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

31–40 of 57 posts

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

#31

Post by com2kid »

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…

I stopped eating all sugar for 3 years (all carbs actually).

My dentist loved me. My dental visits consisted of me walking in, getting briefly looked at, the dental hygienist doing a quick go over my teeth, complementing me on how clean they are, and sending me on my way.

When I want back to eating sugar, my dental visits suddenly got a lot longer. The cleaning of plaque alone is now at least twice as long.

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

#32

Post by pizza234 »

ArkyBeagle wrote: post #9
pizza234 wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This is one of the more bizarre artifacts of our system. And it took the concentrated efforts of almost everyone involved to make it this way. But in a way , cheaper is always better. Nutritious food is also cheap, relatively, unless the "nutritiousness" of it is also a price differentiator. Frozen veggies are pretty easy to get, IMO - but it seems there usually has to be a largish supermarket to buy them in. And tha…

> But in a way , cheaper is always better. Nutritious food is also cheap, relatively, unless the "nutritiousness" of it is also a price differentiator.

Well, to get things into perspective, one needs to consider a few things.

We start from the fact that there is a disproportionate amount of people living on food stamps, which will be effectively forced to buy junk food.

Then we factor in that junk food is harmful (not just unhealthy or less nutritious).

Finally, we correlate with a huge amount of people having disease which are linked to unhealthy lifestyles, primarily food-related (60% obese people is the very general guideline given).

I see a very strong thread here.

Food is not just calories, it's a complex mix of things - the way the industry is working, in a way, it's giving cheaper food by stripping that mix of things; this doesn't match the idea of "making food cheaper" in a generic way.

(Note that I'm strongly identifying junk food with processed food in the logic).

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

#33

Post by pizza234 »

refurb wrote: post #17
pizza234 wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If I follow your logic right, you're saying that offering people a cheaper (and less nutritious) alternative prevents them from buying healthy food?

Watch out. As elaborated before, junk food is absolutely not "cheaper and less nutritious food".

It's "cheaper and harmful" food.

There are a few interesting documentaries, most notably "A place at the table".

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

#34

Post by scoggs »

abandonliberty wrote: post #26
Alex3917 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 mo…

From my own experience Brush Picks are the ultimate interdental tool. I keep a small container full of them at my work and home desk and it's become a passive activity to fully clean all of my teeth, multiple times a day.

From adding Brush Picks to my already solid regimen of brushing 2-3 times a day depending on how much I've eaten I've achieved something I never had before in my ~30 years of living: Real compliments about my teeth from my dentist. No but's, no side note, no complaints. Just an unexpected compliment followed by questions of how I achieved such a feat.

Images: http://www.guildent.com/Products/brush_picks.jpg http://cdn.luckyvitamin.com/site/images/item_descrip/74499/7...

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

#35

Post by gmarx »

abandonliberty wrote: post #27

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…

You implicitly assume that the research that shows red meat is bad for you is correct.

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

#36

Post by nilkn »

abandonliberty wrote: post #26
Alex3917 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 mo…

> 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).

For what it's worth, every dentist/hygienist I've ever had has told me that electric toothbrushes are better.

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

#37

Post by nilkn »

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 can't understand how it would make sense to brush before rather than after meals. What's the logic behind that?

This is doubly so if the meal is sugary. By not brushing afterward, you're just letting bacteria process all that sugar and produce plaque and acid.

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

#38

Post by nilkn »

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…

If you cut back on sugar a lot, that almost surely is the most major factor in the change. Sugar is amazingly bad for your teeth, and many sugary beverages (like soda) are also naturally acidic, which leads to erosion of enamel.

That said, you're right to have some skepticism about heavily marketed tooth pastes. For instance, I have four veneers and my dentist recommended against using any "whitening" toothpastes, because they're naturally abrasive against your teeth and can very slowly damage them over time. I just use Sensodyne and follow-up with a non-alcoholic flouride mouthwash, and I've had no dental issues since, even with a sugary diet. But I brush/rinse three times a day.

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

#39

Post by barking-chicken »

gmarx wrote: post #35
abandonliberty wrote: post #27

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…

You implicitly assume that the research that shows red meat is bad for you is correct.

You are absolutely right. There was a lot of manipulation that went on with the food pyramid, but a lot of studies in the last 5 years have shown that the relationship that we once thought existed (red meat=bad) is false. There are also well validated studies showing that the nutrition science that has been taught for the last few decades about our relationship with sugar, fat, food in general, and how cholesterol affects our bodies is wrong.

Dr. Peter Attia's "The Eating Academy" (http://eatingacademy.com/) is a great place to learn more about what we are finding out about how certain foods actually affect out bodies.

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

#40

Post by figure8 »

gmarx wrote: post #35
abandonliberty wrote: post #27

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…

You implicitly assume that the research that shows red meat is bad for you is correct.

Interesting research in this direction is making progress, helping to explain WHY red meat may be dangerous:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/12/141229152226.ht...

Post reply on HN