5 ms·

Damn. I guess it's a pretty bad sign then if you've been meaning to floss more for ages, but keep forgetting.

by mckirk 4y ago

oifjsidjf 4y ago
People who ate real food 150 years ago didn't need to brush their teeth at all and they had perfect teeth health even in old age. Then when eg they went to cities, where sugary jam and white bread was avaiable, their teeth got destroyed. Those who didn't eat that food for a long time and returned to eating their old-school food saw their teeth HEAL back, so this belief that "teeth can't heal from cavities" is bullshit. But obviously if you keep on eating modern food the destruction of teeth is faster than they can heal. Those who don't belive that may wish to read "weston price nutrition and physical degeneration". Modern food (sugar) is the entry point for teeth destruction. Therefore the solution is not flossing, it's the removal of modern sugary foods from the diet and a reversion to foods from ~200 years ago (this might also include the elimination of white flour and using oldschool wholegrain flour, spelt seems to be the best one since as far as I know it's been the least crossbread/gmo-ed).
- notafraudster 4y ago
  This seems like an agenda-motivated post because even accepting your point as true, you ignored the actual subject of conversation and pivoted to the thing you wanted to talk about. Imagine the following headline: Academics make stronger connections between sedentary lifestyles and heart disease. This is true. Imagine someone replied to that conversation with "I should go to the gym more often." You then butted in with "People 150 years ago didn't go to the gym, they just worked physically demanding jobs. Modern office jobs are the entry point for sedentary living. Therefor the solution is not going to the gym, it's becoming a construction worker." You're not even wrong in that you are proposing something that's part of a solution, it's just bizarre to hijack someone mentioning dental hygiene into a hobbyhorse post about dietary sugar.
  - oifjsidjf 4y ago
    No: the comment I replied to mentioned flossing. I told him that flossing is a band-aid solution that hides the real cause underneath: sugar, which destroys teeth. Imagine someone says "I inject herion each day but since I take some pills I can handle it a bit better". Is the solution here to take the pills? Or to stop the heroin injection? Are you not able to see that? This also DOES connect to the main thread: if you don't eat sugar -> your teeth aren't destroyed -> if your teeth aren't destroyed -> you don't get infection -> if you don't get infection -> no gum disease -> and if the study is true -> then no gum disease -> less chance of Alzheimer. Therefore no sugar -> less chance of Alzheimer as per the study.
    - jfengel 4y ago
      You are conflating two different dental problems, tooth decay and gum disease. Sugar doesn't cause gum disease. Poor dental hygiene causes gum disease. Poor dental hygiene also causes tooth decay, but that doesn't make them the same thing. Tooth decay is caused by sugars, though it's mitigated by cleaning and fluoride. For tooth decay to infect the gums you'd have to be completely ignoring tooth hygiene. A dentist should have filled those cavities long, long before that point, or performed a root canal if you let it go that far. Eliminating sugar won't change your chance of gum disease one way or the other. It's a bacterial infection that grows into plaques, and they have to be removed. People in the past developed gum disease long before sugars: Otzi the Iceman had gum disease. The main modern cause of gum disease is smoking, though thankfully that is decreasing. Diabetes is also a cause of gum disease, and managing sugars reduces the chance of diabetes type 2. (Diabetes type 1 is an autoimmune disorder independent of your sugar consumption, though type 1 diabetics also have to manage their sugar consumption -- though certainly not eliminate it.) The "sugar is evil" trope is just not helpful, and it's not applicable here. It does not cause gum disease and is not implicated in Alzheimer's by this study. People should consume less of it, but it's not the villain it's made out to be by Robert Lustig and company.
- dekhn 4y ago
  Actually, people who ate real food 150 years ago had teeth that were massively worn down. Cavities are permanent. The comment about "crossbread/gmo-ed" is another tell.
  - oifjsidjf 4y ago
    You obviously have not read Weston Price's book. If you did you would never wrote a comment like that. Cavities are not permanent and they heal, read the book. You obviously "missed" the point where I explicitly wrote above that "if you keep eating the modern food they will never heal". You are also conflating "worn down teeth" vs "cavities which cause infection". These are totaly different things. You can have heavily worn down teeth but ZERO infection. Also you wrote: "The comment about "crossbread/gmo-ed" is another tell.". Really? Is it? Do you not know that gluten strength was greatly increased already in the last ~150 years in wheat because it was bread to withstand higher wind speeds so that it can be grown in windy locations? And how do you make wheat sustain higher winds? By making it's "bones" stronger. And what are the "bones" of wheat? Gluten! The gluten in modern wheat is much stronger than the gluten of the wheat people ate ~200 years. So the wheat we eat is already much different than it was 200 years ago. So much for the "crossbread/gmo tell" lol. Do some research first, it's not that hard.
    - dekhn 4y ago
      Your theories are interesting and I would like to subscribe to your newsletter. More seriously: you're trying to start an argument with somebody who has indepth research knowledge of plant breeding (PhD, Biophysics, also worked in UC Berkeley Plant and Microbial Department). You're citing a book with somebody who appears to have made significant contributions to dental research, and also was a quack whose theories are not accepted by the mainstream.
      - zmaurelius 4y ago
        Its true that Weston Price's work is controversial, but stating that he is a quack and not accepted by the mainstream does not mean that he is wrong. It was also mainstream at one time for doctors to not wash their hands while delivering babies.
- anonAndOn 4y ago
  >they had perfect teeth health even in old age. I think you mean had a perfect "tooth health" in old age. If they were anything like Washington, there was only one left.[0] [0] https://www.history.com/news/did-george-washington-have-wooden-teeth https://www.history.com/news/did-george-washington-have-wood...
  - oifjsidjf 4y ago
    Do you really think he ate a traditional diet? Read the book!
- leobg 4y ago
  Well, Ötzi (* 5,000 BCE) had cavities. I think you’d need to go back to before the Neolithic Revolution. Shipwrecked sailor Steven Callahan also noted in his book “Adrift” that, after 73 days adrift at sea eating nothing but fish and sea birds, his teeth and gums were healthier than ever before. So there’s something to your argument.
karmakaze 4y ago
My solution: use tech to overcome laziness, a Waterpik[0]. [0] https://www.waterpik.com/oral-health/products/dental-water-flosser/WP-670/ https://www.waterpik.com/oral-health/products/dental-water-f...
- comprambler 4y ago
  From personal experience, Waterpiks do not remove everything flossing does. Doing both is even more effective, floss then waterpik. There are different kinds of floss and they all feel different, find whatever works for you. Flossing only hurts the first couple times, then scar tissue builds up and you barely feel it anymore.
  - karmakaze 4y ago
    I haven't had it long enough to tell, but I'm hoping that it's like eroding a mountain, it takes repetition. Several times a day while working from home should be easy enough.
    - comprambler 4y ago
      Ouch no, you are not letting your gums heal. Try every 1-2 days. If gum health is very bad, try an oral health rinse, again every 1-2 days.
- tsol 4y ago
  Fyi- my sister in law is a dentist and tells me a water pik is NOT a replacement for flossing. It's good, but it will miss things floss won't

