5 ms·

>> There was a study published in Nature Genetics[0] showing big changes in oral microbiota corresponding with Neolithic and Industrial dietary change. A diffe

>> There was a study published in Nature Genetics[0] showing big changes in oral microbiota corresponding with Neolithic and Industrial dietary change. A different diet leads to a different microbiome. I think mammals' teeth last long enough for a natural life. Of course we want a longer and better life. For instance, all my dogs by age 13 yo have lost half their teeth to rot. We are terrible owners who don't take care of their dental hygiene, which I suppose makes it a more "natural" evolution. Old horses also lose their teeth, too.

kodah 4y ago
> We are terrible owners who don't take care of their dental hygiene Rope toys are great for cleaning their teeth continuously if you don't feel like brushing them. You will need to throw the toys away once a year though.
culi 4y ago
> long enough for a natural life What does this mean though? Ancient lifespans were actually quite close to modern American lifespans. They likely had higher childbirth mortalities so the average may have been low but the modal lifespan was around 70 years[0] which is right around in line with the modern American. Lifespans were significantly shorter in medieval Europe but that was probably the lowest it's ever gotten and that was a relatively short period in human (or at least Western) history. Yet we still find fossil evidence that early hominins and early humans generally had great dental health.[1] Even the Romans, peasant and nobility included, did.[2] [0] https://theconversation.com/hunter-gatherers-live-nearly-as-long-as-we-do-but-with-limited-access-to-healthcare-104157 https://theconversation.com/hunter-gatherers-live-nearly-as-... [1] https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2013/02/24/172688806/ancient-chompers-were-healthier-than-ours https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2013/02/24/1726888... [2] https://www.docseducation.com/blog/ancient-romans-had-healthier-smiles-we-do-today https://www.docseducation.com/blog/ancient-romans-had-health...
- forgotmypw17 4y ago
  I think that we're going to discover that "scorched earth" techniques which indiscriminately decimate bacterial populations do more to perpetuate the problem than to fix it.
upsidesinclude 4y ago
Do you feed your dogs kibble? It is not a natural diet. Horses likewise are typically eating a very unnatural diet, typically hay. These are both perfect examples of a analogous diet to modern human diet. The difference being that they are animals and have no ability to correct for poor dietary "choices" with proper maintenance. I agree, however, with your self assessment.
- eyelidlessness 4y ago
  > I agree, however, with your self assessment. Didn’t take long to go from glib self deprecation to judgy spectator sport. Okay holier than thou pet owner, you tell me how I’m supposed to not feed my pup kibble. She has a prescription low fat diet and there are two vendors total who supply the prescription. One supplies only kibble. The other supplies kibble and canned food. She will only eat a few bites of the canned food each day. Should she starve because the kibble isn’t natural? The canned food isn’t either, should she just starve? Should I feed her chicken and rice which even with all the fat trimmed off is still too rich for her? Or should she be set free to eat whatever she can get sick on or get hit by a car trying? I’m doubtful my pup will have rotten teeth at 13 because she’s fortunate that dental health has been among her better strokes of luck. But I’m sure as hell going to feed her the “unnatural” food she depends on to have a healthy life and not feel guilted by judgmental busybodies about it.
  - labster 4y ago
    The natural diet of dogs is table scraps. They’ve been eating human leftovers for thousands of years.
    - Eisenstein 4y ago
      The natural solution for dogs which need a special restrictive diet to survive is death. I think we prefer unnatural sometimes.
    - eyelidlessness 4y ago
      I wonder how many people, upon observing people feeding dogs table scraps, argued that it was more natural for them to hunt prey, and hide from humans unless they were a present danger, and kill or maim them in those cases. I’m glad my pup has medical professionals who take her well-being seriously and don’t think whether she gets to live a healthy life is up for abstract debate based on how her ancestors were domesticated. Thanks for the discussion of how unnatural it is for my pup to be alive and healthy. I’m much more educated now.
londons_explore 4y ago
Dog food isn't very optimal for dogs... Most wild dogs would eat almost exclusively fresh raw meat. Whereas dog food tends to be dried meat with lots of corn as a filler. People wouldn't be able to afford 100% meat dogfood, because dogs eat a lot.
- Eisenstein 4y ago
  > because dogs eat a lot. Uncooked meat does not have near as many digestible calories density wise as cooked grains. Of course it would be a lot harder for them to become overweight, but the food cost would be tremendous. Remember that obligate carnivores that weigh a lot, like tigers, are incredibly expensive to feed.
  - zasdffaa 4y ago
    > Uncooked meat does not have near as many digestible calories density wise as cooked grains That seems very unlikely, what with fat and the lipids in cell walls - got a source?
    - Eisenstein 4y ago
      "Our observation that mice fed cooked meat retained higher body mass despite lesser intake (fresh- or dry- weight basis) indicates that cooking increases the energy extracted per gram of meat fed. This finding contrasts with the predictions of conventional nutritional assays, which on the basis of the Atwater system, return roughly equivalent metabolizable energy densities for raw and cooked meat on a dry-weight basis (Table S1). The problem with the Atwater system is that it ignores changes in di- gestibility, costs of digestion, and costs of immune defense, all of which are likely influenced by food processing. The result is nu- tritional inaccuracy. For example, cooking is known to increase the proportion of starch digested at the terminal ileum before access by most gut bacteria (2). Starch that resists digestion in the small intestine delivers only a proportion of its metabolizable energy to the consumer, because the short-chain fatty acids produced during bacterial fermentation of starch generate less ATP than the glu- cose produced by starch hydrolysis in the small intestine. Addi- tionally, the fatty acids are consumed as fuel for gut bacteria, and there are further losses from the production of combustible gases (40–42). Cooking, thus, increases the energetic value of starch to an extent greater than is represented by the Atwater system. Such differences between the calorie values determined by the Atwater system and the physiological outcomes observed in this study are relevant for the manipulation of diets to increased or decreased caloric loading." * Energetic consequences of thermal and nonthermal food processing Carmody, R. N., Weintraub, G. S., Wrangham, R. W., Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences2011 / 11 Vol. 108; Iss. 48 * https://booksc.org/book/37997813/2fc522 https://booksc.org/book/37997813/2fc522 Note that the 'Atwater' system is referring to the traditional method used to determine caloric content created in the 1890s which burns food and measures the heat obtained from it. Here is an interesting article about this issue: * https://www.economist.com/1843/2019/02/28/death-of-the-calorie https://www.economist.com/1843/2019/02/28/death-of-the-calor... I apologize for the single source -- I believed that the science was far more settled on this issue than it appears to be. Regardless, I hope it proves informative for further research if you decide to pursue it.

