strong (away from your face). E.g. ripping chunks off a piece of meat. This will have the desired effect on their jaw, making them both healthier and more attractive.
I was fairly disappointed when Oragenics abandoned their modified streptococcus treatment, designed to replace the most harmful bacteria in the human mouth with a non-damaging one.
Last I heard, the few people who had tried the treatment are still completely free of decay and gum issues, but it's been a long time and there's no follow up, sadly.
I think there should be a serious look at whether dental industry is preventing these treatments from seeing the light, or at least quietly and deliberately ignoring them. Xylitol has almost definite benefits but most dentists have never heard of it.
I first heard about Xylitol at natural food stores and from this book - "Kiss your dentist goodbye" (written by a dentist) - though like you say, no dentist that I've been to in person has mentioned it
> Xylitol has almost definite benefits but most dentists have never heard of it.
I mean, it's in a lot of toothpastes and mouthwashes. Certainly it could be in more things, but dentists do recommend those things it's in (without understanding exactly what makes one better than another, instead going on dentistry-association studies of the observed effects of various products. Presumably the scientists doing said studies know what xylitol is.)
It's hard to just put xylitol in regular foods, though, because people feed random foods to their pets all the time, and xylitol kills dogs. So it only ends up marketed in the form of things you would never think to allow your pets to have in the first place. (Like mouthwash, or gum, or mints.)
You can certainly take your consumption into your own hands, though, and just buy a bag of xylitol to use in place of sucrose for cooking/baking/putting in your coffee/etc. (That is, if you don't have a dog.)
Some types of Tom’s toothpaste have Xyletol. You just have to make sure you’re getting one with fluoride too, and not one of the useless non-fluoride ones. I Typically stock up when I find it.
There are other toothpastes with Xyletol too, but that’s the one I usually look for.
Thanks for sharing this. I've been asking dentists about this stuff for years, not one had heard of it. When I last read about it, it was just referred to as 45s5, and I didn't realize it was available from a major manufacturer. Now I have a chance to get some.
I'm not sure if this is exactly the same but you can buy modified bacteria supplements for your teeth. Its hard to tell how effective any of these products are.
I emailed the Oragenics lead scientist over a decade ago. If I recall his response, it was basically an FDA issue, not unlike their distaste for phages.
What about the tongue? After reading something strange in a book about meditation, where it said I should keep my tongue at the roof of my mouth, I got curious. Actually I was baffled because I couldn't do it. I literally could not keep a significant part of my tongue stuck to the roof of my mouth without significant effort and actually strain. I did a survey between my friends and only one of them (my brother) actually kept the tongue in the described position naturally. Surprisingly (this is highly anecdotal, but still interesting) he's the only person that I know that doesn't have any teeth issues - only once he'd visited a dentist with a small cavity.
This got me researching and there's actually a British orthodontist (Dr. Mike Mew) who actively pushes the idea that we should keep our tongue at the roof of our mouth and that it's actually our natural tongue position that _would_ develop if we kept our ancestral dietary habits, e.g. chewing hard foods like meat from since we were little.
Wow this is the first time I've heard this. Anecdotally, I have poor dental hygiene habits compared to my wife and family, but despite consuming the same diet as them, I have had no dental trouble and only one cavity in my life, which was back in my teens. We often joke about how unfair this is.
My tongue naturally rests on the roof of my mouth.
Wow this is the first time I've heard this. Anecdotally, I have relatively less than perfect dental hygiene habits compared to my wife and family, but despite consuming the same diet as them, I have had no dental trouble and only one cavity in my life, which was back in my teens. We often joke about how unfair this is.
My tongue naturally rests on the roof of my mouth.
That’s quite interesting! When my mouth is closed, at least half of my tongue is always naturally touching the roof of my mouth. Despite my oral hygiene not being the best (I brush my teeth every day, but rarely floss), I’ve never had a cavity (I did have to get my wisdom teeth removed though). I notice it’s much easier for my mouth to produce saliva when my tongue is touching the roof of my mouth, which definitely helps (quoting the linked article: “saliva buffers the teeth against acid attack and bathes them in calcium and phosphate to remineralize their surface”).
This sounds like an interesting theory. I'm not really sure where my tongue could rest that wasn't on the roof of my mouth. The vacuum kind of naturally sticks it up there. I'd have to force it down otherwise.
I've been wondering about Mew and this tongue position thing for a while. I've been keeping mine on the roof of my mouth for well over a decade now, after getting scolded by a martial arts instructor for failing to do so naturally. But from what I understand, it's usually the lower half of the jaw that's too small. Mandibular advancement is sometimes done to treat sleep apnea. But if anything, keeping your tongue on the roof would expand the upper half, not the lower?
