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.
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.
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 am definitely interested in this.
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
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.
Even things like crackers may count, but generally hard foods include raw vegetables and certain fruit like apples and nuts.
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.
Please no more blog posts or journal articles.
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.