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

101–108 of 108 posts

Re: Sugar, acid and teeth (2009)

#101

Post by beagle3 »

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.

As I've mentioned in a reply above, I accept the criticism. Grudgingly.

While it is not really comparable, I wonder if 50 years from now a study about the value of vegetables will use Pizza as an acceptable vegetable portion (because http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45306416/ns/health-diet_and_nutr... ) We laugh it this now, but 30 years from now, it might seem perfectly plausible to consider pizza a vegetable.

Re: Sugar, acid and teeth (2009)

#103

Post by rcxb »

With "skeptic" in the name, I was expecting much, much better. It's a pretty bland application of some rule-of-thumb (perhaps, dogmatic) beliefs about tooth decay, which doesn't hold up to reality.

One of the problems which comes to mind is that mouth wash has NEVER proven effective in preventing tooth decay (and companies that make Scope, Listerene and others would really LOVE to be able to say that it does). Meanwhile, this article blindly asserts that they will work quite well.

This issue throws every other claim into doubt, too, since the bacteria is claimed be be the sole cause of decay, and a mouth wash certainly could kill-off bacteria in the mouth. It seems tooth decay is a far more complex activity than the model used in this discussion.

Re: Sugar, acid and teeth (2009)

#104

Post by mikeash »

beagle3 wrote: post #99
mikeash wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Well, I accept the criticism. I grew up knowing actual fresh squeezed orange juice as "orange juice", and everything else as "orange beverage" (well, an equivalent translation in my native language). But I realize that, since I moved to the US, I haven't actually had anything that tastes like real Orange Juice. Regardless of what it says on the package or what the waiter says.

Well, there you go. Just different assumptions and experiences.

I believe that you're still better off just eating the orange rather than drinking the juice. But I don't doubt that what you see as proper juice is way better than the stuff you find in stores.

Re: Sugar, acid and teeth (2009)

#105

Post by papsosouid »

beagle3 wrote: post #98
papsosouid wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your entire post is nothing but fallacies. You don't evolve to do anything. And you didn't evolve in the presence of orange juice, oranges didn't exist. And it doesn't matter, because that is just the naturalistic fallacy. Something being "natural" doesn't make it good, and something being "artificial" doesn't make it bad. We did not evolve with modern tooth cleaning equipment or flouride treatments either, but those…

It would help to read what I was replying to, and what I was actually replying: GP said: "Juice is for most intents and purposes no healthier dan soda." You said: "There is absolutely no evidence to support the notion that pop is any worse for you than a fruit juice of similar acidity and caloric content." I said: "There is no evidence of difference", which is exactly what you said. Can you spot the difference betwee…

I did read it, you are trying to pretend you said something other than what you post says. You made all the fallacious claims I pointed out.

As for evolution, no you did not evolve to do anything. Evolution is a process, it does not have goals. It is not aiming to get somewhere, or accomplish something. Which is why claiming you "evolved to eat X" is nonsense. Your ancestors evolved the ability to gain nutrition from X, that doesn't mean X is good for you. It means in prehistoric times, the short term gain from being able to gain nutrition from X was greater than any downsides to it (it could cause cancer 100% guaranteed, but if it lets you survive in the short term long enough to reproduce and rear offspring, it will still end up selected for).

Re: Sugar, acid and teeth (2009)

#106

Post by beagle3 »

papsosouid wrote: post #105
beagle3 wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It would help to read what I was replying to, and what I was actually replying: GP said: "Juice is for most intents and purposes no healthier dan soda." You said: "There is absolutely no evidence to support the notion that pop is any worse for you than a fruit juice of similar acidity and caloric content." I said: "There is no evidence of difference", which is exactly what you said. Can you spot the difference betwee…

I did read it, you are trying to pretend you said something other than what you post says. You made all the fallacious claims I pointed out. As for evolution, no you did not evolve to do anything. Evolution is a process, it does not have goals. It is not aiming to get somewhere, or accomplish something. Which is why claiming you "evolved to eat X" is nonsense. Your ancestors evolved the ability to gain nutrition from…

> I did read it, you are trying to pretend you said something other than what you post says. You made all the fallacious claims I pointed out.

Clearly we are NOT speaking the same language.

> As for evolution, no you did not evolve to do anything

Clearly, again, we are NOT speaking the same language. You react as if I said "I evolved with the goal of breathing", which is a possible, but improbable, interpretation of what I wrote. I meant "My kind has evolved the ability and necessity to breathe", for which "I evolved to breathe is" a shorthand, acceptable where I live.

And if you can point out how my statement that "I do not claim that there is evidence of difference (I cannot provide any)" can be construed as anything but "There is no evidence of difference" (that I know of), I would be grateful. Because you are calling me a liar in not so many words, and I don't like that in general (but I don't really care either, given we're both anonymous)

Re: Sugar, acid and teeth (2009)

#107

Post by papsosouid »

beagle3 wrote: post #106
papsosouid wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I did read it, you are trying to pretend you said something other than what you post says. You made all the fallacious claims I pointed out. As for evolution, no you did not evolve to do anything. Evolution is a process, it does not have goals. It is not aiming to get somewhere, or accomplish something. Which is why claiming you "evolved to eat X" is nonsense. Your ancestors evolved the ability to gain nutrition from…

> I did read it, you are trying to pretend you said something other than what you post says. You made all the fallacious claims I pointed out. Clearly we are NOT speaking the same language. > As for evolution, no you did not evolve to do anything Clearly, again, we are NOT speaking the same language. You react as if I said "I evolved with the goal of breathing", which is a possible, but improbable, interpretation of…

You are right, we are not speaking the same language. You are speaking "I want to argue about nothing for no reason", and I am speaking english. Go read the thread again, I did not make any claims other than that your post was full of fallacies. I didn't say "you said juice is healthy". You are accusing me of exactly what you are doing. Grow up.

Re: Sugar, acid and teeth (2009)

#108

Post by peterwwillis »

conroe64 wrote: post #89
peterwwillis wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Besides being bad for your teeth it's a nightmare on your body. That insulin dump from the onslaught of sugar will make you much more likely to develop diabetes, and some studies have shown a long-term metabolic effect where your body prefers sugars for energy instead of fats. That and the empty calories will lop-side your diet and make it harder to lose weight or gain muscle. There are lots of ways you can drink som…

Nightmare, onslaught, much more likely, lop-side, huge impact, truckloads of sugar... How can you use such scary descriptions without any giving any evidence backing up what you're saying?

This is my favorite article describing the effects of a Coke on the body: https://www.nutritionresearchcenter.org/healthnews/what-happ...

This article has some good explanation of the health detriments too: http://health.yahoo.net/experts/drmao/what-soft-drinks-are-d...

Post reply on HN