My orthodentist referred me to a logopedist (specialist that deals with speech and swallowing disorders) to train my tongue position to prevent my teeth from getting crooked again. This indeed included training to position my tongue to the roof of my mouth, but also training to click loudly with my tongue and straining my lip muscles with a button and a rope. This was around ten years ago. I thought this connection between ortodentics and logopedists was already common? A quick search calls this myofunctional therapy.
A)Teeth are sorta like regular ol' bones 'cept they're on the outside of your body and their purpose is to grind things. B) You don't really need all of them to survive + evolution. C) Humans live a really long time now and we just expect our mashy-grinders to keep up? D) Enamel doesn't like sugar which is in everything.
Recently I was wondering why we have so many mouth problems. Teeth are often misaligned, wisdom teeth need to be removed, TMJ (clicking / popping jaw) is extremely common. After researching, I came to the same conclusion that this article mentions at the end. Essentially we need to eat harder foods while developing in order to increase jaw size and strength.
The article touches on sleep apnoea as well. Apparently this can become a huge problem for developing children if their pallet is under-formed.
I think this is a big public health issue, and I think it makes sense to start some kind of large scale public health campaign to inform the public and avoid all of these dental issues.
Somewhat related was something on NPR the other day[1]. Diet has affected mouth morphology such that about 90% of people are affected by it and it’s expressed in crooked teeth, poor sleep and other things.
Looks like diets over the last 400 years have had dramatic impact on human health mouth shape.
Tired, so I'll skip my own interpretation - but I've become convinced that hydroxyapatite is overlooked. I subscribe to the importance of vitamin K too, although my experience with hydroxyapatite has been tangibly beneficial. I find it odd that it's as uncommon as it is, eg I've never seen it on a store shelf. Again, I'm tired, so I'm dropping an unvetted lazily found link on the topic below:
264 comments
[ 3.5 ms ] story [ 268 ms ] threadYou need to chew and have some resistance, otherwise you turn from a monkey back into a fish
I heartily encourage everyone to try radically different (but nutritionally complete) diets for a month or two, if for no other reason than to see how your body and brain responds. Go vegan, try keto/lchf, try carnivore, try soylent, try sated. See what, if anything, it gets you.
I like spending 80% or so of my life in ketosis (usually for 2-8 weeks at a time), due to the many small changes it causes in my body and mind.
One of the interesting side effects (for me) is a significant reduction in dental buildup, and after a few weeks of not eating sugar, much of the existing buildup (if I haven’t had a professional cleaning recently) will spontaneously crumble and detach.
It surprised me when it happened.
Since we are talking about anecdotes, most of my Indian friends have had dental issues didn't matter if they were veg or non vegetarians.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5800179/
I can't imagine that the homeless are adequately covered. I think it's painfully, ridiculously absent as well.
To be clear, I'm not in that camp, but there are rational lines of thought to oppose a state-run healthcare system.
(And also to be clear, I can't personally see how it could possibly be worse than our current system)
(I personally believe we should have state-run healthcare, but universal healthcare != state-run healthcare.)
Sure, the day-to-day administration of such a system could be in a single agency, or distributed among private providers, or some blend. But the core thing that opponents fight is still there.
Success would be wholly dependent on the implementation in any case. Our current implementation is a local minimum of effectiveness, maximum of overhead. There are better solutions with either public or private bases.
There's a limited amount of health care to give because there is a limited amount of people willing to provide it. There is no concept of "right to health care" that doesn't require slavery.
You can argue for universal health care but arguing that people have "a right to health care" makes no sense.
Imagine there is 1 doctor. Doctor doesn't want to treat patient (could be sick, could be tired) but patient "has a right to health care". The only way to honor that right is to force the doctor to treat them.
I'm not sure how "every government worker is a slave" fits. The things most government workers do have nothing to do with "rights". As an example there is no "right to protection" even though we have police. There are rights that prevent the police from doing bad things but there is no right that forces police to help anyone.
What said was claiming people "have a right to healthcare" requires slavery.
Universal Health Care != "right to healthcare"
I'm dying. "SNIFF IT! SNIIFFFFFFF IIIIIIITTTTTT!" TBH, that sounds like assault.
Dental care feels like oncology, everything treats and causes problems at the same time.
No more painful cavities. No more cracked teeth. No more need for floss or toothpicks, because there aren't any gaps for food to get stuck in. And it could be trivially sculpted to still have the same outward appearance of bullshit normal teeth.
[1.]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaws_(James_Bond)
Hopefully not impossible to fix- osseointegration, for example, works- but currently unsolved.
