Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • TalkRational: Pendaric doesn't work here

Topic: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World) (Read 178251 times) previous topic - next topic

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.
  • Pingu
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #29075
Except they haven't tested that hypothesis to see if a little bit of sugary starchy food consumed all day long along with a "Price diet" all day long as well result in caries, have they? 

I don't know, Dave.  Why don't you find out?

The point I am making, and which perhaps you now see, is that Price's data don't allow us to distinguish between those three (or even four) models.  So Price's book doesn't tell us that Price's EXPLANATION for his data is correct.  It merely tells us the explanation he THOUGHT was correct.

And in fact, what research since then has shown, is that there are MANY risk factors for dental caries, of which having acid-secreting bacteria AND a sugary-starchy diet is one.

So is malnutrition in infancy and childhood.

So are genetic factors that affect the shape and spacing of the teeth (how well they trap food).

So are genetic factors affecting strength of tooth enamel.

So are eating patterns (when you eat, how often you eat, what you eat in what order; what you drink and when).

And there are also many factor that ameliorate the risks, and these include dental hygiene, and whether the water you drink contains fluoride.

All these are extremely well researched.  They are all consistent with Price's data.

But nonetheless you insist that there is SOME DIET that protects you completely from dental caries regardless of whether you eat sugary food and have acid-secreting bacteria in your mouth.

Price did not demonstrate this to be true.  If you want to make the case, find the research that shows it.

i've asked you about this like three times and you keep avoiding the question.  Also, you seem to think that this idea of bacteria secreting acid thereby lowering oral pH and the acid dissolving tooth enamel was a new idea to Price ... or that he didn't know about it.  He did.  He wrote about it.  This had been known for 40 years in Price's day.

Yes,  And Price dismissed it.  Yet his data is entirely consistent with it.
I have a Darwin-debased mind.

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #29076
Quote
Quote
Quote from: Dave Hawkins on Today at 03:16:49 AM
Except they haven't tested that hypothesis to see if a little bit of sugary starchy food consumed all day long along with a "Price diet" all day long as well result in caries, have they?

I don't know, Dave.  Why don't you find out?
No. YOU find out.  It's YOU making the claim that "all these other researchers proved Price wrong" or whatever the hell ...


Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #29077
Also, I'd love to hear your analysis of Price's description of the Loetschental Valley children vs. St. Moritz children.  And don't give me this lame crap about "Price didn't say how many kids he checked in St. Moritz."  Knowing how thorough Price was, you can make a safe bet he got as large a sampling as he could.  This contrast is interesting because both groups ate sugary starchy food and the St. Moritz group was quite fastidious about all the latest dental hygiene - which is all the same stuff YOU would recommend today - and the LV group quite obviously did NOT do any of this dental hygiene stuff ... yet their teeth were MUCH better ... only 3.4% carious vs. 29.8.  That's a very big deal.  Now I will admit that on the face of it, both observations are consistent with both your theory and Price's theory as to the aetiology.  But it does raise the question ... why didn't parents / dentists / teachers push "real food" in St. Moritz as opposed to pushing "good dental hygiene" as a cure / prevention for dental caries?  Regardless of which theory is correct?  Obviously their neighbors had much better teeth WITHOUT all the dental hygiene complexity.
Pingu?

  • Pingu
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #29078
Also, I'd love to hear your analysis of Price's description of the Loetschental Valley children vs. St. Moritz children.  And don't give me this lame crap about "Price didn't say how many kids he checked in St. Moritz."  Knowing how thorough Price was, you can make a safe bet he got as large a sampling as he could.  This contrast is interesting because both groups ate sugary starchy food and the St. Moritz group was quite fastidious about all the latest dental hygiene - which is all the same stuff YOU would recommend today - and the LV group quite obviously did NOT do any of this dental hygiene stuff ... yet their teeth were MUCH better ... only 3.4% carious vs. 29.8.  That's a very big deal.  Now I will admit that on the face of it, both observations are consistent with both your theory and Price's theory as to the aetiology.  But it does raise the question ... why didn't parents / dentists / teachers push "real food" in St. Moritz as opposed to pushing "good dental hygiene" as a cure / prevention for dental caries?  Regardless of which theory is correct?  Obviously their neighbors had much better teeth WITHOUT all the dental hygiene complexity.
Pingu?

