I invented the world’s first caffeinated toothpaste - get a rush while you brush! I’m a serial entrepreneur, YCW16. Though it is a simple idea, I went through at least 60 formula iterations before I got the flavor chemistry right. This toothpaste seriously works. I actually had to lower the caffeine content from the original version.
Our toothpaste gives you a quick caffeine boost that works as soon as you start brushing, even faster than coffee. (I still drink coffee, just later in the morning)
I made version 1 with a hammer in my kitchen. I smashed a caffeine pill into dust in my cast iron pan, mixed it with toothpaste from my bathroom, and I had the first-ever caffeinated toothpaste. It worked. It was a little buggy. Since that point we have raised over $40k on Indiegogo and we’ve shipped over 2,000 tubes of toothpaste so far, all made in the made in the USA. I would love to answer any questions you might have or share any knowledge I’ve gained about plastic/tube packaging, cosmetics regulations, logistics, fulfillment, domestic manufacturing, and shipping physical products in general. I’m not an expert, but I’ve learned a lot. If you want to try Power Toothpaste, I live in the Bay Area, and I’d be happy to meet up and give you a squeeze of my toothpaste.
Your website does not contain a list of ingredients, nor do you show photos of your box with government required disclosures on it.
You admit that your toothpaste does not have fluoride, but does it contain SLS, propylene glycol, DEA, glycerin, hydrated silica, or artificial sweeteners? If so, please discontinue your product or change your formula. None of those ingredients are safe for use in toothpaste and help cause tooth damage and decay.
With the comments about "fighting plaque like leading brands", I'm actually curious whether this is legal. I believe the active ingredients disclosure box is mandatory, although possibly it's on the face of the box we can't see.
I see that the toothpaste is legal (white-labelled from an approved factory), so this is just a labelling question.
What's wrong with artificial sweeteners in toothpaste? Do they absorb quickly enough through the oral mucosa to spike insulin levels? Are the oral bacteria able to metabolize them?
Where can I actually get toothpaste without this stuff? I looked for one without hydrated silica last time I was out shopping for toothpaste, but didn't actually see one
TL;DR: Yes, even with oral absorption, you probably won't feel anything after 5 minutes, and you'll be wired at 15 minutes.
This toothpaste definitely won't work "on the spot", but 10-15 minutes is still quick enough to get you going by the time you're dressed and out the door.
Sublingual administration of certain chemicals allows for they bypass of first-pass metabolism; basically going from the thin membranes in your mouth directly into your bloodstream.
I was in YCW16, so I recognize Ian from one of the companies. I don't know why, but I feel weird saying it now for the same reason both of you are and it's pretty clear he's not trying to broadcast it.
He hasn't hidden it in his HN history or Twitter profile, so it's pretty obvious if you take a look at either of those.
I posted another comment, but since you also brush your teeth at night, if I bought your product I'd have to use that in the morning and another brand before going to bed.
Did you think about this? People might not want to have 2. I was going to buy it but then I thought about this.
Wait. So you're saying you can't go sleep with a little bit of coffee in your organism? I've always wondered if that's true or a myth. I can take two cups of coffee and go to bed like a rock
1) Full disclosure: I haven't run blood tests to figure out exactly how much caffeine you absorb brushing with my toothpaste. Here's what I can tell you: in 1 ml of toothpaste there is just under 80 mg of caffeine. 1 ml is a bit more toothpaste than the pea-sized amount of toothpaste that you should use, but less than the amount you see put on a brush in a toothpaste commercial. You don't swallow toothpaste and brush for a brief period, so there is incomplete absorption. Based on the reported experiences of people who have used Power Toothpaste, it's faster acting, but say an hour later, it doesn't feel like you've had a full mug of coffee
2) (almost) immediate shipping. I have a few hundred units fully packed and ready to ship. I put a label on them and USPS picks them up! So it might be a day or two before it gets shipped. More inventory that needs to be packed before shipment.
3) Addressed this elsewhere in greater detail elsewhere, but as an adult you need less fluoride than children, and you may be getting fluoride in your water. I might suggest looking into a fluoridated mouthwash, sold at pretty much any pharmacy. I also don't reccomend Power Toothpaste before bed, so you might use a regular, fluoridated toothpaste :)
By those numbers the 70 gram tube contains approximately 5-6 grams of caffeine? LD50 level for caffeine is estimated at 200mg/kg of body weight [2], so the tube could kill a 25kg person? I hope that the fresh minty taste isn't too attractive to children, as the lethal dose to a small child looks to be substantially less than one tube.
By comparison, about two (100g?) tubes of fluoridated toothpaste could kill a 10kg (2yr old) child [2], so a child is unlikely to die from scoffing an open tube of toothpaste that they find in the house.
Perhaps you should look at either the caffeine concentration or tube size, to ensure that an incidental poisoning can't occur due to a single open tube.
It is probably neutralised as otherwise the toothpaste wouldn't be effective. Increasing pH is one of the mechanisms killing bacteria and preventing decay.
> Power Toothpaste does not contain Fluoride. We know many of you don't want fluoride in your toothpaste.