Damn. I guess it's a pretty bad sign then if you've been meaning to floss more for ages, but keep forgetting.

by mckirk 4y ago

Damn. I guess it's a pretty bad sign then if you've been meaning to floss more for ages, but keep forgetting.

People who ate real food 150 years ago didn't need to brush their teeth at all and they had perfect teeth health even in old age. Then when eg they went to cities, where sugary jam and white bread was avaiable, their teeth got destroyed. Those who didn't eat that food for a long time and returned to eating their old-school food saw their teeth HEAL back, so this belief that "teeth can't heal from cavities" is bullshit. But obviously if you keep on eating modern food the destruction of teeth is faster than they can heal. Those who don't belive that may wish to read "weston price nutrition and physical degeneration". Modern food (sugar) is the entry point for teeth destruction. Therefore the solution is not flossing, it's the removal of modern sugary foods from the diet and a reversion to foods from ~200 years ago (this might also include the elimination of white flour and using oldschool wholegrain flour, spelt seems to be the best one since as far as I know it's been the least crossbread/gmo-ed).

notafraudster 4y ago
This seems like an agenda-motivated post because even accepting your point as true, you ignored the actual subject of conversation and pivoted to the thing you wanted to talk about. Imagine the following headline: Academics make stronger connections between sedentary lifestyles and heart disease. This is true. Imagine someone replied to that conversation with "I should go to the gym more often." You then butted in with "People 150 years ago didn't go to the gym, they just worked physically demanding jobs. Modern office jobs are the entry point for sedentary living. Therefor the solution is not going to the gym, it's becoming a construction worker." You're not even wrong in that you are proposing something that's part of a solution, it's just bizarre to hijack someone mentioning dental hygiene into a hobbyhorse post about dietary sugar.
- oifjsidjf 4y ago
  No: the comment I replied to mentioned flossing. I told him that flossing is a band-aid solution that hides the real cause underneath: sugar, which destroys teeth. Imagine someone says "I inject herion each day but since I take some pills I can handle it a bit better". Is the solution here to take the pills? Or to stop the heroin injection? Are you not able to see that? This also DOES connect to the main thread: if you don't eat sugar -> your teeth aren't destroyed -> if your teeth aren't destroyed -> you don't get infection -> if you don't get infection -> no gum disease -> and if the study is true -> then no gum disease -> less chance of Alzheimer. Therefore no sugar -> less chance of Alzheimer as per the study.
  - jfengel 4y ago
    You are conflating two different dental problems, tooth decay and gum disease. Sugar doesn't cause gum disease. Poor dental hygiene causes gum disease. Poor dental hygiene also causes tooth decay, but that doesn't make them the same thing. Tooth decay is caused by sugars, though it's mitigated by cleaning and fluoride. For tooth decay to infect the gums you'd have to be completely ignoring tooth hygiene. A dentist should have filled those cavities long, long before that point, or performed a root canal if you let it go that far. Eliminating sugar won't change your chance of gum disease one way or the other. It's a bacterial infection that grows into plaques, and they have to be removed. People in the past developed gum disease long before sugars: Otzi the Iceman had gum disease. The main modern cause of gum disease is smoking, though thankfully that is decreasing. Diabetes is also a cause of gum disease, and managing sugars reduces the chance of diabetes type 2. (Diabetes type 1 is an autoimmune disorder independent of your sugar consumption, though type 1 diabetics also have to manage their sugar consumption -- though certainly not eliminate it.) The "sugar is evil" trope is just not helpful, and it's not applicable here. It does not cause gum disease and is not implicated in Alzheimer's by this study. People should consume less of it, but it's not the villain it's made out to be by Robert Lustig and company.
