A drug that can repair cavities and regrow teeth (2017)
loopinsight.com
loopinsight.com
At the very least, you can have a fun biology experiment.
First, stop eating anything that eats away your tooth. (coke, I am looking at you..., coffee, sugary and acidic stuff, etc...) Clean out the cavity, I used a toothpick and some hydrogen peroxide. Every day clean it out and keep it clean. Swish copious amounts of spit around in your mouth regularly, all day. That's it.
I fixed a large hole in the side of my molar doing this. (dentist didn't believe me years later, but I have a witness, lol)
There are two things everyone should be aware of
1) Dentists see a spot on the their x-ray they call a pre-cavity, and then drill. Often this is a false positive, and you never really had a cavity to begin with, so you can easily cure yourself of their false positives.
2) Saliva does a lot to help your teeth. But every time you eat you are making it harder for it to do its job of protecting your mouth. Intermittent fasting, or people who only eat once or twice a day, have a much easier time maintaining dental health.
There is no amount of brushing that can help you if you are constantly snacking all day. If you do a Keto Diet (very low sugar) and don't eat anything at all for 16+ hours a day, a lot of people will find that their cavities shrink and disappear over time as your body creates new enamel faster than you are destroying it.
When fasting, you can feel and taste the difference in your mouth's saliva.
I gained some back quickly to even out at 190lbs, and now I maintain 192-194 easily, but have replaced fat with muscle. Also, I stopped running in the winter (started doing strength work), I suspect I will get below 190 in the spring. But also I don't do the timed structure for eating, it'd likely help with the small amount of extra weight I keep. :P
I know many people that have made incredible changes doing this, I hope it catches on more.
I had extra fat on my body, not a lot, but plenty to sustain me for a long time. Our bodies are amazing at survival, you can fast for a very long time, and for a few weeks at first you will actually gain strength (no food at all).
Also, I changed my mindset about being hungry. I decided it was ok to feel hungry. I learned to appreciate it, what it meant, and it made my one meal very satisfying. Also, one time we went to a party (graduation) and I ate like 6 cupcakes, and I still lost weight that day. :P
This taught me that so much common teachings on losing weight aren't helpful, but are in fact discouraging.
How is your weight management going? Are you hungry a lot? Is it hard or easy to maintain the 16/8 schedule? (I've haven't tried it yet)
Also, after doing this for a month, it's permanently altered my concepts of hunger, eating schedules and the such. (that was over 6 months ago that I did this) I simply don't eat now unless I am truly hungry, in fact I find I really don't want to eat, unless I'm hungry, I feel bloated if I do.
Have you found that you need to eat smaller meals as well? I found that the best time to exercise was before a meal. If I did it early in the day, I was a lot more hungry during the day. But if I did it right before dinner, I didn't experience the same discomfort.
The hunger goes away once your body realizes your feeding schedule, I've found. For instance, I skipped breakfast (no food till noon) for a few months. For the first week, there was hunger in the morning, but afterwards by body just stopped requesting food before noon. This is probably similar to how keeping a consistent sleep schedule helps you not feel like garbage when you get up in the morning.
Regarding exercise, I completely agree, but I start my feeding cycle early -- I do my cardio (running/swimming) first thing in the morning, fasted, then eat my first meal immediately after. The routine works great and has a major impact on my energy levels for the rest of the day.
Doesn't this mean that distilled water re-mineralizes itself? Hard to call it out on not having minerals if it does... So either it's acidic and has minerals, or it's neutral and doesn't. Either way it doesn't seem bad at all and seems self correcting... (which is very interesting)
But is it still safe to drink? Evidently it's still the closest to ph neutral as water can get, says this source at least.
>"According to doctors like Andrew Weil, distilled water is generally as close to a neutral pH as people can get, and it is perfectly safe to drink."
https://www.reference.com/science/ph-distilled-water-7-0-46e...
Carbon dioxide isn't a mineral. When water absorbs CO2 there is an equilibrium reaction where (H2CO3) carbonic acid is produced (the percentage depends on things like the concentration of CO2 and the temperature of the water, among other things).
> But is it still safe to drink?
