4 ms·

Where "worst" is defined by a function of pH and sugar content pulled out of the air by a dentist.

by jws 14y ago

skylan_q 14y ago
It's a very, very simplistic view of dental health. There's much more to it than what comes into contact with your teeth.
dasil003 14y ago
How do you know the dentist pulled it out of thin air? A dentist would seem to have a decent likelihood of being familiar with the science.
- skylan_q 14y ago
  If the dentist is being scientific, it's up to him to back up his claims about sugar and acid being the most (or only) important indicators for what's bad for teeth. EDIT: For example, there's been some interesting work discussed here: http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.ca/2009/03/reversing-tooth-decay.html http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.ca/2009/03/reversing-tooth...
  - dasil003 14y ago
    I was just suggesting that the dentist might be familiar with the best science we have directly or indirectly, not even that he was acting scientifically per se.
  - scott_s 14y ago
    If you do some googling, it's commonly accepted that both sugar and acid are bad for your teeth, with plenty of justification. Some of the reasons are even covered in the article. You're correct in that their classification of "worst" only applies if sugar and acidity are the most important factors. But they're clearly a large factor in tooth decay, so measuring the contents of various liquids and comparing them to each other is instructive.
    - JabavuAdams 14y ago
      > But they're clearly a large factor in tooth decay Maybe, maybe not. The in-vivo environment might have many significant differences than some in-vitro setup. What's the role of saliva? of bacteria? of genetics? Don't underestimate the power of the telephone game (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_whispers http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_whispers). You need to go back to primary sources. It's very common for papers in software engineering, for instance, to confuse qualitative statements from earlier papers with empirical results.
cmatteri 14y ago
Their function 10^(5.5-pH) * (mg/cl sugar + 1) does seem to imply that sugar and acidity have a synergistic effect, where the +1 in the sugar term is a hack to keep the result from being 0 if the sugar is 0. This doesn't make sense, as a modest increase in sugar, say from 0 to 1 would double the result regardless of the pH.
- SoftwareMaven 14y ago
  What the equation says to me is that acidity sets the stage for tooth damage, but as bad as that is, once you start feeding the bacteria in that set stage, you are in real trouble. However, the entire article is a hypothesis. It is a best guess by somebody with scientific knowledge, but there is no reason to believe the real formula shouldn't be 10^(5.5-ph)+10(mg/cl sugar) or something completely different. However, my son and daughter both need a science fair project soon. I wonder if there is a way to formalize this a little.
  - xaa 14y ago
    How about the following: 1. Find a substance that is chemically tooth-like 2. Split it into predefined volumes (little cubes or spheres) 3. Add the beverage and saliva to the "tooth", wait a month, and measure the decrease in "tooth" volume. 4. Use regression to estimate the coefficients for sugar, pH, and whatever else.
    - lotsofpulp 14y ago
      You would be missing the bacteria, which are essential.
- Royal 14y ago
  Their function also improves the results if the drink is more basic. A drink with a pH of 13 would have an amazing score on here. If you normalize the pH above 5.5 since it has "little to no effect" things on the lower end of the results are better, with milk being worse than water, and chocolate milk being worse than milk.
squarecat 14y ago
Seems having only a dentist on hand for that "experiment" is akin to having a mechanic as your only expert for analyzing a car wreck? As the author even concedes, an abundance of anecdotes is not evidence. Was it so hard to find a chemist way back in aught-9? (Go down to the nearest uni and find a chem major at least...) The wide distribution of oversimplified, media-sanitized, pseudo-science is likely one of the affectations of Western culture that has kept it from progressing further for a solid 60 years--since television gave the ability for snake oil salesmen to multiply their effectiveness. The internet exponentially increased that ability.

Where "worst" is defined by a function of pH and sugar content pulled out of the air by a dentist.

by jws 14y ago

Where "worst" is defined by a function of pH and sugar content pulled out of the air by a dentist.

It's a very, very simplistic view of dental health. There's much more to it than what comes into contact with your teeth.

dasil003 14y ago

How do you know the dentist pulled it out of thin air? A dentist would seem to have a decent likelihood of being familiar with the science.

skylan_q 14y ago
If the dentist is being scientific, it's up to him to back up his claims about sugar and acid being the most (or only) important indicators for what's bad for teeth. EDIT: For example, there's been some interesting work discussed here: http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.ca/2009/03/reversing-tooth-decay.html http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.ca/2009/03/reversing-tooth...
- dasil003 14y ago
  I was just suggesting that the dentist might be familiar with the best science we have directly or indirectly, not even that he was acting scientifically per se.
- scott_s 14y ago
  If you do some googling, it's commonly accepted that both sugar and acid are bad for your teeth, with plenty of justification. Some of the reasons are even covered in the article. You're correct in that their classification of "worst" only applies if sugar and acidity are the most important factors. But they're clearly a large factor in tooth decay, so measuring the contents of various liquids and comparing them to each other is instructive.
  - JabavuAdams 14y ago
    > But they're clearly a large factor in tooth decay Maybe, maybe not. The in-vivo environment might have many significant differences than some in-vitro setup. What's the role of saliva? of bacteria? of genetics? Don't underestimate the power of the telephone game (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_whispers http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_whispers). You need to go back to primary sources. It's very common for papers in software engineering, for instance, to confuse qualitative statements from earlier papers with empirical results.

cmatteri 14y ago

Their function 10^(5.5-pH) * (mg/cl sugar + 1) does seem to imply that sugar and acidity have a synergistic effect, where the +1 in the sugar term is a hack to keep the result from being 0 if the sugar is 0. This doesn't make sense, as a modest increase in sugar, say from 0 to 1 would double the result regardless of the pH.

SoftwareMaven 14y ago
What the equation says to me is that acidity sets the stage for tooth damage, but as bad as that is, once you start feeding the bacteria in that set stage, you are in real trouble. However, the entire article is a hypothesis. It is a best guess by somebody with scientific knowledge, but there is no reason to believe the real formula shouldn't be 10^(5.5-ph)+10(mg/cl sugar) or something completely different. However, my son and daughter both need a science fair project soon. I wonder if there is a way to formalize this a little.
- xaa 14y ago
  How about the following: 1. Find a substance that is chemically tooth-like 2. Split it into predefined volumes (little cubes or spheres) 3. Add the beverage and saliva to the "tooth", wait a month, and measure the decrease in "tooth" volume. 4. Use regression to estimate the coefficients for sugar, pH, and whatever else.
  - lotsofpulp 14y ago
    You would be missing the bacteria, which are essential.
Royal 14y ago
Their function also improves the results if the drink is more basic. A drink with a pH of 13 would have an amazing score on here. If you normalize the pH above 5.5 since it has "little to no effect" things on the lower end of the results are better, with milk being worse than water, and chocolate milk being worse than milk.

squarecat 14y ago

Seems having only a dentist on hand for that "experiment" is akin to having a mechanic as your only expert for analyzing a car wreck? As the author even concedes, an abundance of anecdotes is not evidence. Was it so hard to find a chemist way back in aught-9? (Go down to the nearest uni and find a chem major at least...) The wide distribution of oversimplified, media-sanitized, pseudo-science is likely one of the affectations of Western culture that has kept it from progressing further for a solid 60 years--since television gave the ability for snake oil salesmen to multiply their effectiveness. The internet exponentially increased that ability.