Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Sugar, acid and teeth (2009)

dbskeptic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 108 posts

Re: Sugar, acid and teeth (2009)

#61

Post by nathanb »

nsxwolf wrote: post #55
nathanb wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or how about experimental science? Get some human teeth (probably not difficult or expensive for a dentist), weigh them, plunk them in each liquid, let them sit for a week, see which ones lost the most mass. Obviously scientific rigor would require several experiments to smooth out the variances in individual tooth quality and original composition, but it seems like that would come to a more definitive conclusion.

Teeth continuously remineralize in living humans, so this experiment wouldn't tell us anything useful.

Do they? Even so, they will remineralize at the same rate regardless of the substance which dissolved them in the first place, right? (Ignoring, of course, that the ongoing presence of bacteria feeding on sugars may counteract the remineralization). The experiment would still demonstrate which substance destroys teeth the fastest.

Re: Sugar, acid and teeth (2009)

#62

Post by jsdalton »

nathanb wrote: post #45
deltaqueue wrote: post #28

I wish he would have provided more explanation behind the dentist's algorithm. Here's an actual study measuring enamel loss, which seems much more definitive: http://faculty.philau.edu/ashleyj/General%20Dentistry%20Arti... Perhaps the most important snippet: Regression analysis indicated no correlation between enamel dissolution and beverage pH (r = 0.477, p > 0.05); in addition, the enamel dissolution showed no diff…

Or how about experimental science? Get some human teeth (probably not difficult or expensive for a dentist), weigh them, plunk them in each liquid, let them sit for a week, see which ones lost the most mass. Obviously scientific rigor would require several experiments to smooth out the variances in individual tooth quality and original composition, but it seems like that would come to a more definitive conclusion.

I agree with your sentiment, but a large factor in tooth decay is bacteria that live in your mouth: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dental_caries

This seems like what the article gets wrong as well. What you drink and eat impacts the environment in your mouth where bacteria flourish which in turn impacts tooth decay. There just isn't such a direct cause/effect relationship between pH/sugar and tooth decay, although they are certainly strongly correlated.

As a result, I'd take this article as a loose framework rather than a true scientific ranking.

Re: Sugar, acid and teeth (2009)

#63

Post by ta12121 »

beagle3 wrote: post #38
mtts wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Juice is for most intents and purposes no healthier dan soda. It's mostly sugar and acid. The fact that said sugar and acid used to reside in a piece of fruit makes no difference at all. If you want the health benefits of fruit, eat a piece of fruit.

I love the conviction with which you say that. So, there is no difference between compounds that we've evolved to consume over millions of years, and ones which were designed in the last 30 to be as addictive and as cheap to make as possible? While I do not claim that there is evidence of difference (I cannot provide any), it is unfounded to claim that there is none, whether based on some (inherently) limited study o…

It may be what you consider the "acceptable definition" of fruit juice, but it is not the definition in common use.

Also, you are not evolutionarily adapted to eat compounds. You are evolutionarily adapted to eat foods. And fruit juice is not a food you are evolutionarily adapted to eat. It is very different, biologically, from eating an actual fruit.

Re: Sugar, acid and teeth (2009)

#64

Post by martey »

nathanb wrote: post #60
ender7 wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A human tooth submerged in Pepsi will actually dissolve completely in less than a week.

Is that true? I remember Mythbusters disproving the myth that it would dissolve a tooth overnight. Perhaps a week is too much time.

http://www.snopes.com/cokelore/tooth.asp suggests that submerging teeth in any acidic substance (e.g. orange juice) will soften and eventually dissolve them. Since this does not adequately replicate conditions in the mouth, it would not be useful to determine how such substances affect enamel.

Re: Sugar, acid and teeth (2009)

#65

Post by tocomment »

Hmm, this makes me wonder; should a low carb diet help cure gum disease and prevent cavities since you're providing so little sugar to the bacteria?

In fact do you need to brush and floss when on a low carb diet?

Has this been studied?

Re: Sugar, acid and teeth (2009)

#66

Post by eel »

ta12121 wrote: post #63
beagle3 wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I love the conviction with which you say that. So, there is no difference between compounds that we've evolved to consume over millions of years, and ones which were designed in the last 30 to be as addictive and as cheap to make as possible? While I do not claim that there is evidence of difference (I cannot provide any), it is unfounded to claim that there is none, whether based on some (inherently) limited study o…

It may be what you consider the "acceptable definition" of fruit juice, but it is not the definition in common use. Also, you are not evolutionarily adapted to eat compounds. You are evolutionarily adapted to eat foods. And fruit juice is not a food you are evolutionarily adapted to eat. It is very different, biologically, from eating an actual fruit.

For those who might be wondering, one such difference is the presence of fiber in fruit, but the lack of fiber in fruit juices.

Re: Sugar, acid and teeth (2009)

#68

Post by barcoder »

"To mitigate the effects of pop consumption, only consume it with meals. Brush soon after eating or drinking anything besides water (including milk or juices)."

Brushing soon after drinking or eating something sugary is not a good idea. Best to wait around 30 minutes and let your body clean your teeth during that time, after the 30 minutes manually clean!

http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/05/21/really-never-brush-...

http://www.hindustantimes.com/Entertainment/Wellness/Brushin...

Re: Sugar, acid and teeth (2009)

#69

Post by CamperBob2 »

splat wrote: post #49
nathanb wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or how about experimental science? Get some human teeth (probably not difficult or expensive for a dentist), weigh them, plunk them in each liquid, let them sit for a week, see which ones lost the most mass. Obviously scientific rigor would require several experiments to smooth out the variances in individual tooth quality and original composition, but it seems like that would come to a more definitive conclusion.

I think the presence of saliva has a major effect on inhibiting tooth decay. I'm not sure how applicable in vitro experiments would be.

Exactly, hence the problem with allowing babies to sleep with a bottle. It's not the milk in the bottle that does the harm, it's the uneven saliva exposure in the mouth.

In general, people with good salivary coverage get less tooth decay. People with dry mouths, for whatever reason, get more. This isn't exactly an avant garde research topic.

While the dentist has impeccable credentials, she seems too reliant on anecdotes and personal observations, and insufficiently rigorous (to put it mildly) in justifying the mathematical model she proposes. The reasoning in this article is a little better than the old science-fair standby of dropping a tooth in a glass of Coke and gasping with horror when it's gone a week later, but not much.

Post reply on HN