It's safe to drink, but it's more acidic than normal water (which is slightly alkaline). Not to mention it's missing a bunch of minerals (and things like Fluorine which is a good idea to have) which could negatively impact your health -- there are a lot of minerals your body needs that come from "trivial" sources like tap water or table salt.
> Evidently it's still the closest to ph neutral as water can get, says this source at least.
This doesn't make sense -- if something is acidic you can always add a base (like NaOH) to make it more alkaline (or neutral).
Not to mention that the quoted pH of 5.5 is considered "strongly acidic", as opposed to tap water which is in the 6-8 range that is between "neutral" and "mildly alkaline". Which means that according to their own information, distilled water is not the "closest to pH neutral water can can".
Reference.com isn't a particularly good source either.
Fair enough, my point wasn't clearly stated. It seems the single opposition to distilled water is that it's "acidic".
1.) Do you believe ingesting anything slightly acidic is inherently bad? (is distilled water worse than fruit juice?)
2.) Is there more carbonic acid in distilled water vs soda water or coke/pepsi?
I would certainly agree that Reference.com is not a good source. My father is a chemist, he's the one who brought home the distilled water we all drank from as our daily drinking water my entire childhood... he didn't seem to think it was an issue.
> 1.) Do you believe ingesting anything slightly acidic is inherently bad? (is distilled water worse than fruit juice?)
Fruit juice has its own problems, but no. Our bodies have several buffers[1] that mean your blood pH (and other fluids) remain the same even if you add acidic or alkaline chemicals to it. This is required for enzymes in your body to function normally because they stop working outside very strict pH regions. (Of course this is a massive over-generalisation of the human body, and acidity can cause problem with people who have acid reflux or other stomach issues.)
In short, I agree that drinking something slightly acidic is generally as safe as something slightly alkaline (and a lot of the recent "take in more alkaline stuff" health trends are really stupid). My point was that (by the data given in the source you linked) that distilled water isn't "closer to neutral water" than tap water -- it's more acidic than tap water is alkaline.
> 2.) Is there more carbonic acid in distilled water vs soda water or coke/pepsi?
No, because soft drinks are carbonated (more dissolved CO2, more carbonic acid). If you made them flat it might be about the same (though there's plenty of other acidic crap in soft drinks).
> My father is a chemist [...] he didn't seem to think it was an issue.
Well, maybe he didn't know of or consider the importance of minerals. The point isn't that distilled water will kill your or anything, it's just that drinking nothing but distilled water (when you have access to clean tap water) is not a great idea because you're missing out on a several minerals that you now have to get from elsewhere.
Doesn't it seem reasonable that distilled water's lack of electrolytes can be balanced quite easily from other sources? (a quick google search seems to indicate 'yes')
Scientific questions:
1. How much electrolytes are there in a single bite of any particular food, compared to a gallon of water? (anyone have a real number?)
2. How long do electrolytes stay in the body (being usable) after being ingested?
3. How much water will a certain amount use after being ingested. (ie, the difference in electrolytes in distilled vs other sources. Do they even get "used up"?)
4. What is the effects of low electrolytes? (is it pain, body deterioration, something we can feel and detect?)
I am sure I could google this, but I suspect the answers are really hard to find with any true accuracy because they would vary greatly by diet, body size, composition, health, age and many other factors. And I'd argue that it's possible we can tell our electrolyte levels by how we feel? (this seems reasonable)
Edit: Did some research on distilled water, in a previous comment, some interesting finds. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16432024#16449986
Unless you have no other water source, drinking rainwater has never been a practice.
How can you oversimplify something by asking questions?
I think amateur dentistry possibly resulting in turning a $50 filling into a root canal, implant, or worse, isn't most people's idea of a good time. It's great that it worked for you, but it sounds very penny wise and pound foolish.
"The Decayed/Missing/Filled Surface (DMFS) scores varied from 2.9, in subjects who drank black coffee, to 5.5 in subjects who consumed coffee together with sweeteners and creaming agents. The DMFS score was 3.4 in subjects who consumed coffee together with milk but no sugar. The DMFS score of the control subjects was 4, indicating that coffee if consumed alone had anticaries action, but in the presence of additives the antibacterial and anticaries action was totally minimized."
But I drank lattes when I was dealing with my cavity in college (iirc). So I am sure an individual would need to work out what they need to do.
edit: had my ph reversed.