Maybe one day we'll figure out how grow a fresh layer of enamel on a prosthetic in the lab, and maybe gums will happily bond to that.
https://theouterlimits.fandom.com/wiki/The_New_Breed
Xyletol gum is also claimed to fight S. Mutans.
How about the ability to grow one's own teeth in a lab so that you can pull one out and put the new one in? I'd prefer that over having a mouthful of fake teeth.
One of my biggest regrets in life is getting amalgam fillings as a kid. Not that I would have known any better, or been able to protest it (they were the cheap and affordable option, after all). But knowing that a mercury compound is in my mouth 24/7 is not comforting.
I am reassured by studies indicating there are no toxic effects[0], but it's still one of those backburner things that one thinks about every once in a while. This fear alone has done more to motivate me to floss and brush properly than anything else. Luckily, I haven't needed a filling in almost a decade - but if I do, it will not be an amalgam one.
[0]: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3388771/
But! Composite also contains BPA or similar. So there's that.
Nowadays I try to avoid eating added sugars (i.e. drink my coffee black, no soda, rarely eat deserts), but otherwise eat regular food and try to eat "real meals", like my grandparents would eat when they were my age
Me—and whatever I inherited on top of my B12/Iron deficiencies—I feel it if I miss a day or two. So many problems since I was young. And without proper orthodontic help in health insurance or our public health care my parents couldn’t afford much of the work I needed when I was young. Don’t get me started on outdated rural dentists and their torture methods... I mean... faulty anesthetic.
You are a lucky person indeed.
Interestingly my children have the exact same tooth brushing regime. My eldest has had zero problems whatsoever, yet my youngest has a bunch of problems. Same household, same tooth brushing, same diet. Our doctor said some people just have weaker teeth but I don't know anything about the science.
Brushing obsessively and brushing hard will strip enamel that's been softened by acids. Brushing right after a meal can lead to damage because the enamel hasn't remineralized.
I’m 35 and in the same boat. Brush once a day or two. Get great reviews from my dentist every time. Just need to start flossing more for gum health.
Genetics are powerful sometimes.
Did she have a sugar heavy diet or not?
She ate little during the depression. She ate Supermarket sheet cake when that became a thing. No special diets.
Oh and Jello Salad. Lutheran potlucks and all.
Even if I don't serve them mush, al dente pasta and tender-cooked meats are quite soft. Home-made jerky and artisan-style bread (with a really tough crust) are the best I've come up with so far.
I did have an insatiable desire to chew on gum for a year or so while a teenager. In retrospect I wonder if it was innate. Didn't save my wisdom teeth though.
An aligned bite helps keep your teeth straight, but you'll have trouble getting one if your lower jaw is too short.
Seriously - kids often chew on pens and other random household objects. Something less likely to make a mess/be gross or dangerous would seem preferable.
Huge benefits, and cheap in the long term.
Always been a side business I have been intrigued by, but never saw a way that I brought enough to this particular table to start it.
I mean fluoridated chew toys for kids that strengthen teeth and reduce future orthodontics costs seems like a good one?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3956646/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3491930/
[1] https://www.quora.com/Why-do-they-use-pacifiers-at-raves
If you want it to also not rot teeth, don't put sugar in it.
If you want it to still taste like something, just put non-metabolizable sugars in it, like xylitol.
(There are already xylitol gums. Buy them for your kids today!)
Have you tried slathering them in an unhealthy amount of peanut butter (+extra salt, sans palm oil)? It's basically food crack on par with roasted Brussels sprouts. Heck, skip roasting the Brussels and serve those raw with peanut butter, too!
He also goes into some research on the effects that our diet changes are having on short-sightedness; slightly rambly, but very interesting interview.
[0]: https://www.instagram.com/p/CAm7u5UAv1K/ - don't mind the venue, it's just a comedian interviewing interesting people
Price studied traditional cultures and observed that, when traditional diets were followed, people had perfect teeth. When an industrialized, Western diet was followed, tooth decay resulted. His book has the evidence, and is an easy read that you can browse in a few evenings. Edit: I found the whole book free online: http://www.journeytoforever.org/farm_library/price/pricetoc....
His research has been taken up by various doctors in the "evolutionary medicine" subfield, here are some introductory lectures:
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D4L0PzprcRI
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e2ck0A5oKjU
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCPwD59sDvg
Those are from the Ancestral Health Symposium, for which I have been a (volunteer) organizer for the last few years.
You mean the WAPF site, right?
> Sure, WAPF has some wacky stuff, but they also have some obviously good advice, and for most of the disputable claims they make, we don't actually have especially good evidence that they're wrong
Here's WAPF recommending homeopathy for alcoholism, sinus infections, and cancer:
https://www.westonaprice.org/health-topics/homeopathy-and-al...
https://www.westonaprice.org/health-topics/homeopathy/honk-i...
https://www.westonaprice.org/health-topics/homeopathy/dont-b...
