Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by BJones12 490 days ago
Just a reminder that we are in the middle of a silent epidemic of small jaws [0] and that if you feed your kids hard food they will grow up to be healthier and more attractive.

[0]] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32973408/

3 comments

On a related (?) note, I was taken aback by the scene from "Kill Bill 2" ([1]), where Bill makes a sandwich for Bibi and... cuts off the crust. And it was the soft "toast" bread anyway. Doing this was not a thing when I was a kid; actually, eating the crunchy heel of a (Central-European style) loaf was a pleasure.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fXXXIokuYGM

This is an absurdly common request from small children.

If you don't do it, you may still find them eating around the crusts, for instance if you cut a sandwich in half, or even gnawing through a single point on the sandwich's crust and then leaving behind a crust-rind when they're done.

As a parent, you're then left with no other choice than to eat all of the grilled cheese rinds yourself, so you don't tend to push too hard on the childish habit.

As a kid, I hated the crust. It tasted gross.

But that's because it was gross industrial bread to begin with, and the crust was just drier and unpleasant.

But I also remember eating sourdough with its chewy crust and loving that.

Cutting off crusts is very specific to bread that is bad to begin with, I think.

I grew up in the Wonder Bread days, and definitely remember people cutting off the crusts.
Rich vs poor. The rich can literally chop off food and throw it in the trash.
But the crust is nice, why would you throw it away just because you're rich?
What is hard food? Can you be more specific?

I am definitely interested in this.

Anything that requires hard chewing like nuts, raw vegetables and tough meats.

The first I ever heard of this topic was from reading the book "The Evolution of the Human Head" (2011) by Daniel E. Lieberman. It's an academic book, and parts are not exactly light reading targeted for the general public. I had read it when it first came out, seemingly well before it because such of point of discussion.

The problem with this topic is, if you try to look anything up on line you can quickly find yourself in the "manosphere" with its associated toxicity.

Not OP, but I remember as a kid being told to eat crispbread (freely available in schools, I assume in most of Scandinavia) because it was good for your teeth/jaw.

I guess one could also include chewy / starchy food; my Asian side family had similar saying but more towards chewing thing properly. (chew 100 times per food in mouth)

So things like crispbread, (raw) carrots, dried fruits/vegetables/meat/squid, etc

Does it go "crunch" in your mouth?

Even things like crackers may count, but generally hard foods include raw vegetables and certain fruit like apples and nuts.

Some people chew on the bones of meat.
That's too hard. Chew on raw carrots.
I chew raw carrots regularly, and they also clean your mouth as well.
...so mewing is real and it is not a coincidence that it's suddenly a thing now?
Mewing is something intended to address this, but evidence isn't there. Everyone wants a non-invasive solution rather than jaw expanders, braces, retainers etc.. so depending on where your bias, you might be against "Big-Ortho" and try this, or you could invest in proven orthodontics.
> proven

Dr Mew doesn't claim that orthodontics don't work, he points out they are expensive and lucrative, and he claims that if we maintain a "jaw healthy" diet from childhood, orthodontic problems will be much less prevalent in the population (this is a related but independent claim from the "mewing" regimen) He says that the evidence is found by comparing modern jaws/bites with historical skulls which show there has been a dramatic "20th century" emergence of orthodontic problems which would indicate a developmental issue rather than a genetic one.

I don't know if he is correct or not, but it's a claim that can be independently measured/verified. Instead of using and publishing such sound science, the orthodontia community is using "cancellation" against him which certainly matches the lucrative aspect, though doesn't provide direct evidence.

Well, can you link us to the best scientific evidence that he's not full of shit instead of just saying he's being "cancelled"?

Please no more blog posts or journal articles.

you sound angry, science is best conducted from a neutral POV

I've listened to his evidence, repeated it clearly here for you, and am aware of no counterevidence.

there is nothing wrong with calling his license revocation over this precise topic "cancellation"; cancellation is a more precise term than "full of shit" which could refer to constipation.

You don't seem curious to learn, the hallmark of HN's ethos.