Interesting article, thanks for sharing that.
Edit: Quote from article you linked that is relevant:
>"...I would recommend daily tooth brushing and flossing, avoiding sugar, and rinsing the mouth with water after each meal. This diet is capable of reversing early stage tooth decay."
I'd argue that preventing tooth decay with diet is just as, or more, important as being able to repair decay.
Also, CDC or ADA (I can't recall which) said that 80-90% of dental carries (cavities) form in the crowns of teeth, in the grooves. And elsewhere on their site state clearly that tooth brush bristles aren't small enough to even clean out these cracks.
This means that brushing and flossing can't help with 80-90% of all tooth decay. Though I think they are still good, they aren't near enough.
Anecdotally, having used one, I think it’s way more effective than traditional flossing, since it actually can clean the gaps between your teeth (is that what you meant by the grooves?)
No, the reference to grooves is on the crown of the tooth. (primarily molars) I think the issue with cleaning them out is that once solids get stuck in there and bacteria eat the solids they release acid that eats the tooth.
Years ago my dentist filled these grooves with a UV activated plastic sealant. I think this is standard practice now days. Not sure if a waterpik could do it, I've never had one. (If you have had one, has it prevented cavities for you?)
If you're for real, please donate yourself to science :|
Also, I met a guy years ago that could regrow full teeth if they got knocked out. The world is a weird place.
I know very little about the science of this, so I could be way off, but I suspect what is happening is.
1) stop further decay 2) allow calcium/mineral/other to build up in the location of the whole.
As long as the nerve isn't exposed and deterioration has been stopped, isn't that the same as 'repaired teeth'?
His "regrown" teeth were not normal looking or impressive at all.
Edit: Flourine is more toxic than lead, I wouldn't put that in my mouth even if it cured lead poisoning. Some kids have died in the dentist chair after swallowing their flouride treatments in the past. (maybe it's safer now?)
Flouride treatments actually make bone and teeth more brittle, as they replace the calcium. (note, tempting controversy with this subject, I realize this. It's worth doing research on the topic)
Edit: I have flouride scarring on my teeth from childhood flouride treatments. This is a common thing.
Fluoride treatments do not make bones and teeth more brittle, nor does fluorine "replace" calcium. Fluoride treatments are applied directly to your teeth, and work by converting some of the outer enamel into fluoroapatite, which is a more acid-resistant form of the predominant hydroxyapatite. If you rinse and spit after treatments and after brushing, you're ingesting very little fluoride.
In amounts far greater than those allowed in municipal water, fluorides can disrupt bone metabolism, causing loss of strength. By far the biggest sources of fluoride contamination in drinking water world-wide are natural, and pose a great challenge because fluorides are as difficult to remove as any other soluble salt.
The discoloration on your teeth is not a "scar" in any sense of the word, and unless you have clinically significant dental fluorosis, it is completely harmless.
Here's how toxic the fluoride is that used by dentists.
"Referring to a common salt of fluoride, sodium fluoride (NaF), the lethal dose for most adult humans is estimated at 5 to 10 g (which is equivalent to 32 to 64 mg/kg elemental fluoride/kg body weight)." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluoride_toxicity
From the New York Times, a child died from fluoride while at the dentist. (he ingested 3 times the amount needed to kill him)
"According to a Nassau County toxicologist, Dr. Jesse Bidanset, William ingested 45 cubic centimeters of 2 percent stannous fluoride solution, triple an amount sufficient to have been fatal."
http://www.nytimes.com/1979/01/20/archives/750000-given-in-c...
Fissures are difficult to clean with bristle brushes, but it completely depends on their depth and shape. For years now I've had a couple of deep fissures in my molars that regularly get food stuck in them, and I have no problem cleaning them out with my Sonicare and toothpaste.
Regarding the toxicity of fluoride, you realize what a huge dose 32-64 mg/kg is don't you? Do you know how many tubes of toothpaste you'd have to eat to reach those levels? Take a guess. For perspective, the WHO's target for water fluoridation is 0.5-1.5 mg/L.
The William Kennerly case is the case cited by anti-fluoridation activists. Note that it occurred over 40 years ago, and other cases of acknowledged fluoride toxicity are exceedingly rare, in spite of the fact that millions of fluoride treatments are administered to children each year, and in spite of the vast number of toddlers caught eating toothpaste each year.