Here's WAPF arguing against vaccines, calling Bill Gates (what?) a "delusional global dictator" (double what?) and saying that if you do have to give a child a vaccine that you should "keep him quiet for at least 24 hours after a shot" (triple what?)
https://www.westonaprice.org/vaccinations/
Like I said, they have some wacky stuff, but a lot of WP's advice is good
(spelling)
If SBM did ANY due diligence, I'm Pretty sure they'd notice that the foundation, (founded in 1999) is pretty far apart from Price's book, "Nutrition and Physical Degeneration". He died in 1948 and thus, had no connection to the foundation bearing his name. It's like they didn't read his book at all and just assumed The Weston A. Price Foundation was echoing his findings. The Weston A. Price Foundation is essentially wack fanfic, very loosely based on his findings, with tonnes of other "holistic" horse shit thrown in.
Dr. Price himself was a proponent of many things that are coming into favor now, such as not overly processing food, not having white bread, getting adequate amounts of vit. d, vit. a, calcium and some others.
Source: Unlike SBM/QW, I've actually read his book.
FWIW, I enjoyed copious amounts of milk as a kid until about the age of 20, its just about all I drank. My vit. a/d levels must have been through the roof vs the average person. (In Canada vit. d3 has to be added to milk by law.) I'm 37, have all 32 teeth, sans cavities, yes even the wisdom teeth. Now adays, I prefer to just drink water and get vits. a/d from cod liver oil. My diet mostly consists of much vegetables and animal foods. Cooked veg and meat are always cooked in butter. I've never been overweight, my bp is 115/65. I'm super sedentary in the winter, quite active in the summer.
Edited for spelling
See also the book "The Untold Story of Milk" by Ron Schmid.
I don't think there is actually any good evidence that what I've done in that regard should be promoted. Price's book never promoted these things either.
Drinking raw milk from a local farm has been one of the best things I've done in the past year for my health and nutrition. I drink almost a liter a day.
Kylee Young was just about to turn 2 years old when she drank raw (unpasteurized) milk contaminated with E. coli O157:H7 bacteria in April of 2012. She first fell ill with bloody diarrhea. Next, Kylee developed hemolytic uremic syndrome, a complication of E. coli infection that can lead to kidney damage and central nervous system impairment. Kylee's kidneys shut down and she suffered a stroke while being treated for her E. coli infection and HUS. Less than 2 years later, before she turned 4, Kylee received a transplanted kidney from her mom. This is her family's story.
Larry Pedersen had just turned one year old when he developed an E. coli O157:H7 infection in May 2008. When his diarrhea turned bloody, his parents took him for medical treatment. He was admitted to the hospital on May 8. Shortly thereafter, Larry developed hemolytic uremic syndrome (HUS) and was transferred to a specialty care facility. As is typical of HUS, Larry was then suffering from acute renal failure. He was started on dialysis, which was necessary at that point for his survival. He required 15 days of dialysis before his kidneys recovered enough to function on their own. Larry was discharged on May 29, to continue recovery and treatment on an outpatient basis. The medical bills associated with his care approached $90,000. As the result of damage to his kidneys suffered during his bout with HUS, Larry is at significant risk for severe renal complications in the future. These complications include end stage renal disease (ESRD) and kidney transplant.
Nicole Riggs developed an E. coli O157:H7 infection in May 2008. She was nine years old at the time. Nicole suffered from symptoms typical of E. coli O157:H7 infections – bloody diarrhea, cramping, and nausea – that quickly intensified and led to her hospitalization on May 8, 2008. Once hospitalized, Nicole developed renal failure, anemia, and thrombocytopenia (low platelet count) indicating that she was developing HUS. She was transferred to a Children’s hospital and started on dialysis in order to save her life. She received dialysis for 18 days. Nicole’s renal function slowly returned to the point that she was deemed healthy enough for discharge on June 1. After discharge, she remained under the care of a nephrologist. In addition, damage suffered during her HUS required that her gall bladder be removed. Medical costs associated with Nicole's E. coli infection and HUS exceed $180,000. As the result of damage to her kidneys suffered during her bout with HUS, Nicole is at significant risk for severe renal complications in the future.
