Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
hardcore_gamer

A question about limes, water, and teeth

Recommended Posts

Caffeine Freak said:

Lemons and limes both contain sugar.


Is this whole thread just a contest to see who can make true statements while being as uninformative as possible?

A 12-ounce cola contains around 40 grams of sugar. A glass of club soda with a half-lime squeezed in contains less than 1 gram of sugar.

Good health isn't a boolean on-off proposition. Quantity means everything.

Share this post


Link to post

I never brush my teeth immediately after drinking or eating something acidic. I think acid and brushing is really bad for you teeth.

Share this post


Link to post
AndrewB said:

Is this whole thread just a contest to see who can make true statements while being as uninformative as possible?

A 12-ounce cola contains around 40 grams of sugar. A glass of club soda with a half-lime squeezed in contains less than 1 gram of sugar.

Good health isn't a boolean on-off proposition. Quantity means everything.


Sorry for correcting a simple false statement that was directed at me, I didn't realize that had turned the thread into a contest.

If I wanted to be uninformative, I wouldn't have provided links.

Share this post


Link to post
darknation said:

the fact is that human beings were not meant to live past 40 years. Your teeth, without intervention, evolved to crumble at 40. think of it as the oral menopause and the point at which your life ceased to have meaning from an evolutionary standpoint.

This isn't true.

The belief that people died off in early middle age is based on misinterpretation of historical life expectancy, which is calculated as an average and is not representative of actual years lived for most people. Infant mortality hugely skews the figure in non-developed societies. The truth is, even in the stone age, if you survived past puberty, your life expectancy was in your mid-fifties, and plenty of people likely lived much longer. By the medieval times, the aristocracy could expect to live to their seventies.

The idea that modern medicine has doubled human lifespan is wrong. Geriatric care only buys us a few more years of old age beyond what we would naturally have. Medicine's biggest contribution to longer lives has been in treating diseases and injuries that would historically kill young, fit people long before they were old in the tooth, so to speak.

Share this post


Link to post

Just at the beginning of the 20th century, a working-class man or woman hitting their 40ies in Western Europe or even in the USA would have developed all sorts of problems linked to malnutrition, childhood diseases, mistreated/untreated illnesses or simply by being worked to death. In other words, they would be human relics, and living beyond their 50ies usually meant they would be generally unable to work and become a burden on someone else or merely getting by.

Certainly, there were differences between agrarian and industrialized societies. It's not that agricultural populations were always better off than city-dwellers, they simply got exposed to different kinds of hardships and illnesses, and medical care usually was whatever the local quack could do (or you could afford).

Then again, judging by how many people still reach old age in shitholes such as Africa and India, then perhaps it wasn't all that hard (or certain causes which can solved by e.g. vaccination have been eradicated).

Share this post


Link to post
Jonathan said:

stuff

sorry, not convincing me that cro magnon man (read: glaswegians) lived anything like as long as we do today.

Share this post


Link to post
Maes said:

Just at the beginning of the 20th century, a working-class man or woman hitting their 40ies in Western Europe or even in the USA would have developed all sorts of problems linked to malnutrition, childhood diseases, mistreated/untreated illnesses or simply by being worked to death. In other words, they would be human relics, and living beyond their 50ies usually meant they would be generally unable to work and become a burden on someone else or merely getting by.

That's the point: societal factors contributed to earlier mortality, not intrinsic biological ones, which is different from the idea that people just naturally wear out by the time they hit their forties and we're somehow extending way beyond that nowadays. With a decent diet and lifestyle, and the luck to avoid disease and injury, humans will usually die in their seventies.

darknation said:

sorry, not convincing me that cro magnon man (read: glaswegians) lived anything like as long as we do today.

Why? This is established paleontological science. If you disagree, you need to offer something other than a gut feeling.

Share this post


Link to post
AndrewB said:

Is this whole thread just a contest to see who can make true statements while being as uninformative as possible?

A 12-ounce cola contains around 40 grams of sugar. A glass of club soda with a half-lime squeezed in contains less than 1 gram of sugar.

Good health isn't a boolean on-off proposition. Quantity means everything.


I don't see how he was being uninformative when what he simply said is true and objective. Regardless of quantity, lemon and lime does contain sugar. He did not say "lemon and lime both contain sugar, so it's not any better."

exp(x) said:

Misleading my ass. I drink the stuff all the time, but don't fool yourself about its acidity./31qna.html[/url]


Don't mean to nitpick, but that source doesn't prove that the damage of carbonic acid on teeth is significantly high.

Share this post


Link to post
buttspit said:

Don't mean to nitpick, but that source doesn't prove that the damage of carbonic acid on teeth is significantly high.

Yeah, that's why I had edited my post with the other link. My mistake.

Share this post


Link to post
Jonathan said:

Why? This is established paleontological science. If you disagree, you need to offer something other than a gut feeling.


Don't you know? He's darknation, he doesn't need to.

Share this post


Link to post

Looks tasty. Even if I don't know what that is supposed to contain.

Anyways, milk is obvious choice on my end.

Share this post


Link to post
Platinum Shell said:

Don't you know? He's darknation, he doesn't need to.

actually I was basing my assumption on biology. and darwin.

Human females start life with x number of eggs. These eggs should be enough to last the human female for its natural lifespan, since the basic function of an organism is to reproduce and make more organisms. I was assuming that, based on female humans becoming infertile between the ages of 45 - 50, that our natural lifespan would be somewhat below that.

