Had osmotic diarrhea (too much sugar)

[overkees]

I don't saw any of the signs of not meeting macro and micronutrients in the sugar article. How can people now what to look out for? I think if you write an article about sugar, suggesting that sugar is not the bad guy, you should point out these signs to look out for when introducing sugar into the diet.

The truth is that there are a lot more markers of bad gut health.

So, you think we should make a list of 'bad gut health indicators'?
Based on what scientific evidence?

It's based on pure logic and experience. Staining on toilet paper is absent in me, in my girlfriend, lots of people on the normalbreathing site. It's the same bullshit you gave me on the dental plaque biofilm being not proven by scientific evidence. Or are you suggesting that sticky poo, staining on toilet paper, odour, yellow/grey colores in stools and constipation are indicators of a good health? People do not know that in good good gut health ALL these signs will be absent.

[Mirroring: Btw, can you post the scientific research for your claims in the sugar article? ]

[RRM]

you should point out these signs to look out for when introducing sugar into the diet.

The diet of virtually all people contains sugar.
The Wai diet did not introduce sugar into your life.

[overkees]

First of all, it's an article about sugar. Therefore it is logical to think that alot of people who are going for the wai diet, certainly when this diet is promoting itself as being about optimal health, might think sugar can be added easily out of convenience and as a cheap substitute for other fruits. One can look at the nutrient calculator and see that their nutrient intake is high enough and they are perfectly fine to add sugar to their diet. BUT, as I pointed out already, there are other things to watch aswell. Not just macro and micronutrient intakes.

Secondly, the problem on the wai diet is that you also have the natural sugars of fruits. So that a too high consumption of sugar can easily be made if not properly warned. People can go on and compare themselves with you for example and might inflict a lot of damage and compromise their bad gut health (this means almost everybody in my experience) even further.

Certainly in the beginning people have a hard time adjusting their energy intakes to their energy needs, it will take some months, some even took it a year to get a good hang of it. People are used to eat a belly full.

Of course you can say: but on a normal diet you have grains and ptatoes that will also end up ultimately as sugar. Although these are slower releasing than sugar I agree with you. It is also a very unsmart move. But wai is not advicing about normal diets...

Let me put it another way: What are the pros of not adjusting the article? Sugar, because of all the arguments I gave, can be relatively dangerous already in small quanities compared to a lot of other foods on the wai diet. Therefore I think it wouldn't hurt anybody to give some more emphasis on this issue. In fact, it might prevent a lot of mistakes. So again, what is against adapting it?

[JeffC]

I believe that the Wai philosophy that acne is a signal of a sub-optimal diet is correct. Excessively heated (burned) food should not be consumed. Thus, the Wai diet advocates the correct foods.

However, I believe that the lack of acne is used as an excuse to indulge in amounts of sugar that are not healthy in the long-term. The Wai diet disregards the fact that teeth decay on the diet. RRM admits that he needs to go to the dentist in order to maintain good teeth. The cause of decay is written off as unavoidable "acid on the teeth." As if decay is just something that happens to everyone nowadays, maybe because we're all living longer. Even though half of American kids ages 12-15 already have tooth decay. My teeth have always had some decay, because I've always enjoyed OJ, but they rapidly worsened after I started using a straw, because more sugar depleted key nutrients like magnesium and calcium even faster than usual. Decay is lack of nutrients.

Naturally healthy teeth indicate a healthy diet. Such a diet contains high amounts of fat-soluble vitamins and low amounts of phytic acid and sugar. Advised calorie ratios should be more like 75% fat, 10% carb, 15% protein. It's still the Wai diet, just interpreted in a different way.

[RRM]

I doubt that dentists will agree with you,
that the tooth decay in kids aged 12-15 is caused by a lack of nutrients.

[overkees]

What kind of non argument is that?
I doubt that dietitiens will agree with the wai diet..
that doesn't say anything.

