flouride

[luvoatmeal]

Good Morning Jeff,

I have read alot of "internet stuff" that says flouride is dangerous. I also have some books that say the same. But I was wondering if you know of any legitimate studies by respected scientists and/or doctors that say flouride is harmful?

Our family dentist always pressures us to have topical flouride treatments and we have said we don't want any. But yesterday he snuck one anyway on my 16 year old. My 22 year old refused (politely ) and the dentist was combative and rather rude with him. He said he wanted my son to bring in studies from medical literature saying flouride is harmful.

I don't know if this is an area you can help with - but perhaps if not, you could steer me in the right direction.

Thanks so much,
luvoatmeal

[dlb]

Good questions. I too would like to know what Jeff's take on this is.

In the meantime, any doctor who did any kind of medical treatment on my child without my consent or against my wishes would be reported to the licensing board immediately. That goes way beyond disagreeing with you.

Donna

[JeffN]

Many people make many claims.

What we have to do is sort through all the claims and find a way to get to the truth. Right now, the best system we have to do this, is called the scientific method. And, its not just about studies on drugs and big pharmaceutical companies. The scientific method is a systematic approach to understanding what we are observing and experiencing in the world around us and why. We use it every day to help us make many decisions.

The claims people make, no matter how outrageous they may be, or who makes them, should be able to be supported by this method and other forms of critical thinking, one way or another. Many think the claims made by Dr McDougall, Dr Ornish, Dr Esseslsyne are outrageous but the good news is that there is good evidence over many years to support their recommendations from many ways of looking at it.

I do not know your answer, I am only trying to help you be clear in how you go about finding your answer. Don't automatically assume that something is "good" because of who says it and/or what they claim, or that something is "bad" because of who says in and/or what they claim. Look for the trail of evidence and do no confuse ideology and philisophy with science.

In regard to raw foods, dental erosion and the pitting of teeth is a common phenomenon amongst them, not only anecdotally, but also as seen in research.

This study found increased dental erosion on those on an extreme raw food diet but found no significant relationship between any specific aspect of the diet and the prevalence of erosions. Some speculate it was from their much higher intake of fruit/dried fruit. Others from some other lifestyle aspect. Either way, it is just something to think about when you are sorting through deciding what to do.

Caries Res. 1999;33(1):74-80. Dental erosions in subjects living on a raw food diet.

In Health
Jeff

[kathyaggie]

I will investigate this further re. pitting and erosion of teeth. I have never heard of this from Doug Graham, a leader in eating lots of fruit and raw greens. Also, do Bonobo monkeys have this problem. They naturally eat a large amount of fruit.

I do have questions about a large amount of fruit. I think teeth problems may be related to too much citrus, dried fruit, and not enough greens (green smoothies are the way I get greens now since I can't properly chew salads).

I'll report back what I find out when I contact raw foodists re: pitting and erosion of teeth (I know this does happen to people who eat ONLY fruit).

[JeffN]

I will investigate this further re. pitting and erosion of teeth. I have never heard of this from Doug Graham, a leader in eating lots of fruit and raw greens.

Remember, seek evidence, not opinions and/or claims.

Try www.pubmed.com

Also, do Bonobo monkeys have this problem. They naturally eat a large amount of fruit.

While we are human primates and close cousin of the non-human primates, there are several distinct differences (besides the obvious) relating to food and our digestive capacities and biology.

Quoting from.

Nat Genet. 2007 October; 39(10): 1256–1260. Diet and the evolution of human amylase gene copy number variation

"Therefore, the average human has ~3 times more AMY1 copies than chimpanzees, and bonobos may not have salivary amylase at all. Outgroup comparisons with other great apes suggest that AMY1 copy number was most likely gained in the human lineage, rather than lost in chimpanzees 21,22 . Given that AMY1 copy number is positively correlated with salivary amylase protein level in humans, it stands to reason that the human-specific increase in copy number may explain, at least in part, why salivary amylase protein levels are ~6-8 times higher in humans than in chimpanzees 23. These patterns are consistent with the general dietary characteristics of Pan and Homo; chimpanzees and bonobos are predominantly frugivorous and ingest little starch relative to most human populations 24. "

21. Wilson, GM, et al. Identification by full-coverage array CGH of human DNA copy number increases relative to chimpanzee and gorilla. Genome Res. 2006;16:173–81.

22. Fortna, A, et al. Lineage-specific gene duplication and loss in human and great ape evolution. PLoS Biol. 2004;2:E207.

23. McGeachin, RL; Akin, JR. Amylase levels in the tissues and body fluids of several primate species. Comp Biochem Physiol A. 1982;72:267–9.

24. Hohmann, G; Robbins, M; Boesch, C. Feeding ecology in apes and other primates. Cambridge University Press; Cambridge: 2006.

Humans have 600-800% more starch splitting enzymes than bononos and chimpanzees, and this is not by accident or a freak of nature. It is consistent with most all human primates.

I do have questions about a large amount of fruit.

Fruit is a very healthy food and should be included. But, it is not as nutrient dense as many make it out to be. You can see for yourself by doing a simple comparison of 100 calories of any fruits vs 100 calories of most any vegetable vs 100 calories of most any starch (yam, sweet potatoes, etc) in either the CRON-O-Meter or www.nutritiondata.com

And, the fruit we have today is not the same fruit we had 1000's of years ago. It has been specifically hybridized to be much higher in sugars/calories so it is sweeter. However, this also lowers it overall nutrient density, its fiber to calorie ratio and its fiber to carbohydrate ratio, which are all negative. As I said above, it does not matter what anyone (including I) say, just do the comparisons yourself and read the original published data.



In Health
Jeff