There's nothing to analyse, Dave. 

The problem we are having in this conversation is that you are pushing a Big Button narrative, and all anyone else is saying is that Price correctly identified cariogenic foods but was wrong about the primary driver of the association.  Not that nutrition doesn't matter (it does); not that cariogenic foods won't have a greater effect on some people than others (it will); not that dental caries isn't a major problem in westernised indigenous groups for reasons of nutrition as well as the direct effect of acid (it is, huge).

Your claim is that if you get your diet right, none of the other risk factors matter, and no amount of acid can erode your teeth.

There is no evidence that this is the case, and Price's Swiss story is not evidence that this is the case.   I don't "know how thorough Price was".  He was very UN thorough in reporting what he found, and crucially, he doesn't give the number of people in his samples in that study.  In other studies he gives the sample size, but often does not give the number of people with bad teeth; typically he gives the number of bad teeth out of total teeth examined.  The numbers he doesn't give are absolutely critical for drawing any generalisable conclusion from his reports and he does not supply them.

He was also very subject to confirmation bias.  His stuff about "narrow dental arches" in "degenerate" westernised people is bullshit.  So is his stuff about intellectual and moral degeneracy.  He was, as a contemporary reviewer noted, an "evangelist" rather than a "scientist" in this book.

You seem incapable of grasping the concept that some things can have multiple causes, and that of those causes, some are sufficient, and some are necessary, and some are neither sufficient nor necessary but nonetheless contributory. 

For instance, it seems that dental caries only occur if your mouth contains acid-secreting bacteria.
And it also only occurs if the result of those acid secretions drops below 5.5. 

Those appear to be NECESSSARY conditions for dental caries.  But they may not be SUFFICIENT.  For instance, it may be that even if this happens, dental caries is LESS LIKELY to occur if the saliva contains minerals (calcium, fluoride) to remineralise the enamel once the pH has risen again.

And whether the saliva contains those minerals my depend on what you have in your mouth at the time (topical effects); it may also depend on what you have been eating regularly (i.e. systemic, nutritional effects)

And whether the pH drops that low in the first place may depend on whether the saliva contains buffering compounds.  Again, this could be affected by both topical and systemic factors.

It may also depend on how much saliva flow there is after eating. This may depend on whether you go to sleep immediately (as babies sometimes do) or whether you finish your meal with a chewy tasty food like fruit or cheese.  It may depend on how much you drink. 

And how long the pH stays low may depend on how much crud there is on your teeth, what shape they are, or how close together they are.

How often the pH is low may depend on how often you eat.

And how much damage the acid does may depend on how strong and thick the enamel is, which may depend on how good your nutrition was in childhood.

In other words, Dave, there are MANY factors that raise your RISK of dental caries on the one hand and LOWER it on the other.  So i if you want to avoid dental caries, do less of the things that increase your risk and more of the things that decrease it (avoid sugary sticky starchy food; eat less often; finish meals with an apple or cheese; keep your teeth free of plaque; use fluoride toothpaste; drink fluoridated water; make sure that your calcium, vitamin D and phosphorus intake is adequate).

And there is even talk of preventing caries reducing the risk of transferring the acid-secreting bacteria from mothers to their infants:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1991790211000043

However, if you think there is some BIG BUTTON diet that will render all this unnecessary, feel free to find it. But the problem with these BIG BUTTON but nonetheless rather non-specific solutions (HMG; Price diet) is that when it appears not to work, the defence is always "well, you didn't stick to the diet properly; you didn't do REAL HMG or whatever).  Savory even says it's impossible to do science on HMG (it isn't impossible, as long as you are honest enough to accept when it doesn't give you the result you want).

But Price's data don't tell us this.  And to be honest, they wouldn't even tell us much even if he DID give us the details he omits, because observational studies like Price's have to be done on very large samples, preferably over time, and collect reliable data on a large number of potentially confounding variables.



  • Last Edit: December 10, 2017, 04:51:38 AM by Pingu
I have a Darwin-debased mind.

  • Pingu
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #29079
Quote
Quote
Quote from: Dave Hawkins on Today at 03:16:49 AM
Except they haven't tested that hypothesis to see if a little bit of sugary starchy food consumed all day long along with a "Price diet" all day long as well result in caries, have they?

