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

How the sugar industry shaped key government research about your teeth

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 57 posts

Re: How the sugar industry shaped key government research about your teeth

#21

Post by rickdale »

jacobolus wrote: post #5

Has anyone here closely investigated the research that led to recommendations to brush teeth after every meal or at least two times a day, as e.g. suggested on toothpaste containers, and to floss frequently, etc.? Any idea how well designed / how complete the relevant studies were? Have there been more recent improved studies? In the last few years I’ve heard second-hand some alternative recommendations to brush befo…

I feel the same way. A few years ago I became convinced that any well known brand name toothpaste was doing more damage to my teeth than help. I switched to using clay based tooth pastes as well as some other powders, and sometimes Ill take some tea spoons of cod liver oil. I grew up with cavities every visit and now it seems like going to the dentist is pointless. They tell me my teeth look great and I must be brushing and stuff, but really I just don't eat much sugar and brush my teeth with toothpaste that is edible, floss occasionally. I think dropping the listerine was the hardest part and also the most helpful. But ultimately it just makes sense in my own mind to brush with a paste that won't poison me if consumed.

Re: How the sugar industry shaped key government research about your teeth

#23

Post by [deleted] »

rickdale wrote: post #21
jacobolus wrote: post #5

Has anyone here closely investigated the research that led to recommendations to brush teeth after every meal or at least two times a day, as e.g. suggested on toothpaste containers, and to floss frequently, etc.? Any idea how well designed / how complete the relevant studies were? Have there been more recent improved studies? In the last few years I’ve heard second-hand some alternative recommendations to brush befo…

I feel the same way. A few years ago I became convinced that any well known brand name toothpaste was doing more damage to my teeth than help. I switched to using clay based tooth pastes as well as some other powders, and sometimes Ill take some tea spoons of cod liver oil. I grew up with cavities every visit and now it seems like going to the dentist is pointless. They tell me my teeth look great and I must be brush…

[deleted]

Re: How the sugar industry shaped key government research about your teeth

#24

Post by Someone1234 »

jacobolus wrote: post #5

Has anyone here closely investigated the research that led to recommendations to brush teeth after every meal or at least two times a day, as e.g. suggested on toothpaste containers, and to floss frequently, etc.? Any idea how well designed / how complete the relevant studies were? Have there been more recent improved studies? In the last few years I’ve heard second-hand some alternative recommendations to brush befo…

> I’ve long suspected that a good diet + brushing the teeth very carefully a few times per week would be more effective than drinking soda and sweet and starchy foods + brushing after every meal

That seems like a false dilemma. Those two things are never at odds with one another. People don't eat sugar because it is part of their brushing regimen, they eat sugar because they like/are addicted to the stuff.

So if you're eating sugar for reasons that have nothing to do with promoting teeth health, then brushing more often to combat that damage makes a lot of sense.

Could you eat less bad stuff and brush less? Potentially, but if people wished to drop sugar from their diet the list of benefits to doing so is so long that brushing less is just a minor footnote at best.

Re: How the sugar industry shaped key government research about your teeth

#25

Post by Someone1234 »

rickdale wrote: post #21
jacobolus wrote: post #5

Has anyone here closely investigated the research that led to recommendations to brush teeth after every meal or at least two times a day, as e.g. suggested on toothpaste containers, and to floss frequently, etc.? Any idea how well designed / how complete the relevant studies were? Have there been more recent improved studies? In the last few years I’ve heard second-hand some alternative recommendations to brush befo…

I feel the same way. A few years ago I became convinced that any well known brand name toothpaste was doing more damage to my teeth than help. I switched to using clay based tooth pastes as well as some other powders, and sometimes Ill take some tea spoons of cod liver oil. I grew up with cavities every visit and now it seems like going to the dentist is pointless. They tell me my teeth look great and I must be brush…

It is interesting, my NHS dentist recommended I avoid alcohol-based mouthwash (which is the majority) since it dries out gums and also whitening toothpastes (because they're abrasive by design).

Both things are extremely common on supermarket aisles (even in the UK). But yet dentists suggest you avoid them. That's a rather interesting state of affairs.

Actually my dentist recommended Sensodyne (non-whitening) and a fluoride mouthwash without alcohol (the brand escapes me).

Re: How the sugar industry shaped key government research about your teeth

#26

Post by abandonliberty »

Alex3917 wrote: post #11
jacobolus wrote: post #5

Has anyone here closely investigated the research that led to recommendations to brush teeth after every meal or at least two times a day, as e.g. suggested on toothpaste containers, and to floss frequently, etc.? Any idea how well designed / how complete the relevant studies were? Have there been more recent improved studies? In the last few years I’ve heard second-hand some alternative recommendations to brush befo…

> Has anyone here closely investigated the research that led to recommendations to brush teeth after every meal or at least two times a day, as e.g. suggested on toothpaste containers, and to floss frequently, etc.? http://www.cochrane.org/CD009857/ORAL_cleaning-between-the-t... http://www.cochrane.org/CD008829/ORAL_flossing-to-reduce-gum... http://www.cochrane.org/CD002281/ORAL_poweredelectric-toothb...