I should say that I'm not one to argue that fluoride is completely harmless, and I'm on the fence about its use on children. My kids used non-fluoride toothpaste until they started growing permanent teeth, and then I brushed their teeth until age 5 or 6. And I carefully impressed on them the importance of always spitting out the toothpaste, actually using the word "poisonous" to motivate them.
I've seen people with their teeth eaten away from drinking super sized gulpies from 7Eleven, so it's not true that "bacteriogenic acid is always the direct cause of dental caries", anything that will dissolve your teeth can cause a cavity.
If you really want the truth, keep looking on government websites, all my information on tooth decay came from there, not conspiracy nuts.
Idle thought: what's the pH of bog-standard gulpies?† The sugar in them is definitely going to encourage bacteria, so I wonder what the relative contributions to tooth decay are from the gulpy itself and that due to the acid from the bacteria that feed off of the gulpy.
† Further idle thought: is gulpy/slurpy a pop/soda/coke thing?
Her molars were tiny bits of spikes sticking up in the back, it was nasty. I was 16 at the time and asked why she didn't stop drinking that stuff when her teeth got bad? She said something like "You think the coke is hurting my teeth?" (yes, she hadn't even considered it)
So, I don't think the bacteria had time to grow, it was probably all dead from the coke. :P And it was diet coke, so no sugar to feed off of.
Oh really? So you made sure that their tooth decay had nothing to do with the bacteria in their mouth? How did you do that? Did you take regular cultures of their mouth bacteria? Did you monitor and analyze the progression of the tooth decay to determine the proportion that was caused directly by food acid, rather than by bacterial acid? What were your methods exactly?
If you did all of these things, perhaps you should submit your findings to a journal, where they can be compared to similar research, performed inumerable times over the last half century, which shows that bacteriogencic acids are the overwhelmingly predominant cause of tooth caries.
Yes, I'm aware that you can erode your enamel away by brute force with soda pop. Here's one documented case: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2676420/. You'll note that the paper specifically calls out the concomittant role of bacteriogenic decay, and endorses the utility of fluoride treatment in its prevention.
> "If you really want the truth, keep looking on government websites"
You mean like the list below? Really, this is getting silly. I'm happy that you have your dental health well in hand, but you're strangely insistent on maintaining ignorance as to why what you're doing might be working.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK8259/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4232036/
https://report.nih.gov/NIHfactsheets/ViewFactSheet.aspx?csid...
https://www.nidcr.nih.gov/health-info/tooth-decay
https://www.nidcr.nih.gov/health-info/tooth-decay/more-info
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0072698/
https://www.nidcr.nih.gov/Espanol/SaludOral/Saludoralenlos/T...
https://www.nidcr.nih.gov/OralHealth/Topics/ToothDecay/
https://www.nidcr.nih.gov/OralHealth/Topics/GumDiseases/Peri...
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0032936/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0032936/
I suspect this is getting pointless, but one more comment from the American Dental Association.
"Soft drinks, particularly carbonated sodas and sports drinks, appear to be the most significant extrinsic cause of erosion [of tooth enamel]."
https://www.ada.org/en/member-center/oral-health-topics/dent...
Have you got a single source for your claims? You can literally google "heart muscle repair" with hundreds of results refuting you.
Many things can tip the scales in favor of the remineralzation side. Diet, cleaning, and increasing saliva circulation appear to be the main ones.
I also don't eat anything with added sugar and I take supplements, amino acids, enzymes, extra vitamin d, calcium, chelated magnesium to keep calcium from building up in arteries.
A filling became brittle and fell out about 18 years ago. I completely ignored it. I've had zero problems with my teeth since and have not returned to a dentist since then.
What happened to your tooth where the filling fell out? Did it fill in at all naturally? (ie, fully or partially in any way?)
Not sure about the listerine, as I think some (or most?) bacteria in our mouth is supposed to be there. There may be some long term issues to consider. But who knows, everyone is affected so differently, I no longer am dogmatic about what will help or not these days.
Last note on the calcium build up in arteries (off topic a bit), but any build up in the arteries is now known to be a good thing, as it's keeping you alive by repairing a rip/tear in the artery. Even doctors are starting to admit this. It's a bandage, not a blockage.