I don't know, Dave.  Why don't you find out?
No. YOU find out.  It's YOU making the claim that "all these other researchers proved Price wrong" or whatever the hell ...

Read the rest of my post you lazy dishonest person.

YOU are the one saying that if you eat a Price diet you won't get dental caries, regardless of what else you eat or do with your teeth.  That is a strong claim, not supported by Price's data, and not supported by any data that I am aware of.

What other researchers demonstrated (not "proved" and please do NOT put words in quotes and attribute them to me when I did not write those words ffs) is that the PRIMARY driver of the very real association between cariogenic foods and dental caries is not nutrition (though that may well have played a role especially in the very poor people Price studied) but via the effect of those foods IN THE MOUTH.

Oh, and there is no reason to think that western diets are responsible for intellectual and moral degeneracy.
I have a Darwin-debased mind.

  • Pingu
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #29080
Dave, one of the most irritating things about you is that you ignore most of what people DO write, and then simply MAKE UP stuff they DON'T write.

If you want to respond to my posts, quote the whole damn thing.  And read the whole damn thing.
I have a Darwin-debased mind.

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #29081
"but was wrong about the primary driver of the association."

You keep repeating this claim over and over again ad nauseum Goebbels style hoping - I suppose - that I will buy it WITHOUT you having to demonstrate it.

All it would take for you to demonstrate it would be to supply me ONE SCIENCE PAPER where they tested the thing I mentioned that needs testing to determine if Price was wrong about this or not.

Waiting.

:popcorn:

  • Pingu
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #29082
One problem with Price's methodology that is worth pointing out, is that he is doing his correlations at group level not individual level.  So compares group A who have diet X with group B who have diet Y.

This works reasonably well in an experimental design: you randomly assign participants to either group A or B, and you give group A diet X and you give group B diet Y, and you find out which group ends up with better teeth.

However, with observational studies, where you don't randomly assign people to groups, you just make observations about how groups differ, this approach is very problematic.  It's prone to what is called Simpson's Paradox, which is when you make the inference that group A is, say, healthier than group B because group A drinks more milk than group B, but then find that WITHIN group A and WITHIN group B, the people who drink more milk are LESS healthy than the people who drink more.

This is why it is very important to collect individual data not simply on the thing you are trying to explain (in this case dental health) but also on the thing you are trying to explain it with (in this case, diet).  I see very little in Price's book (apart from the odd case study) of him actually correlating diet with dental health across individuals.  He only does it across books.

This alone means that while we can acknowledge that the teeth of his indigenous groups living away from western influence were indeed better than the teeth of those who were eating western "town food", we can't draw any generalisable inference as to causality.  In fact, being a good observer, Price did spot the key ingredients that we now know really are the cariogenic components of a cariogenic diet - sugar and refined flour i.e. sugary sticky food.

But he didn't do what epidemiologists now do (and were starting to do in Price's day) which is to use statistical techniques in which individual-level information about the potential causal factors are correlated with individual level information about the disease being investigated.

It's this kind of epidemiological study that gives us the risk ratios of different factors, such as the studies I showed you that showed that after controlling for lots of other factors, toddlers being nursed-to-sleep was an extremely strong predictor of dental caries.  But so were other factors IN ADDITION.

Risks add up and also multiply.
I have a Darwin-debased mind.

  • VoxRat
  • wtactualf
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #29083
All it would take for you to demonstrate it would be to supply me ONE SCIENCE PAPER where they tested the thing I mentioned that needs testing to determine if Price was wrong about this or not.
The problem is the "thing you mentioned" always turns out to be insufficiently defined:
Quote
Except they haven't tested that hypothesis to see if a little bit of sugary starchy food consumed all day long along with a "Price diet" all day long as well result in caries, have they?
Wtf is a "Price diet"?

"I understand Donald Trump better than many people because I really am a lot like him." - Dave Hawkins

  • Pingu
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #29084
"but was wrong about the primary driver of the association."

You keep repeating this claim over and over again ad nauseum Goebbels style hoping - I suppose - that I will buy it WITHOUT you having to demonstrate it.