Mari Tardiff became ill with a Campylobacter infection after drinking raw milk in 2008. As a result of her Campylobacter infection, Mari developed Guillain Barré syndrome, or GBS, a potentially fatal inflammatory disorder. GBS is an infrequent, but well-known risk of Campylobacter infection. By the time she was hospitalized in mid June, Mari was essentially paralyzed. On June 15, Mari was intubated and placed on mechanical ventilation. For weeks on end, Mari’s condition remained unchanged. She was heavily sedated, unable to move, and entirely dependent on mechanical ventilation for survival. In August, there were indications of slight improvement, and the very slow process of weaning Mari off mechanical ventilation began. At the outset, it was not clear that the process was successful. Through incredible effort on Mari’s part, she was fully weaned off mechanical ventilation by August 20, and discharged to a rehabilitation facility. She spent more than two months at the rehabilitation facility diligently attempting to re-acquire the ability to speak, breathe, and move her arms and legs on her own. She was discharged home on November 1, still in need of essentially 24-hour care. Since that time, she has worked every day toward achieving her goal, as yet unreached, of walking a...
Of course. Pasteurised milk is not 100% safe to drink. However, it is much safer than raw milk:
The rate of outbreaks caused by unpasteurized milk (often called raw milk) and products made from it was 150 times greater than outbreaks linked to pasteurized milk, according to a study by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The 13-year review also revealed that the states where the sale of raw milk was legal had more than twice the rate of outbreaks as states where it was illegal.
https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2012/p0221_raw_milk_outbr...
Additionally, illnesses caused by pasteurised milk and dairy products tend to be less severe than those caused by raw milk:
Thirteen percent of patients in raw milk outbreaks were hospitalized compared to 1 percent in pasteurized milk outbreaks. This may be because raw milk outbreaks were all caused by bacteria, such as E. coli O157, which tend to produce more severe illnesses, according to the study.
Pasteurized milk and cheese outbreaks were often caused by relatively mild infections like norovirus and Staphylococcus aureus.
(Same source as above).
>> If the cows are unhealthy, or if the dairy processing is done in an unclean space, then there could be problems.
Raw milk from healthy animals, produced and handled under the most strict hygiene standards can still cause illness:
Can I still get a disease from raw milk and raw milk products if the animals are healthy, clean, and grass-fed or if the dairy is especially careful and clean when collecting the milk?
Yes. Even healthy animals may carry germs that can contaminate milk. Small numbers of bacteria can multiply and grow in milk from the time it is collected until the time a person drinks it. If the milk is not pasteurized to kill germs, people who drink it can get sick. Methods for collecting milk have improved over the years but cannot be relied on to be sure milk is safe to drink. Raw milk from “certified,” “organic,” or “local” dairies is not guaranteed to be safe. Only pasteurization can make milk safe to drink. You can find pasteurized organic milk and products made from it at many local, small farms.
https://www.cdc.gov/foodsafety/rawmilk/raw-milk-questions-an...
>> See The Untold Story of Milk for analysis/references
I'm sorry, but the book you recommend is a commercial publication and I don't wish to pay to read it.
Could you please provide alternative references or analysis, that are free to read? For example, references or analysis from public health bodies, or scientific publications, etc would tend to be freely available.
I'm sure you'll find it via your uni library. Also realmilk.com has plenty of data and arguments, but ofc you won't read those because you think it is biased
What specifically in the diet is the thing that causes it?
Because there is not just one "industrialized, Western diet", there are hundreds or thousands of them.
The article posits "soft, sugary". What is Price's theory?
https://lpi.oregonstate.edu/mic/vitamins/vitamin-K
It seems animal (and human) fat doesn't store much Vitamin K which is why a steady dietary supply is necessary.
Also did ancient societies have higher average lifespans than today? I don't quite understand claims ancient people were healthier.. Of course modern lifestyles have severe inadequacies, but it's complex, and for example many Japanese have quite long life spans despite eating a lot of rice.
A Masai is probably healthier than a cliche westerner fueled processed carbs and sitting all day, but the latter will certainly live longer.
As for Japanese eating lots of rice, portion control ? I'd guess they get a large proportion of their calories from rice, but don't over-eat. I used to live in Thailand, Thais eat all the time, mostly carbs but small portions, and there are still fewer fat people than in the West.
Think obesity, heart disease and diabetes. These don't exist in hunter gatherer people alive today and there is no record that humans ever had these problems before agriculture and civilization. We are better at treating health problems when they do arrise but we also have health problems that are caused by our lifestyle.
Why do people get dental work? Because good teeth are a sign of good health. We have far more problems with our teeth than hunter gatherer people but you don't see it because it is masked by dentistry. We have problems with blood pressure but it's masked with statins. We have problems with blood sugar but it's masked by insulin injections. We have problems with fatigue but its masked by coffee and sugar. We have problems with our joints and well... we haven't figured out what to do about that one yet. The list goes on.