kodah 4y ago

> We are terrible owners who don't take care of their dental hygiene Rope toys are great for cleaning their teeth continuously if you don't feel like brushing them. You will need to throw the toys away once a year though.

culi 4y ago

> long enough for a natural life What does this mean though? Ancient lifespans were actually quite close to modern American lifespans. They likely had higher childbirth mortalities so the average may have been low but the modal lifespan was around 70 years[0] which is right around in line with the modern American. Lifespans were significantly shorter in medieval Europe but that was probably the lowest it's ever gotten and that was a relatively short period in human (or at least Western) history. Yet we still find fossil evidence that early hominins and early humans generally had great dental health.[1] Even the Romans, peasant and nobility included, did.[2] [0] https://theconversation.com/hunter-gatherers-live-nearly-as-long-as-we-do-but-with-limited-access-to-healthcare-104157 https://theconversation.com/hunter-gatherers-live-nearly-as-... [1] https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2013/02/24/172688806/ancient-chompers-were-healthier-than-ours https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2013/02/24/1726888... [2] https://www.docseducation.com/blog/ancient-romans-had-healthier-smiles-we-do-today https://www.docseducation.com/blog/ancient-romans-had-health...

forgotmypw17 4y ago
I think that we're going to discover that "scorched earth" techniques which indiscriminately decimate bacterial populations do more to perpetuate the problem than to fix it.

upsidesinclude 4y ago

Do you feed your dogs kibble? It is not a natural diet. Horses likewise are typically eating a very unnatural diet, typically hay. These are both perfect examples of a analogous diet to modern human diet. The difference being that they are animals and have no ability to correct for poor dietary "choices" with proper maintenance. I agree, however, with your self assessment.

