4 ms·

Why are toothpaste and shampoo "relatively useless"? I believe there are many health benefits to using them. I don't know for sure, however, because I've never

Why are toothpaste and shampoo "relatively useless"? I believe there are many health benefits to using them. I don't know for sure, however, because I've never tried going without them for long ... let me know how that goes.

x5n1 10y ago
For toothpaste they were already using other things. And shampoo does not have health benefits. Maybe it makes you smell a bit better, but rural Indians don't care too much about BO even now. ex for toothpaste: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3545237/ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3545237/
- jeremyt 10y ago
  I can't even begin to describe how condescending your comment comes across as.
  - jakub_h 10y ago
    Setting aside the fact that condescending comments aren't mutually exclusive with true ones, I wonder if those packagings weren't "relatively useless" simply for the fact that small packagings ususally tend to be more expensive in the long run. It's more or less the same problem as with poor people in developed countries not being able to save money on batch buys, especially in case of supermarket discounts.
    - jeremyt 10y ago
      That's not what he said. You're putting words in his mouth.
loeg 10y ago
Shampoo is maybe useful. Some sort of soap + scalp action, occasionally, is beneficial. Plenty of people in the west don't use shampoo or use it rarely. You don't really need toothpaste. It's the brushing part that's good for removing detritus from your teeth. Edit: Downvote with no comment? How is this comment non-constructive, so I can avoid doing it in the future?
- hackuser 10y ago
  I didn't downvote you, but perhaps somewhat extraordinary claims require a little evidence.
  - loeg 10y ago
    They aren't especially extraordinary claims. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shampoo#No_Poo_Movement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shampoo#No_Poo_Movement https://www.quora.com/How-much-less-effective-is-brushing-your-teeth-without-toothpaste https://www.quora.com/How-much-less-effective-is-brushing-yo...

x5n1 10y ago

For toothpaste they were already using other things. And shampoo does not have health benefits. Maybe it makes you smell a bit better, but rural Indians don't care too much about BO even now. ex for toothpaste: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3545237/ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3545237/

jeremyt 10y ago
I can't even begin to describe how condescending your comment comes across as.
- jakub_h 10y ago
  Setting aside the fact that condescending comments aren't mutually exclusive with true ones, I wonder if those packagings weren't "relatively useless" simply for the fact that small packagings ususally tend to be more expensive in the long run. It's more or less the same problem as with poor people in developed countries not being able to save money on batch buys, especially in case of supermarket discounts.
  - jeremyt 10y ago
    That's not what he said. You're putting words in his mouth.

loeg 10y ago

Shampoo is maybe useful. Some sort of soap + scalp action, occasionally, is beneficial. Plenty of people in the west don't use shampoo or use it rarely. You don't really need toothpaste. It's the brushing part that's good for removing detritus from your teeth. Edit: Downvote with no comment? How is this comment non-constructive, so I can avoid doing it in the future?

hackuser 10y ago
I didn't downvote you, but perhaps somewhat extraordinary claims require a little evidence.
- loeg 10y ago
  They aren't especially extraordinary claims. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shampoo#No_Poo_Movement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shampoo#No_Poo_Movement https://www.quora.com/How-much-less-effective-is-brushing-your-teeth-without-toothpaste https://www.quora.com/How-much-less-effective-is-brushing-yo...