It's been demonstrated in many of the studies I showed you.  STARVING children often have perfect teeth - even though they are so malnourished they have beri beri.  Many western people have terrible teeth despite having extremely good nutrition.  Some communities eating traditional diets also have perfect teeth.  Some people who are chronically undernourished have terrible teeth.

What the people with terrible teeth have in common is that they eat sugary starchy foods.  What the people who don't have terrible teeth have in common is that they don't eat sugary starchy foods, either because they don't have much food at all, to the point of malnutrition, or because it just isn't what they eat.

Epidemiological studies show what the risk factors are and what the protective factors are.  There are no studies that show that ANY diet provides complete protection against the effects of eating sugary starchy food, although some diets may ameliorate the effects. 




All it would take for you to demonstrate it would be to supply me ONE SCIENCE PAPER where they tested the thing I mentioned that needs testing to determine if Price was wrong about this or not.

Waiting.

:popcorn:

And the onus is on the person making the claim (in this case you) to show that there is SOME DIET that provides total protection against dental caries, regardless of how much cariogenic food the person puts away in ADDITION to that diet.

The rest of us simply accept the vast body of epidemiological evidence that there are some nutritional protective factors but that the main driver of the association between cariogenic foods and dental caries is not by displacement of nutrients but their effects in the mouth.  As evidenced by the association between, for example the high risk of night-feeding of toddlers, even in studies in which nutritional factors were controlled for.

If you want to claim that even these toddlers wouldn't get caries if only their mothers ate a "Price diet" then that is YOUR claim and YOU need to support it.
I have a Darwin-debased mind.

  • Pingu
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #29085
All it would take for you to demonstrate it would be to supply me ONE SCIENCE PAPER where they tested the thing I mentioned that needs testing to determine if Price was wrong about this or not.
The problem is the "thing you mentioned" always turns out to be insufficiently defined:
Quote
Except they haven't tested that hypothesis to see if a little bit of sugary starchy food consumed all day long along with a "Price diet" all day long as well result in caries, have they?
Wtf is a "Price diet"?

It's the diet that people who don't get dental caries eat.
I have a Darwin-debased mind.

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #29086
Also, I'd love to hear your analysis of Price's description of the Loetschental Valley children vs. St. Moritz children.  And don't give me this lame crap about "Price didn't say how many kids he checked in St. Moritz."  Knowing how thorough Price was, you can make a safe bet he got as large a sampling as he could.  This contrast is interesting because both groups ate sugary starchy food and the St. Moritz group was quite fastidious about all the latest dental hygiene - which is all the same stuff YOU would recommend today - and the LV group quite obviously did NOT do any of this dental hygiene stuff ... yet their teeth were MUCH better ... only 3.4% carious vs. 29.8.  That's a very big deal.  Now I will admit that on the face of it, both observations are consistent with both your theory and Price's theory as to the aetiology.  But it does raise the question ... why didn't parents / dentists / teachers push "real food" in St. Moritz as opposed to pushing "good dental hygiene" as a cure / prevention for dental caries?  Regardless of which theory is correct?  Obviously their neighbors had much better teeth WITHOUT all the dental hygiene complexity.
Pingu?
Blah blah blah ... lots of words ...

But no answer to THIS specific question ...

  • JonF
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #29087
"Price observed two types of people in all his travels... Those who ate town food and those who didn't.  those who ate town food had bad teeth and those who didn't had good teeth."

I use shorthand a lot.  Get used to it.  You know what I'm saying.
Often we don't.  Get used to writing what you mean.

What you quoted above is flat-out false, not shorthand for truth.
"I would never consider my evaluation of his work to be fair minded unless I had actually read his own words." - Dave Hawkins

  • JonF
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #29088
Knowing how thorough Price was, you can make a safe bet he got as large a sampling as he could.
Knowing how sloppy and biased Price was, we have no idea of the size of his sample.
"I would never consider my evaluation of his work to be fair minded unless I had actually read his own words." - Dave Hawkins