This seems bizarre to me. People don't want fluoride in their toothpaste? Why not? Dentists seem pretty unanimous that everyone should brush twice a day with fluoride toothpaste.
I wrote a longer comment about this below, but the essential reason is: if I made fluoride a product requirement, I wouldn't have gotten to a release. It would have added a huge expense.
Additionally, fluoride is much more important for children. As enamel is forming, fluoride interacts with it and strengthens it. Adults need far less (threshold dose effect) and for most people in the United States, they likely get enough in the water. I also figure this is a toothpaste you'll use in the morning, and another fluoridated one in the evening. You can also use a fluoridated mouthwash.
At some point, I would love to introduce a fluoridated version.
This is fair. I do think this should be a bit more prominent, though, because when I hear "toothpaste", I tend to assume it is fluoridated. Unfluoridated toothpaste is unusual enough that it should probably be called out right on the front of the box/tube, whereas right now it's kind of buried in a FAQ.
Good job getting this off the ground, and best of luck with it.
Much appreciated! Based on this comment and others from HN, I think I'm going to add a whole section for Formulation/Ingredients, show the full label, talk about the process etc. Thank you again!
As a guy living in Europe, it seems more logical to drink unfluoridated water and use fluoridated toothpaste, but that's America over there… Cool idea, for sure.
You may be right, but as I get it, the entire American population gets to drink fluoridated tap water, not only children. A stinking Commie plot, if I ever saw one.
As someone with a kid, who lives in one of those towns where the crazies managed to prevent water fluoridation, I'm always looking at toothpastes to make sure they contain it.
That's clever of you to spin the lack of fluoride as a benefit. It'll satisfy people who are paranoid about fluoride, and people who aren't probably don't care.
Healthy ingredients have been removed from most foods, and for very similar reasons. It's not a product requirement for a burger bun to include wheat germ, for example, so it is removed to reduce cost and balance with other product requirements (eg lower cost, improved flavor, shelf stability).
Do you realize that in addition to fluoridating water, there are studies underway to fluoridate salt, flour, fruit juices, soap, sugar, milk. Ice cream. Children's ice cream.
Fluoridation is the most monstrously conceived and dangerous Communist plot we have ever had to face. A foreign substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual. Certainly without any choice. That's the way your hard-core Commie works.
Apparently the Flouride Conspiracy Theory used in the film (go watch it, BTW; it's one of the best films of all time; and if you've already seen it, go watch it again) was based on actual real life:
I can no longer sit back and allow Communist infiltration, Communist indoctrination, Communist subversion and the international Communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids.
Well, that is certainly a mountain of things to go through just for fluoride in toothpaste.
I find it amazing that only basic testing is needed for cosmetic products and something one is easily ingesting (slightly) on a day to day basis, but yet... fluoride requires animal testing?
I would think at this point, a simple chemical composition testing the fluorine levels would be appropriate enough. They obviously don't find the caffeine a threat enough to warrant such things in the product.
In the case of toothpaste, we've already tested fluoride. I'm going to guess we know the safe limits and the recommended amounts in the stuff. So as long as there isn't any new sorts of drug in the toothpaste and one is using pretty standard safe sort of ingredients, there isn't really a need for some of the testing - animal or human testing. Tests to verify the percentage of fluoride in the toothpaste? Absolutely. Getting the fluoride from verified sources? Sure thing. And so on.
Cosmetics have relatively few standards comparatively [1]. In a way, it seems to be enough. It likely isn't an issue with common ingredients - same situation as fluoride. But on the other hand, if a company uses a new ingredient, I'd rather have some sort of official tests for safety. I think this is probably especially important with things used around the eyes and lips - and I'm not sure some of the warning labels are quite enough. For example, some of the Halloween makeup will have warnings not to use certain colors around the eyes (usually black or red). Of course, this is in small print on the back of the package, and not on the container holding the makeup. Yet if you look at the package, it often has that very color near the eyes.
> So as long as there isn't any new sorts of drug in the toothpaste and one is using pretty standard safe sort of ingredients, there isn't really a need for some of the testing
This is probably exactly what the testing is for. Consider a drug that is (fluoride + X), where both fluoride and X are "already tested and safe". Are we sure that for all values for X, (fluoride + X) is safe also?
I certainly can't be sure - I don't know that much about fluoride itself and the limits that are on it nor exactly what research has been done. It seems the main concerns with fluoride is getting too much of it along with some environmental damage. I doubt testing for all values of x is prudent: simply the ingredients compared to the allowed amount of fluoride allowed (there is a limit in amount in the over the counter stuff). I'd think at minimum, he should be able to send a sample to the FDA or independent company for analysis to compare it with research already on file. Or be able to cross reference the ingredients himself. So long as his stuff is within the tested parameters, he'd be allowed to go ahead.
Of course, it might also be prudent to get certified to handle fluoride as well as manufacture toothpaste with it and other such things.
But then again, caffeine is a drug occasionally as well. Excedrine has to list it on their FDA required product information: No-Doz (caffeine pills) has the same sort of label. Granted, it might be more benign than fluoride - yet the FDA sees no problem with it being in toothpaste so long as he doesn't have the fluoride.