Also perhaps the Japanese have long life spans in spite of eating lots of rice. Wheat grains seem to be harmful, whereas rice is a neutral carb, and Japanese get plenty of animal fats from pork in ramen, raw fish, etc.
Ex: https://thriftynomads.com/how-to-be-a-frugal-foodie-in-japan...
While americans typically have a much higher proportion of food as carbs & fat vs protein & veggies.
Why the stress on "raw" cheese and milk? Heat-treated milk and dairy have the same amounts of animal fats as raw.
Edit:
Ah, I see:
The [Weston A. Price ] Foundation is an advocate for the consumption of unpasteurized milk, or raw milk. One of its goals is to remove health regulations requiring pasteurization of milk products, so that raw milk can be legally purchased in all states. Supporters of this campaign believe pasteurization removes or destroys beneficial parts of raw milk, leading to a less healthy product that is associated with numerous diseases.[14]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weston_A._Price_Foundation#Act...
So the foundation named after the author of the book you discuss supports the idea that drinking raw milk is beneficial to health and that pasteurised milk causes disease.
To clarify, is this why your comment is talking of raw cheese and milk? Do you also believe that raw milk is healthier than pasteurised milk?
- Soft foods leads to small dental arches and thus crowding
- carb-rich (i.e. Western diets) lead to decay
Basically, you're agreeing with the article.
Even then you still have a lot of fiber and acid to slow down the release and absorption of sugars.
Apparently our bodies can synthesize some K2 from K1 but my understanding is that's quite variable and should not assumed to be adequate.
There's a fair amount of research linking arteriosclerosis to a deficiency of K2, so it's part of my supplement regimentation. It's definitely worth researching if you're interested in optimizing your health in a very lazy manner :-).
As I gather, we still believe that red meat consumption leads to heart disease, but we're becoming less sure of his hypothesis that the elevated cholesterol resulting from saturated fat (found in red meat) causes heart disease.
That said, I have yet to eat it and say "yum!"
We don't look like other predators because our main weapon is our brain and tools rather than claws and strength. We also cook our meat which means we need less powerful jaws and less sharp teeth. Keep in mind that you still have incisors and canines specifically for eating meat. You could even run your tongue along then right now and feel how sharp they are.
[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2377015/ [2] https://youtube.com/watch?v=ufNEoLeVplc
Hunter gatherers ate all sorts of things. But starch and sugar was not easily accessible. Wild rice, for instance, would be painstaking to gather and consume in large amounts. Roots and tubers would be small and have lots of antinutrients, keeping you from eating a lot of them. Fruits were seasonal and generally tiny.
If I were a hunter gatherer, in the absence of fresh hunted meat, I would get more nutritional value out of worms or larvae in the dirt than a handful of tubers that may give me a stomachache. Insects are animal protein (and fat).
So I guess it's good to distinguish between sugars-from-fruit and starches-from-grains.
Why "raw"? Is pasteurization bad?
I cite below from the wikipedia page on raw milk, which is more likely to be an objective source:
With the exception of an altered organoleptic [flavor] profile, heating (particularly ultra high temperature and similar treatments) will not substantially change the nutritional value of raw milk or other benefits associated with raw milk consumption."[20]
Raw milk advocates, such as the Weston A. Price Foundation, say that raw milk can be produced hygienically, and that it has health benefits that are destroyed in the pasteurization process.[2] Research shows only very slight differences in the nutritional values of pasteurized and unpasteurized milk.[12][20]
Three studies have found a statistically significant inverse relationship between consumption of raw milk and asthma and allergies.[28][29][30] However, all of these studies have been performed in children living on farms and living a farming lifestyle, rather than comparing urban children living typical urban lifestyles and with typical urban exposures on the basis of consumption or nonconsumption of raw milk. Aspects of the overall urban vs. farming environment lifestyle have been suggested as having a role in these differences, and for this reason, the overall phenomenon has been named the "farm effect".
Also see webpages (and a pdf report) on drinking raw milk from the US FDA and CDC, UK FSA and EU EFSA, below:
The Dangers of Raw Milk: Unpasteurized Milk Can Pose a Serious Health Risk
https://www.fda.gov/food/buy-store-serve-safe-food/dangers-r...
Raw (Unpasteurized) Milk
https://www.cdc.gov/features/rawmilk/index.html
Raw drinking milk
https://www.food.gov.uk/safety-hygiene/raw-drinking-milk
Scientific opinion on the public health risks related to the consumption of raw drinking milk
https://efsa.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.2903/j.efsa...
tl;dr all major public health agencies in the US and Europe advise against consumption of raw milk.
