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

71–80 of 108 posts

Re: Sugar, acid and teeth (2009)

#71

Post by nathanb »

martey wrote: post #64
nathanb wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I don't see how "not adequately replicating mouth conditions" leads to "would not be useful to determine effect on enamel".

Yes, there will be significant differences between drinking Coke and soaking a tooth in Coke overnight. But that doesn't mean it won't provide a useful basis for comparison! Possibly even more useful than the arbitrary formula the author and dentist in the article came up with.

Re: Sugar, acid and teeth (2009)

#72

Post by mtts »

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…

Freshly squeezed oranges are not what most people consume when they consume juice. A sterilized, overly processed concoction of fructose and acid, which, yes, originated in fruit, is.

Re: Sugar, acid and teeth (2009)

#74

Post by carey »

bmelton wrote: post #23
scott_s wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It may be better for your teeth, but I wonder if chugging it will spike your insulin more.

That was kind of the same question I had when I read it, but I came to the (completely uninformed) conclusion that probably, the body's absorption rate was self-metering enough that it probably wouldn't make a difference drinking it all at once vs. drinking it over a 20 minute period. I have absolutely no evidence whatsoever to support this however, so who knows?

Fructose is metabolised by the liver, which may only be able to handle so much at a time without negative effects. Raw fruit is digested more slowly than juice due its fibre content, so drinking juice slowly could be worse for your teeth but better for your liver.

Even modern raw fruit are significantly larger and sweeter than a few hundred years ago, so maybe we should just stick to berries.

Re: Sugar, acid and teeth (2009)

#76

Post by mikeash »

nathanb wrote: post #61
nsxwolf wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Those bacteria you're ignoring are likely to be the key factor in this whole business, so it seems like a highly incorrect simplification.

Re: Sugar, acid and teeth (2009)

#77

Post by mikeash »

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…

By defining "fruit juice" to be something almost nobody ever consumes, then declaring the actual fruit juice people actually consume as being bad, it seems to me that you're agreeing with him while using language that pretends you're not.

Re: Sugar, acid and teeth (2009)

#78

Post by mdonahoe »

Royal wrote: post #25
cmatteri wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Their function 10^(5.5-pH) * (mg/cl sugar + 1) does seem to imply that sugar and acidity have a synergistic effect, where the +1 in the sugar term is a hack to keep the result from being 0 if the sugar is 0. This doesn't make sense, as a modest increase in sugar, say from 0 to 1 would double the result regardless of the pH.

Their function also improves the results if the drink is more basic. A drink with a pH of 13 would have an amazing score on here. If you normalize the pH above 5.5 since it has "little to no effect" things on the lower end of the results are better, with milk being worse than water, and chocolate milk being worse than milk.

I just want to see a 2d plot. Sugar vs pH for all the drinks.

Re: Sugar, acid and teeth (2009)

#79

Post by ericd »

beagle3 wrote: post #40
eaurouge wrote: post #17

Interested in hearing what people think of Xylitol and its positive effects on saliva pH.

Xylitol's major positive effects on teeth health come from a different path: The bacteria responsible for cavities will try to eat it (cause it's close enough to sugar) but fail to digest it (cause it isn't), which will interfere with their ability to prosper and even kill them. (Unfortunately, that's also true for dogs: DO NOT feed your dog xylitol. It is toxic for them: two xylitol-swettened gums are potentially en…

That sounds like something I don't want to be eating either, if it's so toxic to both bacteria and fairly similar mammals. Have there been any long term xylitol studies? It seems likely that it would screw with the bacteria in one's gut.

Re: Sugar, acid and teeth (2009)

#80

Post by peterwwillis »

kokey wrote: post #35
steve8918 wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I 100% agree. Actually I have done almost exactly that, switched to tea, or ice tea. I'm not completely off the sugary drinks, but I'll drink things like Honest Tea with a lot less sugar than Coke, or just plain Tea. The thing I'm actually most worried about is pancreatic cancer. I'm not even sure if there's a link between that and soft drinks, but I read one study where having 2-3 soft drinks a week doubled your ris…

For sweetness, try rotating between non-fructuse sweeteners. like saccharin, aspartame, stevia, etc. I also find that Coke Zero is a nice way to cut down on sugar but still keep the Coke taste, and it's a lot less acidic than Diet Coke. However I don't find vending machines stocking it as often as I'd like. That's assuming you are not buying into the aspartame myths. I've got diabetes in my family, so to me the risks…

Or, you know, stop drinking sweet things =) I know that's heretical in our society, but once you cut out sweet things your palate will change and you'll find things like unsweetened teas (cold Oolong is fucking amazing) and juice/water mixes are cheap, simple, tasty and healthy.
Post reply on HN