Bacteria is required in the gut, but AFAIK, it is not required in the mouth. I certainly replenish bacteria in my gut with 20 different cultures.
Excess calcium in the arteries will build up and become blockage. In my younger years I ate many bad things and now I have to be careful not to add to the existing layers.
>Excess calcium in the arteries will build up and become blockage.
You may want to look into recent studies, they are finding that when an artery is "scratched" (white sugar can scratch arteries) deposits (plaque) are designed to cling to this damage and are a repair tool. If your diet is poor, it can cause damage (as it seems you already know) but also being overweight, lack of exercise, and other things can contribute to weak cellular structure so arteries are more easily damaged.
(note, I got this info from friend who recently had a heart attack and went to the Mayo Clinic, and this is the info they passed on, and is confirmed elsewhere online)
I don't doubt that white sugar is damaging to arteries and effects the microstructure of arterial walls, but I'm skeptical that there's a statistically significant difference between white and brown sugar for cardiovascular health. Can you cite any studies that break out white vs. brown sugar?
White table sugar is nearly 100% sucrose and water, while brown sugar has a tiny percentage of molasses and iron, and perhaps traces of other minerals.
I'm skeptical that the tiny percentage of iron and molasses present in brown sugar is protective of arteries. Also, any sucrose in your blood is in solution, not crystaline. What's the mechanism for this "scratching", and why isn't it (as you imply) also present with brown sugar?
I'm not saying you're wrong, but the most plain reading of your post suggests a mechanism (physical scratching, presumably from microcrystaline sucrose) that doesn't make sense to me. Does the sucrose form some large complex with some serum protien, where it's formation is inhibited by something in the molasses present in brown sugar? (Unless someone is massively iron deficient and consuming massive amounts of brown sugar, white vs. brown sugar should have no measurable effect on iron levels in the body.) Or, did you not mean to imply that brown sugar is any better for your arteries than brown sugar?
At work, those times I put sugar in my coffee, I do use brown sugar, but I do it for the difference in flavor and recognize that when mixed into coffee, I'd likely fail a blind taste test. At home, I don't pay the extra cost of brown sugar.
I have no studies to cite right now, my son just did a research paper for school on the effects of white processed sugar though. He may have something, but I feel this would require more effort than just googling this.
The source I got from this was a doctor at the Mayo Clinic, who treated my friend. I would consider this a reputable source. (but hard to properly reference)
Modern brown sugar is just white sugar with molasses added back to it. I have no sources for this though, just info I've run into, and my experiences with real brown sugar (looks nothing like the stuff in the store). Look up Sucanat, a brand of unprocessed sugar, it still has the molasses in it, but it's dry. :P
Edit: This article from Mayo Clinic seems to saying the connection between refined sugar and heart disease is unclear, the message I got from my friend (through doctor at Mayo) was that it was not unclear.
https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/nutrition-and-h...
Also, another friend (don't talk to her as much so I forgot this one) is that refined sugars cause inflammation in arteries. I can't recall if she had gone to Mayo as well, but that was from her doctor as well.
Brown and "raw" sugar are still processed sugars by many definitions. For instance, see [https://www.cancercenter.com/discussions/blog/natural-vs-ref...] Brown, raw, and white sugar are all extracted and highly concentrated from the harvested plant products. When you read about processed suger in medical research, they're almost certainly making a distinction between extracted and concentrated sugars vs sugars that are still bound in plant products such as fruits.
I don't doubt that these studies and the Mayo Clinic doctor warned your friend about processed sugars. However, they were almost certainly directing towards fruits and vegetables and away from white sugar, brown sugar, and "raw" sugar (which is a marketing term for a still highly processed sucrose extract from plants).
And while we're throwing around Mayo Clinic doctors, my dad recently retired, but he was a practicing physician who did his residency at the Mayo clinic, and he certainly considers brown and "raw" sugar to be processed sugar.
I don't think so, I agree with you. All of those sugars are processed. What did I write that made you think otherwise?
I don't need a doctor to tell me if something is bad for me or not, but it seems to be very useful for many people, hence the Mayo sources. But my point in referencing Mayo was also to demonstrate that this is becoming common knowledge.