  • Pingu
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #29089
Also, I'd love to hear your analysis of Price's description of the Loetschental Valley children vs. St. Moritz children.  And don't give me this lame crap about "Price didn't say how many kids he checked in St. Moritz."  Knowing how thorough Price was, you can make a safe bet he got as large a sampling as he could.  This contrast is interesting because both groups ate sugary starchy food and the St. Moritz group was quite fastidious about all the latest dental hygiene - which is all the same stuff YOU would recommend today - and the LV group quite obviously did NOT do any of this dental hygiene stuff ... yet their teeth were MUCH better ... only 3.4% carious vs. 29.8.  That's a very big deal.  Now I will admit that on the face of it, both observations are consistent with both your theory and Price's theory as to the aetiology.  But it does raise the question ... why didn't parents / dentists / teachers push "real food" in St. Moritz as opposed to pushing "good dental hygiene" as a cure / prevention for dental caries?  Regardless of which theory is correct?  Obviously their neighbors had much better teeth WITHOUT all the dental hygiene complexity.
Pingu?
Blah blah blah ... lots of words ...

But no answer to THIS specific question ...

What "specific question"?

As you say, the data are consistent both with the sugary foods the St Moritz children were eating causing their mouth pH to drop below 5.5 on frequent occasions, and with the idea that this only damaged their teeth because they were also no longer drinking as much milk.

Nothing in those data tells us which is the "right" answer.

Obviously I can't tell you why their parents did or didn't do whatever they did or didn't do.  Nor can you, because Price doesn't give us that information.

But people who drink plenty of milk DO get dental caries.  Toddlers who night-feed, whether on breast-milk or formula, are not protected by the caries-preventitive nutritional effects of that milk from developing dental caries as a result of the prolonged drop on pH around their teeth as they sleep.
I have a Darwin-debased mind.

  • JonF
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #29090
"but was wrong about the primary driver of the association."

You keep repeating this claim over and over again ad nauseum Goebbels style hoping - I suppose - that I will buy it WITHOUT you having to demonstrate it.

All it would take for you to demonstrate it would be to supply me ONE SCIENCE PAPER where they tested the thing I mentioned that needs testing to determine if Price was wrong about this or not.

Waiting.

:popcorn:
Reading the Price papers that Pingu dug up for you  ... again ... while you wait?
"I would never consider my evaluation of his work to be fair minded unless I had actually read his own words." - Dave Hawkins

  • Pingu
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #29091
Knowing how thorough Price was, you can make a safe bet he got as large a sampling as he could.
Knowing how sloppy and biased Price was, we have no idea of the size of his sample.

Plus Price appears to not to have related variation in diet WITHIN GROUP to the incidence of dental caries.  Did the St Moritz children who had fewer bad teeth drink more milk, or eat less chocolate?

When I lived in Switzerland I basically lived on those two foods alone.  Also birchermuesli, which probably saved me.
I have a Darwin-debased mind.

  • JonF
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #29092
But it does raise the question ... why didn't parents / dentists / teachers push "real food" in St. Moritz as opposed to pushing "good dental hygiene" as a cure / prevention for dental caries?  Regardless of which theory is correct?  Obviously their neighbors had much better teeth WITHOUT all the dental hygiene complexity.
Pingu?
Blah blah blah ... lots of words ...

But no answer to THIS specific question ...
Nobody, especially you, has an answer to that question. That's the "answer".

We might speculate that they weren't researchers and didn't see the connection.  And/or the non-dentists didn't know enough about others' teeth. And maybe even the dentists weren't gathering statistics. And Pingu's point about possible within-group dietary differences.  And probably things we haven't thought of.

One way or another, assuming Price did report correctly (not a given), his failure to report sufficient data makes it impossible to evaluate the situation.
"I would never consider my evaluation of his work to be fair minded unless I had actually read his own words." - Dave Hawkins

  • Pingu
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #29093
"but was wrong about the primary driver of the association."

You keep repeating this claim over and over again ad nauseum Goebbels style hoping - I suppose - that I will buy it WITHOUT you having to demonstrate it.

All it would take for you to demonstrate it would be to supply me ONE SCIENCE PAPER where they tested the thing I mentioned that needs testing to determine if Price was wrong about this or not.

Waiting.

:popcorn:
Reading the Price papers that Pingu dug up for you  ... again ... while you wait?

They are only the ones from Dental Cosmos. There are also papers in Dental Digest and the Journal of the American Dental Association, of which I've only managed to access a few (none from Dental Digest).  None of the Dental Cosmos ones provide any additional detail.