Or this kind of quotes: "My uncle is a professor in biochemistry and he says sugar is bad"

When it comes to dental health it's a combination of several factors. Overgrowth of pathogens in the mouth, formation of biofilms that are resistant to pretty much all antibacterial products, an immune system is not working properly, lack of fat soluble vitamins, lack of minerals, lack of oxygenation, too much acids and the lists goes on and on. Now of course all this things are interrelated and you can't say one of them is the bad guy, it are all other aspects of the same thing: a bad lifestyle. Toothpaste is a medicine. Dental health is a very important aspect of human health and if you are claiming a diet is healthy and it is bad for the teeth you are wrong in your claim that it is a healthy diet. Unless someone has a terrible lifestyle but a very good diet, but I can't imagine that, then you can not say anything.

[RRM]

What kind of non-argument is the entire post above?
JeffC talks about half of American kids ages 12-15 already having tooth decay,
and claims that this "tooth decay is a lack of nutrients".
Then I say this is nonsense, in line with the general opinion among dentists.
If you then want to support JeffC's claim, you need to use scientific evidence,
and not just some blah blah with all kind of far-fetched ideas.
Your post does not support his claim.

if you are claiming a diet is healthy and it is bad for the teeth you are wrong in your claim that it is a healthy diet.

So, in your opinion, people on a hamburger diet (or any other bad diet) cannot have good dental health?

[overkees]

If you then want to support JeffC's claim, you need to use scientific evidence,
and not just some blah blah with all kind of far-fetched ideas.
Your post does not support his claim.

I wasn't talking about JeffC's post. I was talking about your argument that dentists probably don't support his view isn't a valid argument.

if you are claiming a diet is healthy and it is bad for the teeth you are wrong in your claim that it is a healthy diet.

So, in your opinion, people on a hamburger diet (or any other bad diet) cannot have good dental health?

No, of course not.
Look, if P implies Q. Then that doesn't mean Q implies P.
Proposition 1: diet is bad for the teeth
Proposition 2: diet is not healthy
According to my statement:
P1 implies P2
You say: P2 implies P1
Replace the propositions with P1: I'm right, P2: I will give you 10 bucks. I say: If I'm right I will give you 10 bucks. You say: If you give me 10 bucks then you're right. Can you see that is this makes no logic sense?

[RRM]

What diet does not cause any enamel erosion at all, do you think?

[overkees]

A little enamel erosion is not the problem. The teeth can restore themselves perfectly fine.

The weston price studies also show that indigineous people had little to no dental problems.

[RRM]

diet is bad for the teeth which implies diet is not healthy

In nature you may find various wild animals, eating their natural diet,
and yet sometimes with tooth decay.
Does that make their diet unhealthy?
Biology / nature is not that simplistic.

The weston price studies also show that indigineous people had little to no dental problems.

So, did those with a little dental problems have a bad diet, even when their diet was the same?

[overkees]

No, but those are the genetic exceptions. There will always be individual vulnerabillities.

In general of course.

[RRM]

Aahh, exceptions...

[Aytundra]

No, but those are the genetic exceptions. There will always be individual vulnerabillities.

In general of course.

Not necessarily a genetic exception,
and not necessarily a bad diet.
There is the third possibility of bad habits.
Bad habits of not brushing their teeth, not rinsing the mouth with water, not chewing on a chewing stick, not eating gum etc.
Bad oral habits could be the third contributor to the little dental problems of the indigineous people.
E.g. Everyone in the tribe chews on their chewing stick as a tradition/cultural habit, but a few members failed to preform that behaviour, then those members may have a little dental problem. Because the chewing stick did not clean their teeth.

[Aytundra]

The questions to ask are:
What causes enamel erosion? Acid
What causes acid to be present in the mouth?
Acid can only be present as a liquid.
If the enamal is dry, then no erosion.
But the teeth in the mouth are in almost frequent contact with saliva/water.
Water can be an acid, so technically the teeth in your mouth can be in a constant state of erosion by default with saliva being present. And constant contact with water will mean that, the moment the water has an acidic solid dissolved in the liquid, then it will bring the acid near the enamel in a matter of seconds.
Thankfully saliva is slightly higher than pH 7 most of the time.
But slightly is very easy for a small amount of any acidic solid to displace the pH to below pH 7.

So you will have to ask:
How much sugar can your tongue's amylase neutralize in one bite of food?
Because the rest of the sugar that sits in your mouth will become acidic.