4 ms·

Interesting, but their choice of weighting of sugar and pH is not based on any evidence. Also, would the amount of time that the drink is in contact with your

by casca 14y ago

Interesting, but their choice of weighting of sugar and pH is not based on any evidence. Also, would the amount of time that the drink is in contact with your teeth not have an impact? Perhaps wine would have more of an impact because you might keep it in your mouth longer, offset by the small likelihood you you drinking as much of it?

bmelton 14y ago
Similarly, I read something recently (no link, sorry) that stated something like the following (poorly paraphrased): Juice is fine to drink as it's generally healthy, but if you're going to drink it, do so quickly instead of sipping on it for long periods. The premise being exactly what you surmised, that chugging a small glass of OJ is much better for your teeth than sipping it and putting your teeth into contact with it for so much longer.
- scott_s 14y ago
  It may be better for your teeth, but I wonder if chugging it will spike your insulin more.
  - bmelton 14y ago
    That was kind of the same question I had when I read it, but I came to the (completely uninformed) conclusion that probably, the body's absorption rate was self-metering enough that it probably wouldn't make a difference drinking it all at once vs. drinking it over a 20 minute period. I have absolutely no evidence whatsoever to support this however, so who knows?
    - carey 14y ago
      Fructose is metabolised by the liver, which may only be able to handle so much at a time without negative effects. Raw fruit is digested more slowly than juice due its fibre content, so drinking juice slowly could be worse for your teeth but better for your liver. Even modern raw fruit are significantly larger and sweeter than a few hundred years ago, so maybe we should just stick to berries.
- mtts 14y ago
  Juice is for most intents and purposes no healthier dan soda. It's mostly sugar and acid. The fact that said sugar and acid used to reside in a piece of fruit makes no difference at all. If you want the health benefits of fruit, eat a piece of fruit.
  - beagle3 14y ago
    I love the conviction with which you say that. So, there is no difference between compounds that we've evolved to consume over millions of years, and ones which were designed in the last 30 to be as addictive and as cheap to make as possible? While I do not claim that there is evidence of difference (I cannot provide any), it is unfounded to claim that there is none, whether based on some (inherently) limited study of effects, or just based on lack of knowledge otherwise. To be clear, I'm NOT talking about "Honest to god freshly squeezed tropicana juice", which is stretching the definition of what "squeezed orange juice" means (In case you are not aware - they boil it in vacuum, which gives it a much longer storage and shelf life, but kills taste and probably also any nutritional value; flavor is later added with a market-specific artificial "flavor kit" before packaging to consumers). I'm talking about actually taking an orange, squeezing that, and drinking it. Which should be the only acceptable definition for "orange juice", I think.
    - papsosouid 14y ago
      Your entire post is nothing but fallacies. You don't evolve to do anything. And you didn't evolve in the presence of orange juice, oranges didn't exist. And it doesn't matter, because that is just the naturalistic fallacy. Something being "natural" doesn't make it good, and something being "artificial" doesn't make it bad. We did not evolve with modern tooth cleaning equipment or flouride treatments either, but those are still beneficial to our teeth. There is absolutely no evidence to support the notion that pop is any worse for you than a fruit juice of similar acidity and caloric content.
      - beagle3 14y ago
        It would help to read what I was replying to, and what I was actually replying: GP said: "Juice is for most intents and purposes no healthier dan soda." You said: "There is absolutely no evidence to support the notion that pop is any worse for you than a fruit juice of similar acidity and caloric content." I said: "There is no evidence of difference", which is exactly what you said. Can you spot the difference between yourself and GP, though? One is an assertion; the other is an assertion of no evidence against said assertion. > "You don't evolve to do anything" We clearly don't speak the same language. What do you mean by that? I breathe; did I not evolve to breathe? Where did I state that everything "natural is good" or that anything "artificial is bad"? Who and what are you arguing with?

by casca 14y ago

bmelton 14y ago

Similarly, I read something recently (no link, sorry) that stated something like the following (poorly paraphrased): Juice is fine to drink as it's generally healthy, but if you're going to drink it, do so quickly instead of sipping on it for long periods. The premise being exactly what you surmised, that chugging a small glass of OJ is much better for your teeth than sipping it and putting your teeth into contact with it for so much longer.

scott_s 14y ago
It may be better for your teeth, but I wonder if chugging it will spike your insulin more.
- bmelton 14y ago
  That was kind of the same question I had when I read it, but I came to the (completely uninformed) conclusion that probably, the body's absorption rate was self-metering enough that it probably wouldn't make a difference drinking it all at once vs. drinking it over a 20 minute period. I have absolutely no evidence whatsoever to support this however, so who knows?
  - carey 14y ago
    Fructose is metabolised by the liver, which may only be able to handle so much at a time without negative effects. Raw fruit is digested more slowly than juice due its fibre content, so drinking juice slowly could be worse for your teeth but better for your liver. Even modern raw fruit are significantly larger and sweeter than a few hundred years ago, so maybe we should just stick to berries.
mtts 14y ago
Juice is for most intents and purposes no healthier dan soda. It's mostly sugar and acid. The fact that said sugar and acid used to reside in a piece of fruit makes no difference at all. If you want the health benefits of fruit, eat a piece of fruit.
- beagle3 14y ago
  I love the conviction with which you say that. So, there is no difference between compounds that we've evolved to consume over millions of years, and ones which were designed in the last 30 to be as addictive and as cheap to make as possible? While I do not claim that there is evidence of difference (I cannot provide any), it is unfounded to claim that there is none, whether based on some (inherently) limited study of effects, or just based on lack of knowledge otherwise. To be clear, I'm NOT talking about "Honest to god freshly squeezed tropicana juice", which is stretching the definition of what "squeezed orange juice" means (In case you are not aware - they boil it in vacuum, which gives it a much longer storage and shelf life, but kills taste and probably also any nutritional value; flavor is later added with a market-specific artificial "flavor kit" before packaging to consumers). I'm talking about actually taking an orange, squeezing that, and drinking it. Which should be the only acceptable definition for "orange juice", I think.
  - papsosouid 14y ago
    Your entire post is nothing but fallacies. You don't evolve to do anything. And you didn't evolve in the presence of orange juice, oranges didn't exist. And it doesn't matter, because that is just the naturalistic fallacy. Something being "natural" doesn't make it good, and something being "artificial" doesn't make it bad. We did not evolve with modern tooth cleaning equipment or flouride treatments either, but those are still beneficial to our teeth. There is absolutely no evidence to support the notion that pop is any worse for you than a fruit juice of similar acidity and caloric content.
    - beagle3 14y ago
      It would help to read what I was replying to, and what I was actually replying: GP said: "Juice is for most intents and purposes no healthier dan soda." You said: "There is absolutely no evidence to support the notion that pop is any worse for you than a fruit juice of similar acidity and caloric content." I said: "There is no evidence of difference", which is exactly what you said. Can you spot the difference between yourself and GP, though? One is an assertion; the other is an assertion of no evidence against said assertion. > "You don't evolve to do anything" We clearly don't speak the same language. What do you mean by that? I breathe; did I not evolve to breathe? Where did I state that everything "natural is good" or that anything "artificial is bad"? Who and what are you arguing with?