It seems very unlikely that Price did do the kinds of quantitative analysis that would tell us anything useful, because it would have actually been easier for him to quote the summary and inferential statistics (e.g. means, variances, t-values, chi-squares, whatever) than laboriously tell us how many teeth of the pooled number he examined were damaged, often not even telling us how many people he examined (though you can estimate it) and more importantly, often not telling us how many people were affected (number of people affected is more relevant than total number of teeth affected). And never telling us about the diets of individuals affected vs the diets of individuals not affected, presumably because he didn't collect that info.
I have a Darwin-debased mind.

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #29094
Oops ... that was the wrong post ... tru this one

"but was wrong about the primary driver of the association."

You keep repeating this claim over and over again ad nauseum Goebbels style hoping - I suppose - that I will buy it WITHOUT you having to demonstrate it.

All it would take for you to demonstrate it would be to supply me ONE SCIENCE PAPER where they tested the thing I mentioned that needs testing to determine if Price was wrong about this or not.

Waiting.

:popcorn:

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #29095
Hey I found the post with the link to lots of Price's scientific papers:

Quote from: Pingu;2640590
Ah, here we go:

http://quod.lib.umich.edu/d/dencos?type=simple&rgn=full+text&q1=price&cite1=Price%2C+Weston+A&cite1restrict=author&cite2=&cite2restrict=author&Submit=Search

You owe me $40, Dave.
Pulling this forward ... but i think there is much much more at PPF ... for $40

  • VoxRat
  • wtactualf
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #29096
both groups ate sugary starchy food
[citation needed]

I found this RE: Loetschental:
Quote
The nutrition of the people of the Loetschental Valley, particularly that of the growing boys and girls, consists largely of a slice of whole rye bread and a piece of the summer-made cheese (about as large as the slice of bread), which are eaten with fresh milk of goats or cows. Meat is eaten about once a week.
... which hardly looks like a complete description of the "average" LV diet, but as far as it goes does not seem to support the contention that it involves a lot of "sugary starchy food".

And this, RE: St. Moritz
Quote
St. Moritz is a typical Alpine community with a physical setting lar to that in the Cantons of Bern and Wallis (Valais). It is, however, provided with modern nutrition consisting of an abundance of white-flour products, marmalades, jams, canned vegetables, confections, and fruits--all of which are transported to the district. Only a limited supply of vegetables is grown locally.
The claim that the two were comparable in terms of "sugary starchy foods" seems, [ahem] less than accurate.
"I understand Donald Trump better than many people because I really am a lot like him." - Dave Hawkins

  • Pingu
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #29097
Oops ... that was the wrong post ... tru this one

"but was wrong about the primary driver of the association."

You keep repeating this claim over and over again ad nauseum Goebbels style hoping - I suppose - that I will buy it WITHOUT you having to demonstrate it.

All it would take for you to demonstrate it would be to supply me ONE SCIENCE PAPER where they tested the thing I mentioned that needs testing to determine if Price was wrong about this or not.

Waiting.

:popcorn:

I already addressed this, Dave.

"The thing you mentioned" was a "Price diet".  And your claim (not Price's claim incidentally) is that IF you eat a Price diet THEN EVEN IF you also eat sugary sticky snacks AND have a mouth full of acid-secreting bacteria you STILL won't get dental caries.

That is a strong claim.  To test it, you would need to first identify the diet, and the key elements of it that you hypothesise are protective, then either identify people who eat that diet or assign people to that diet, make sure you also monitor their consumption of sugary sticky foods, and then, later, find out whether dental caries only occurred in people who ate the sugary starchy foods and NOT the protective foods, and not in people who at the sugary starchy food AND the protective foods.

If you can do, or find, such a study, then you might have a case that a "Price diet" confers immunity from dental caries EVEN IN the presence of consumption of cariogenic foods like candy.

In the absence of such a study, then we go with what we have, which is that the biggest risk factor for dental caries is the combination of acid-secreting bacteria in the mouth and consumption of sugary starchy foods REGARDLESS of nutritional status.

Yes, nutritional status does modify the risk.  But all the epidemiological evidence suggests that the primary reason that dental caries is strongly correlated with consumption of cariogenic foods is because of the effects those foods have IN THE MOUTH, not the effect they have on consumption of other potentially protective foods.