The history of raw milk has been tainted with misinformed public policy. The dangers of unpasteurized milk are highly over-exaggerated. To put it bluntly, I don't trust the government's assessments about raw dairy.
On a practical level, consider this: people drank milk for thousands of years, but we only started pasteurizing it in the early 1900s. Do you really think people before 1900 were just living with these supposed diseases of raw milk, completely unawares? No, they drank raw milk and they were fine.
Except for the ones who died. Life expectancy has gone up dramatically since 1900.
People fall ill from drinking raw milk and even die today, when we have a better understanding of the causes of disease and have much better hygiene standards. I don't understand why you expect that this happened less, or not at all (?) in the past.
>> To put it bluntly, I don't trust the government's assessments about raw dairy.
Which government's? I linked to sites from the US, the UK and the EU. They are representative of health agencies from around the world.
In any case, this is from the WHO, i.e. not a governmental source:
Salmonella, Campylobacter, and Enterohaemorrhagic Escherichia coli are among the most common foodborne pathogens that affect millions of people annually – sometimes with severe and fatal outcomes. Symptoms are fever, headache, nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain and diarrhoea. Examples of foods involved in outbreaks of salmonellosis are eggs, poultry and other products of animal origin. Foodborne cases with Campylobacter are mainly caused by raw milk, raw or undercooked poultry and drinking water. Enterohaemorrhagic Escherichia coli is associated with unpasteurized milk, undercooked meat and fresh fruits and vegetables.
Listeria infection leads to miscarriage in pregnant women or death of newborn babies. Although disease occurrence is relatively low, listeria’s severe and sometimes fatal health consequences, particularly among infants, children and the elderly, count them among the most serious foodborne infections. Listeria is found in unpasteurised dairy products and various ready-to-eat foods and can grow at refrigeration temperatures.
https://www.who.int/NEWS-ROOM/FACT-SHEETS/DETAIL/FOOD-SAFETY
It's interesting to note that some of the diesease associated with raw milk consumption are also caused by consumption of other foods, e.g. raw meat or raw eggs etc. It doesn't make a lot of sense to think that it's possible to get, e.g. E. coli from raw meat, but not from raw milk.
The illnesses associated with raw milk are caused by improperly handled milk, diseased cows, or something else entirely. Its human error, not some inherent quality of milk that is dangerous. Seriously take a look at the book The Untold Story of Milk, it has done all of the intellectual work to weigh the evidence and analyze the history already.
I agree that it's not an "inherent quality of milk" that is dangerous. For instance, it's not the fact that milk is liquid, or that its colour is white/yellow that makes it dangerous. It is the presence of pathogenic bacteria in raw milk that make drinking raw milk dangerous.
However, the presence of pathogenic bacteria in raw milk is not the result of "human error". Indeed, one would say that it is the natural state of things that bacteria will populate everything we eat, drink or breathe. It just happens that some of those bacteria can cause illness or kill us.
>> Seriously take a look at the book The Untold Story of Milk, it has done all of the intellectual work to weigh the evidence and analyze the history already.
So have the WHO, FDA, CDC, EFSA, FSA, etc etc. Does the book you recommend arrive at different results?
Edit: To be a bit more precise about "human error". Animals do not need to be diseased and humans don't need to make errors for raw milk to cause illness. See for example the campylobacter outbreak caused by raw milk produced by Kendal Farm in the UK:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cumbria-38409110
Note:
In August the farm won a National Trust fine farm produce award for its unpasteurised milk.
Meaning the highest possible hygiene standards were observed at that farm. This being a UK farm, hygiene standards means that ill animals are separated from the herd and their milk destroyed and that animals and their milk are tested at least twice a year to ensure they're free from infection. You will not find more stringent hygiene procedures the world over. And yet, an outbreak did occur.
Yes
It seems the co-founder of Wikipedia disagrees with your assessment of it as an objective source, in particular in this area, among others.
https://larrysanger.org/2020/05/wikipedia-is-badly-biased/
(I assume that by "this area" you mean raw milk, i.e. the subject of my comment above.)
Quote:
It may seem more problematic to speak of the bias of scientific articles, because many people do not want to see “unscientific” views covered in encyclopedia articles. If such articles are “biased in favor of science,” some people naturally find that to be a feature, not a bug. The problem, though, is that scientists sometimes do not agree on which theories are and are not scientific. On such issues, the “scientific point of view” and the “objective point of view” according to the Establishment might be very much opposed to neutrality. So when the Establishment seems unified on a certain view of a scientific controversy, then that is the view that is taken for granted, and often aggressively asserted, by Wikipedia.