Sucanat is simply juice from a cane plant with the water removed. This is not a "processed sugar". My personal opinion is this is a plant extract.
Do you have a source for this?
From the Mayo Clinic. (world famous hospital where US presidents go)
https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/coronary-arte...
"Once the inner wall of an artery is damaged, fatty deposits (plaque) made of cholesterol and other cellular waste products tend to accumulate at the site of injury in a process called atherosclerosis. If the surface of the plaque breaks or ruptures, blood cells called platelets will clump at the site to try to repair the artery. This clump can block the artery, leading to a heart attack."
I have known people that say the exact same argument for lack of sleep, drinking tons of alcohol, smoking daily, etc...
I'd suspect that people with good genetics and that take care of their bodies wisely will live ripe old ages in good condition. But if are unwise, will exist in the same realm of misery with the masses.
I generally agree, but there was a time when books and libraries were the internet of the time. And the saying was similar "just because you read it in a book doesn't mean it's true."
Consider how recently science and doctors have been wrong about certain diseases and fixed/changed their healing techniques. I'd rather use common sense than suffer at the hands of those that are working on the wrong side of the knowledge curve. Many doctors today are of a similar opinion, sometimes the majority is wrong, and it takes a long time for them to come around, but that doesn't mean everyone has to wait.
We definitely need more information. What food to avoid and what food is fine?
I'd say about a month or so until I wasn't worried about it anymore. But again, it was visible and accessible on the side of my tooth. If it was between teeth, not sure what I would do... probably go to the dentist.
>Are you really saying the tooth repaired itself and the cavity is gone?
Absolutely, yes. It had a yellowish stain in the place where the hole was after it filled in. But even that is not visible anymore. (this was over 15 years ago)
>This contradicts everything dentists tell us but I would be very happy if you were right.
Yes it does, and it pissed off my dentist when I told him. He was dismissive as though I were crazy.
>We definitely need more information. What food to avoid and what food is fine?
I really don't like to make detailed assertions like this. I had one simple rule at the time that I followed, I stopped eating white sugar. (and corn syrup) I know many people have different experiences with food, and so I don't like being dogmatic about stuff, I think everyone should experiment with the foods they eat, test things and figure out themselves what works.
But if you stop eating refined (or artificial) sweeteners, you will find that easily 70-80% of the food in the grocery store will no longer be in your diet... it's that pervasive. Also, they have like 20 names for refined sugars now. :P
I stopped eating anything in the store with a few toxic ingredients many years ago, and this automatically cuts down on a lot of the "teeth eating" foods... I am sure everyone can figure out a rule for themselves to make progress in this area.
Changing your diet is free, and doesn't require a dentist or doctor to do it.
A few stories I heard a long time ago was babies having their front teeth eaten away because their parents gave them fruit juice in a bottle or sippy cup all the time.
So anything that is over done, where the body can't balance the ph on it's own, would be bad. But going too alkaline can be bad also I'd imagine.
This is kinda fascinating.
The original article was published in Nature over a year ago. The summary/futurist speculative news article was published in October, that was included in a '10 daily links' post today and then from there it was summarized on loopinsight.com.
From the methods section,
"The purpose of this study was to investigate whether natural dentine repair could be enhanced by stimulating the formation of reparative dentine. Adult CD1 wild-type mouse first molars were used and damage stimulated by controlling drilling (see below). The drugs of choice and vehicle were based on previous reports in the literature and also translational potential into a simple, cost effective dental therapy."
I rarely brushed my teeth as a child, and had numerous cavities. But for some reason, they only occurred on my baby teeth, not my adult teeth.
My brushing habits atrophied further and by the time I was 18, not only was I not brushing at all, but I never went to the dentist again, except for once in my mid-30s. The dentist admonished me over lack of brushing and the plaque buildup on my teeth, but there were still no cavities or irregularities. I've not been to a dentist in the 10 years since then, and on the very rare occasions (once a week or two weeks) where I do brush, I don't use tooth paste (kept forgetting to buy some).
I keep waiting for the hammer to drop, but so far lucky.
Brushing soon after you eat, while the surface pH is still low, can actually damage your teeth beyond the damage done by the acid alone.
http://www.rdhmag.com/articles/print/volume-24/issue-2/colum...