I would also suggest that most fossil evidence we have regarding pre-historic man is skewed; less successful specimens were probably accorded less funerary prominence than successful specimens. Ancient burial customs (kings and tribal leaders get tombs etc) originated in pre-historic times, meaning that archaeologists tend to find the best 10% or so of ancient man specimens in fairly obvious places. The chaff probably ended up eaten by big fucking tigers / abandoned for carrion feeders.

Share this post


Link to post
darknation said:

Human females start life with x number of eggs. These eggs should be enough to last the human female for its natural lifespan, since the basic function of an organism is to reproduce and make more organisms. I was assuming that, based on female humans becoming infertile between the ages of 45 - 50, that our natural lifespan would be somewhat below that.


And that's totally not a nonsensical theorycrafting. No, infertility of females has absolutely nothing to do with lifespan. If it did, nobody would even in current times live past that age, because that's the sort of thing that has been in our genetics for enormously long period and modern medicine wouldn't change that whatsoever (most likely because it wouldn't exist). There was and is ongoing research based on which your exact date of cell death can be determined from DNA, except you'll never live long enough for that date to happen because other occurences make that impossible, like myocard infarct, stroke or our beloved AIDS. Hypothetical maximum lifespan of human inaffected by enviroment is supposedly around 150 years, when nerve cells undergo apoptosis, if I remember correctly. The same must have applied to prehistoric homo as well, hell, we even share cca 99% genetic material with chimpanzees, so actual lifespan must have always been determined by our acommodation to enviroment and its effects on us.

Also, tooth matter is one of tissues in human body that we can't regenerate, so you better take good care of it.

Share this post


Link to post
j4rio said:

And that's totally not a nonsensical theorycrafting.

there are very few (comparable or not) animals in the wild that live past the menopause. I think it's a reasonable guide, although no doubt some tedious wikipedian will think otherwise.

Share this post


Link to post
darknation said:

actually I was basing my assumption on biology. and darwin.

Human females start life with x number of eggs. These eggs should be enough to last the human female for its natural lifespan, since the basic function of an organism is to reproduce and make more organisms. I was assuming that, based on female humans becoming infertile between the ages of 45 - 50, that our natural lifespan would be somewhat below that.

Your understanding of evolution is too simplistic. It is genes that propagate themselves, individual organisms are only a mechanism for doing so, and since your genes are shared amongst your family and your community, selective pressure affects more than just reproduction. Thus humans can assist the propagation of their genes by being good grandparents, aunts and uncles, and community members, and they can do this at any age.

I would also suggest that most fossil evidence we have regarding pre-historic man is skewed; less successful specimens were probably accorded less funerary prominence than successful specimens. Ancient burial customs (kings and tribal leaders get tombs etc) originated in pre-historic times, meaning that archaeologists tend to find the best 10% or so of ancient man specimens in fairly obvious places. The chaff probably ended up eaten by big fucking tigers / abandoned for carrion feeders.

What do you mean by the "best 10%"? Are you saying kings and tribal leaders were somehow better evolved than their subjects? And elaborate burial rituals were almost nonexistent in early human history. Most remains are discovered in simple grave fields that belonged to a homestead or village, not in large mounds or tombs. Again, your theory lacks evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Jonathan said:

What do you mean by the "best 10%"? Are you saying kings and tribal leaders were somehow better evolved than their subjects?


Kinda like the top 1% today is somehow better evolved than the remaining 99%. Or in a better position to literally evolve, anyway. After all, the concept of "yer betters" being somehow superior/different than the rest (down to being "blue blooded" and "divine") is a staple of every aristocratic/oligarchic/feudal society.

Share this post


Link to post

The 1% has to eat and squirt shit out of their ass just like everyone else. Their farts smell just as bad too. The only thing they "evolved" is how to use their mouths to excrete a lot of bullshit that enough people find tasty (or misleading and confusing enough they don't try to oppose). This is the new, more subtle way of dominance, as opposed to the old direct ways of kings who would just outright kill you for any reason. Then again, now they will simply brand you as a terrorist, druggie or child molester, so maybe things haven't changed all that much...

Share this post


Link to post
hex11 said:

Then again, now they will simply brand you as a terrorist, druggie or child molester, so maybe things haven't changed all that much...


That's a big truth right there. Somehow, somewhat, the idea that somehow humanity was collectively heading towards a new era where there would be a kind of benign, open, equalitarian etc. society where national borders and physical presence would matter less (Eurozone unity, everybody working from home in nice, clean, computer-based jobs) based on sustainability, unity and innovation ("new economy", "green technology", Euro etc.) was cultivated starting from the 90s, peaked from the early to mid 2000s following social media etc. but it fell flat on its face when the crisis struck (even "The War on Terror" didn't affect it that badly).

Suddenly, reality bit everybody in the ass at the same time: hard currency and assets DO matter, being a citizen of nation A rather than nation's B can make all the difference, all other things being equal. Simply being physically present in place X rather than Y when the shit hits the fan can also affect the rest of your life or your ability to find work and lead a normal life in a democratic country, rather than being a slave in an authoritarian dystopia, even if in both cases you might still get the same model of iPad. Oh and of course being born already filthy rich and powerful can make quite a difference, still.

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×