The global warming and MMR vaccine articles are examples; I hardly need to dive into these pages, since it is quite enough to say that they endorse definite positions that scientific minorities reject. Another example is how Wikipedia treats various topics in alternative medicine—often dismissively, and frequently labeled as “pseudoscience” in Wikipedia’s own voice. Indeed, Wikipedia defines the very term as follows: “Alternative medicine describes any practice that aims to achieve the healing effects of medicine, but which lacks biological plausibility and is untested, untestable or proven ineffective.” In all these cases, genuine neutrality requires a different sort of treatment.
Again, other examples could be found, in no doubt thousands of other, perfectly unexciting topics. These are just the first topics that came to mind, associated as they are with the culture wars, and their articles on those topics put Wikipedia very decidedly on one side of that war. You should not be able to say that about an encyclopedia that claims to be neutral.
Clearly, for you raw milk is not a scientific topic related to human health. Perhaps it is a mystery, or a thriller, or something else. For the rest of the readers here, Sanger's message is perfectly clear.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
# Yes, yes, there are exceptions, but I'd say it holds true at least 95% of the time.
EDIT/UPDATE: I was actually being serious. Fruit, vegetables, grains, meat. Cook and eat those things, and you'll do fine. Of course you can combine them, but do so at home so you control what's actually in there.
I’ve only come across it in the context of Vitamin K supplement marketing materials.
One thing Weston made me realize and saddens me is how even the upper classes of many countries nowadays follow pretty poor diets and food ideas. Like even they who could afford proper nutrition are not getting it, let alone the aspirants who emulate all the latest diet fads and trends.
* https://elemental.medium.com/why-is-the-internet-obsessed-wi...
* https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/26/upshot/you-probably-dont-...
I wonder what the aesthetic differences would be though. In a western beauty sense, I can imagine having a larger jaw being somewhat preferential for men but for women - isn't it not? Would it be enough to notice?
Wish I had known this growing up. Ironically, I felt like I did eat some hard foods but I wonder how much you have to eat in order for it to have a real effect.
I guess that'll vary on your definition of what's more attractive.
https://www.oragenics.com/technology-pipeline/lbp/smart
Last I heard, the few people who had tried the treatment are still completely free of decay and gum issues, but it's been a long time and there's no follow up, sadly.
[1] https://www.amazon.com/Kiss-Your-Dentist-Goodbye-Yourself/dp...
I may try this.
I mean, it's in a lot of toothpastes and mouthwashes. Certainly it could be in more things, but dentists do recommend those things it's in (without understanding exactly what makes one better than another, instead going on dentistry-association studies of the observed effects of various products. Presumably the scientists doing said studies know what xylitol is.)
It's hard to just put xylitol in regular foods, though, because people feed random foods to their pets all the time, and xylitol kills dogs. So it only ends up marketed in the form of things you would never think to allow your pets to have in the first place. (Like mouthwash, or gum, or mints.)
You can certainly take your consumption into your own hands, though, and just buy a bag of xylitol to use in place of sucrose for cooking/baking/putting in your coffee/etc. (That is, if you don't have a dog.)
It doesn't have xylitol, but I do buy toothpaste with bioactive glass which helps remineralize teeth without fluoride.
I actually wrote an article about its history and why it disappeared from shelves in the US:
https://medium.com/@ravenstine/the-curious-history-of-novami...
There are other toothpastes with Xyletol too, but that’s the one I usually look for.
Care to share your experience with using it?
https://www.amazon.ca/gp/product/B018PZ641K/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_...
My tongue naturally rests on the roof of my mouth.
My tongue naturally rests on the roof of my mouth.
I happen to rest my tongue on the roof of my mouth all the time but I’ve also been vegetarian my entire life. So no hard meats for me.
Bam. Scientific American here I come.
The article touches on sleep apnoea as well. Apparently this can become a huge problem for developing children if their pallet is under-formed.
I think this is a big public health issue, and I think it makes sense to start some kind of large scale public health campaign to inform the public and avoid all of these dental issues.
There's a book about this, the introduction is online here https://www.sup.org/books/extra/?id=29626&i=Introduction.htm...
Looks like diets over the last 400 years have had dramatic impact on human health mouth shape.
[1] https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2020/05/27/8629631...
According to my dentist its becoming more common and considered and a part of the evolutionary process.
A drier mouth has to impact the biome in your mouth I would presume, for better or worse.
Mouth breathing could have a lot of other disadvantages, such as sleep apnea, as mentioned in the article.
Mouth breathing obviously doesn’t cause teeth crowding but I’m wondering how significant factor it is in overall dental health.
I read that distance runners can develop dental problems because of mouth dryness combined with sugary energy gels.
Allergies play a huge role in mouth breathing, and their prevalence seems to be on the rise, so maybe that's the common factor?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4252862/