  • Last Edit: December 10, 2017, 06:39:23 AM by Pingu
I have a Darwin-debased mind.

  • Pingu
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #29098
Hey I found the post with the link to lots of Price's scientific papers:

Quote from: Pingu;2640590
Ah, here we go:

http://quod.lib.umich.edu/d/dencos?type=simple&rgn=full+text&q1=price&cite1=Price%2C+Weston+A&cite1restrict=author&cite2=&cite2restrict=author&Submit=Search

You owe me $40, Dave.
Pulling this forward ... but i think there is much much more at PPF ... for $40

Yes.  I haven't found a free source for his Dental Digest papers or many of the JADA papers.  PPF typical of most scam outfits, don't seem even give you an index of the papers they have. 

So you can have that link for free.

I have a Darwin-debased mind.

  • Pingu
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #29099
both groups ate sugary starchy food
[citation needed]

I found this RE: Loetschental:
Quote
The nutrition of the people of the Loetschental Valley, particularly that of the growing boys and girls, consists largely of a slice of whole rye bread and a piece of the summer-made cheese (about as large as the slice of bread), which are eaten with fresh milk of goats or cows. Meat is eaten about once a week.
... which hardly looks like a complete description of the "average" LV diet, but as far as it goes does not seem to support the contention that it involves a lot of "sugary starchy food".

And this, RE: St. Moritz
Quote
St. Moritz is a typical Alpine community with a physical setting lar to that in the Cantons of Bern and Wallis (Valais). It is, however, provided with modern nutrition consisting of an abundance of white-flour products, marmalades, jams, canned vegetables, confections, and fruits--all of which are transported to the district. Only a limited supply of vegetables is grown locally.
The claim that the two were comparable in terms of "sugary starchy foods" seems, [ahem] less than accurate.

It's completely inaccurate.  Price goes out of his way to keep telling us what the problem foods are - foods that people with poor dental health eat, and which people with good dental health don't eat.  And the common factor are the classic cariogenic foods:

"refined flours and canned goods and sugar"; "refined-flour products, sugar, sweetened foods, canned goods, and polished rice"; "refined white-flour products, sugar, polished rice, vegetable fats, canned goods and a limited amount of meat"; "refined cereal flours, a high intake of sweets, canned goods, sweetened fruits, chocolate; and a greatly reduced use of dairy products"; "white-flour goods; highly sweetened fruit, such as jams, marmalades, jellies, sugar and syrups";

He bangs on about "refined" sugar and "refined flour" because he thinks the primary problem with these is that the nutrients have been refined out, but not the calories (which of course is true).  But it is also true that refined sugar and white flour are the ingredients of soft sticky foods like jam and syrup spread on slices of soft sticky white bread, and also of sweet biscuits, which we now know are just the kind of foods that tend to result in precipitous and prolonged reduction in pH at the tooth surface.

And while Price is aware that the proximal cause of decay is acid secreted by bacteria, he does not seem aware of topical effects of sticky sugary food at the tooth surface, nor of the precipitous drop on pH that can occur when these foods are eaten.  He seems to think that the acid will be excreted anyway, and the role of food to provide nutrients that will alter the saliva in such a way as to strengthen the teeth sufficiently to resist acid attack, and remineralise it after afterwards.  The direct role of sugar in lowering pH to demineralisation levels does not seem to have occurred to him.  Although he reports "chemical analysis" of saliva, he seems to be talking about mineral content, not pH, and he never reports monitoring pH changes before and after eating various foods.

Quote from: Price
While there are many theories regarding the relative importance of different factors in the process of decay practically all provide for a local solution of the tooth substance by acids produced by bacteria. The essential difference in the various theories of tooth decay is the difference in theories relative to the control of these decalcifying organisms, and relative to their quantity and activity. The dental profession has been waiting for decades for this question to be solved before taking active steps to prevent the whole process. The primitive approach has been to provide a program that will keep the teeth well, that is, prevention of dental caries by adequate food combinations. I have just stated that teeth harden after eruption if the saliva is normal. This occurs by a process of mineralization much like the process by which petrified wood is produced.

As I keep saying, he missed the key connection between sugary starchy food and dental caries, i.e. the effect of sugar on saliva pH in the mouth.
I have a Darwin-debased mind.