Very interesting, because we teach dental hygienists that flossing + brushing is vital, while powered toothbrushes are for those with dexterity issues (children, elderly, or otherwise). Mind you, brushing and flossing studies have less moral hazard.

>There is some very low-quality evidence that using interdental brushes plus toothbrushing is more beneficial than toothbrushing alone for plaque and gingivitis at one month. There is also low-quality evidence that using interdental brushes reduces gingivitis (gum inflammation) by 52% when compared with flossing at one month. There was insufficient evidence to claim a benefit for either interdental brushing or flossing for plaque.

>There is some evidence from twelve studies that flossing in addition to toothbrushing reduces gingivitis compared to toothbrushing alone. There is weak, very unreliable evidence from 10 studies that flossing plus toothbrushing may be associated with a small reduction in plaque at 1 and 3 months. No studies reported the effectiveness of flossing plus toothbrushing for preventing dental caries.

>The evidence produced shows benefits in using a powered toothbrush when compared with a manual toothbrush. There was an 11% reduction in plaque at one to three months of use, and a 21% reduction in plaque when assessed after three months of use. For gingivitis, there was a 6% reduction at one to three months of use and an 11% reduction when assessed after three months of use.

Re: How the sugar industry shaped key government research about your teeth

#27

Post by abandonliberty »

A similar thing happened with the red meat industry.

From the first food pyramid evidence was already showing intake should be minimized, but the lobby fought back, and the pyramid was changed.

You will notice that the current food plate still carefully avoids saying anything at all about red meat: http://www.choosemyplate.gov/food-groups/protein-foods.html

Compare & contrast against the evidence-supported http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/healthy-eating-p...

Re: How the sugar industry shaped key government research about your teeth

#28

Post by task_queue »

refurb wrote: post #20
ccvannorman wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At scale, I would agree with this, although I wouldn't say "prevents", I would say "discourages". You should definitely notice large effects at scale in any economy, in this case, people definitely do buy more junk food because it's cheaper (I even do this, and I prefer healthy foods when possible! But at your typical gas station, junk:healthy::10:1, which is not quite the same problem)

vegatables, and fruit to a lesser extend, is much cheaper than junk food. Why isn't that encouraging healthy eating? I believe junk food is like smoking. Everyone knows it's not a healthy choise, but they do it anyways. People are choosing to eat unhealthy food because they want to, it tastes good.

That's a nice belief, but evidence shows people choose junk food because of availability, price, associated preparation time and a lack of nutritional education.

The further down the income ladder you go the more those factors come into play rather than the simplistic "it tastes good" conclusion.

Re: How the sugar industry shaped key government research about your teeth

#29

Post by gress »

refurb wrote: post #20
ccvannorman wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At scale, I would agree with this, although I wouldn't say "prevents", I would say "discourages". You should definitely notice large effects at scale in any economy, in this case, people definitely do buy more junk food because it's cheaper (I even do this, and I prefer healthy foods when possible! But at your typical gas station, junk:healthy::10:1, which is not quite the same problem)

vegatables, and fruit to a lesser extend, is much cheaper than junk food. Why isn't that encouraging healthy eating? I believe junk food is like smoking. Everyone knows it's not a healthy choise, but they do it anyways. People are choosing to eat unhealthy food because they want to, it tastes good.

You say 'they want to' but you ignore that junk food is designed to amplify the superficially appealing qualities of the food without regard to the nutritive value.

Nobody 'wants' that. What they want is good tasting food that is also nutritious. That costs more.

Re: How the sugar industry shaped key government research about your teeth

#30

Post by Florin_Andrei »

pizza234 wrote: post #3
mcbetz wrote: post #2

Listening excessively to one lobby group is as hazardous as eating excessively exactly one staple - be it sugar or wheat. Moderation is important, both in politics and nutrition.

In general, not so simple. The industry shapes the culture, but worse, the law and the market. Very typical example is the corn lobby group, whose result on the market is to cause junk food to be much cheaper than nutritious food, thanks to perverse subsidization. In turn this makes much more difficult for a relatively large part of the population to eat correctly - practically difficult.

> The industry shapes the culture, but worse, the law and the market.

Any society that wants to remain sane and viable over the long term needs powerful feedback loops to counteract this effect.

Post reply on HN