eyelidlessness 4y ago
> I agree, however, with your self assessment. Didn’t take long to go from glib self deprecation to judgy spectator sport. Okay holier than thou pet owner, you tell me how I’m supposed to not feed my pup kibble. She has a prescription low fat diet and there are two vendors total who supply the prescription. One supplies only kibble. The other supplies kibble and canned food. She will only eat a few bites of the canned food each day. Should she starve because the kibble isn’t natural? The canned food isn’t either, should she just starve? Should I feed her chicken and rice which even with all the fat trimmed off is still too rich for her? Or should she be set free to eat whatever she can get sick on or get hit by a car trying? I’m doubtful my pup will have rotten teeth at 13 because she’s fortunate that dental health has been among her better strokes of luck. But I’m sure as hell going to feed her the “unnatural” food she depends on to have a healthy life and not feel guilted by judgmental busybodies about it.
- labster 4y ago
  The natural diet of dogs is table scraps. They’ve been eating human leftovers for thousands of years.
  - Eisenstein 4y ago
    The natural solution for dogs which need a special restrictive diet to survive is death. I think we prefer unnatural sometimes.
  - eyelidlessness 4y ago
    I wonder how many people, upon observing people feeding dogs table scraps, argued that it was more natural for them to hunt prey, and hide from humans unless they were a present danger, and kill or maim them in those cases. I’m glad my pup has medical professionals who take her well-being seriously and don’t think whether she gets to live a healthy life is up for abstract debate based on how her ancestors were domesticated. Thanks for the discussion of how unnatural it is for my pup to be alive and healthy. I’m much more educated now.

londons_explore 4y ago

Dog food isn't very optimal for dogs... Most wild dogs would eat almost exclusively fresh raw meat. Whereas dog food tends to be dried meat with lots of corn as a filler. People wouldn't be able to afford 100% meat dogfood, because dogs eat a lot.

Eisenstein 4y ago
> because dogs eat a lot. Uncooked meat does not have near as many digestible calories density wise as cooked grains. Of course it would be a lot harder for them to become overweight, but the food cost would be tremendous. Remember that obligate carnivores that weigh a lot, like tigers, are incredibly expensive to feed.
- zasdffaa 4y ago
  > Uncooked meat does not have near as many digestible calories density wise as cooked grains That seems very unlikely, what with fat and the lipids in cell walls - got a source?
  - Eisenstein 4y ago
    "Our observation that mice fed cooked meat retained higher body mass despite lesser intake (fresh- or dry- weight basis) indicates that cooking increases the energy extracted per gram of meat fed. This finding contrasts with the predictions of conventional nutritional assays, which on the basis of the Atwater system, return roughly equivalent metabolizable energy densities for raw and cooked meat on a dry-weight basis (Table S1). The problem with the Atwater system is that it ignores changes in di- gestibility, costs of digestion, and costs of immune defense, all of which are likely influenced by food processing. The result is nu- tritional inaccuracy. For example, cooking is known to increase the proportion of starch digested at the terminal ileum before access by most gut bacteria (2). Starch that resists digestion in the small intestine delivers only a proportion of its metabolizable energy to the consumer, because the short-chain fatty acids produced during bacterial fermentation of starch generate less ATP than the glu- cose produced by starch hydrolysis in the small intestine. Addi- tionally, the fatty acids are consumed as fuel for gut bacteria, and there are further losses from the production of combustible gases (40–42). Cooking, thus, increases the energetic value of starch to an extent greater than is represented by the Atwater system. Such differences between the calorie values determined by the Atwater system and the physiological outcomes observed in this study are relevant for the manipulation of diets to increased or decreased caloric loading." * Energetic consequences of thermal and nonthermal food processing Carmody, R. N., Weintraub, G. S., Wrangham, R. W., Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences2011 / 11 Vol. 108; Iss. 48 * https://booksc.org/book/37997813/2fc522 https://booksc.org/book/37997813/2fc522 Note that the 'Atwater' system is referring to the traditional method used to determine caloric content created in the 1890s which burns food and measures the heat obtained from it. Here is an interesting article about this issue: * https://www.economist.com/1843/2019/02/28/death-of-the-calorie https://www.economist.com/1843/2019/02/28/death-of-the-calor... I apologize for the single source -- I believed that the science was far more settled on this issue than it appears to be. Regardless, I hope it proves informative for further research if you decide to pursue it.