dekhn 4y ago
Actually, people who ate real food 150 years ago had teeth that were massively worn down. Cavities are permanent. The comment about "crossbread/gmo-ed" is another tell.
- oifjsidjf 4y ago
  You obviously have not read Weston Price's book. If you did you would never wrote a comment like that. Cavities are not permanent and they heal, read the book. You obviously "missed" the point where I explicitly wrote above that "if you keep eating the modern food they will never heal". You are also conflating "worn down teeth" vs "cavities which cause infection". These are totaly different things. You can have heavily worn down teeth but ZERO infection. Also you wrote: "The comment about "crossbread/gmo-ed" is another tell.". Really? Is it? Do you not know that gluten strength was greatly increased already in the last ~150 years in wheat because it was bread to withstand higher wind speeds so that it can be grown in windy locations? And how do you make wheat sustain higher winds? By making it's "bones" stronger. And what are the "bones" of wheat? Gluten! The gluten in modern wheat is much stronger than the gluten of the wheat people ate ~200 years. So the wheat we eat is already much different than it was 200 years ago. So much for the "crossbread/gmo tell" lol. Do some research first, it's not that hard.
  - dekhn 4y ago
    Your theories are interesting and I would like to subscribe to your newsletter. More seriously: you're trying to start an argument with somebody who has indepth research knowledge of plant breeding (PhD, Biophysics, also worked in UC Berkeley Plant and Microbial Department). You're citing a book with somebody who appears to have made significant contributions to dental research, and also was a quack whose theories are not accepted by the mainstream.
    - zmaurelius 4y ago
      Its true that Weston Price's work is controversial, but stating that he is a quack and not accepted by the mainstream does not mean that he is wrong. It was also mainstream at one time for doctors to not wash their hands while delivering babies.
anonAndOn 4y ago
>they had perfect teeth health even in old age. I think you mean had a perfect "tooth health" in old age. If they were anything like Washington, there was only one left.[0] [0] https://www.history.com/news/did-george-washington-have-wooden-teeth https://www.history.com/news/did-george-washington-have-wood...
- oifjsidjf 4y ago
  Do you really think he ate a traditional diet? Read the book!
leobg 4y ago
Well, Ötzi (* 5,000 BCE) had cavities. I think you’d need to go back to before the Neolithic Revolution. Shipwrecked sailor Steven Callahan also noted in his book “Adrift” that, after 73 days adrift at sea eating nothing but fish and sea birds, his teeth and gums were healthier than ever before. So there’s something to your argument.

karmakaze 4y ago

My solution: use tech to overcome laziness, a Waterpik[0]. [0] https://www.waterpik.com/oral-health/products/dental-water-flosser/WP-670/ https://www.waterpik.com/oral-health/products/dental-water-f...

comprambler 4y ago
From personal experience, Waterpiks do not remove everything flossing does. Doing both is even more effective, floss then waterpik. There are different kinds of floss and they all feel different, find whatever works for you. Flossing only hurts the first couple times, then scar tissue builds up and you barely feel it anymore.
- karmakaze 4y ago
  I haven't had it long enough to tell, but I'm hoping that it's like eroding a mountain, it takes repetition. Several times a day while working from home should be easy enough.
  - comprambler 4y ago
    Ouch no, you are not letting your gums heal. Try every 1-2 days. If gum health is very bad, try an oral health rinse, again every 1-2 days.
tsol 4y ago
Fyi- my sister in law is a dentist and tells me a water pik is NOT a replacement for flossing. It's good, but it will miss things floss won't