I don't know all the details, mostly because I've never wanted to manufacture toothpaste. But it seems there should be a simple way of doing this stuff with simple tests in most cases, and that the information should be easily accessible.
Yep. & at least in this case, the FDA involvement may have good reason. Fluoride is a poison, and detrimental effects manifest themselves in much lower dosages than caffeine.
Yeah. This stuck out to me too. $15 dollars for a tube of toothpaste that doesn't contain flouride? What am I paying for? I'll just buy my own caffeine powder and use real toothpaste that's only $2.
Fluoridated toothpaste is, for regulatory purposes, a drug; caffeinated toothpaste is a food item. So this is just another way of saying, "We didn't want to deal with the regulatory burden."
But, man, one tube of this thing is roughly the LD50 for caffeine ingestion. This is definitely a "keep out of the reach of children" product.
I actually have fluorosis... I was shoved Fluride growing up and the damage it has done to my teeth is serve, add in my poor college choices and I will be having full on implants before I turn 40.
There seems to be some hardcore pro fluoride fanatics on here. Never the less I will stand by you with my no fluoride Tom's Toothpaste and fight the good fight.
If you're lucky enough to live somewhere where the crazies haven't defluorinated your water because "you're polluting our pure water with chemicals..."
The reason foridation has additional FDA requirements is because it's essentially a medicine, not a food supplement like iodine - which is an essential nutrient. So to justify the medication of entire communities at the exact same dose of a non-essential pharmacological product in an effort to ensure poor people receive enough flouride seems misguided. Calcium has a similar hardening effect on teeth and is present in water already - forming the scale you see in the shower Ca(CO3). Additionally, flouride stains your teeth [0].
Toothpaste isn't free. Producing toothpaste, putting flouride in it, and distributing it are all harder than putting fluoride in water and distributing it. Water is pumped to people's houses from central locations. Toothpaste has to be placed in tubes and shipped around on boats and trucks.
> Crazies or people who actually care about environment?
The environment???
Fluoride, like many minerals, is naturally occurring in many water sources, just not (all) of the ones that are used for drinking water. Additionally, the concentration of fluoride for this purpose is minuscule (0.7 mg/L according to Health Canada).
This comment is why you absolutely must test well water every 2-3 years.
Up here in Maine we have a pretty bad fluoride issue in some areas, and a lot of people are not testing their well water, and ending up with fluoride poisoning.
I think it is, not for you but for your children. Too many parents don't take proper care of their children's teeth and this can cause non-reversible damages. Adding flouride is not the perfect solution but it can help to some degree.
The problem is a combination of sugar over-consumption and bad dental hygiene. Those are the issues that need to be addressed. Adding flouride to our drinking supply does not address these issues.
If you can't afford insurance, the government makes sure you get the health care you need to stay alive and healthy. So the government has a vested interest in making sure people stay healthy, because if a poor person gets sick, the government is paying for their healthcare. Not everyone brushes their teeth, not everyone can afford toothpaste. Everyone has to drink water, though, and fluoride in water causes no real health problems. It's a very quick win for public health, because otherwise the government would be paying to replace poor people's teeth.
Until recently I couldn't avoid government insurance here in America, and the IRS penalizes me monthly for it at a rate higher than the cost of subsidized insurance.
And flouride in your water doesn't replace toothpaste. Are you seriously trying to tell me if I don't brush but drink enough water a day, without changing my sugar consumption and after-meal rinsing habits, that my gums will stay healthy? I don't think you really know what you're talking about.
I have two abcesses and a cavity. So this is very much an issue to me. My dental problems were caused by weak enamel and losing access to proper dental care.
As a child, I used to get nauseated after brushing my teeth and formed a physical aversion I had to overcome daily. After discovering flouride-free toothpaste a few years ago, I stopped feeling sick after brushing. It's possible I have an underactive thyroid but I haven't sought a real diagnoses.
Putting flouride in our tap doesn't solve sugar over-consumption or bad dental care. And it possibly aggravates hyperthyroidism in some people, though I don't know of any conclusive studies.
^ Is what you really said, which didn't make sense even in context.
You pay taxes for what your democratically elected representatives determine it's for, not what you personally think - and like the WHO, they think some of it should be marginally spent on solving major public health concerns.
It isn't my government's responsibility. Didn't say it wasn't an important issue.
The idea that democratic elections are functioning in a representative way in America is a joke. I have no control over many policies that govern me. But I still reserve the right to decide what I think are worthwhile tax expenditures. Your same logic would invalidate the gross overspending of taxes towards my government's defense budget.
If this is true, then I must be really out of touch. No one has expressed that opinion to me, nor have I seen it on Facebook in my News Feed (and I do occasionally see woo-woo stuff there). And I've certainly never heard a dentist say that. I'm not surprised that there are people who make this claim, but I would never have considered it "the popular opinion", or even a popular opinion.
The US Dept of Health and Human Services actually halved their recommendation for fluoride in water about six months ago. The reasoning is apparently that people in the US now get enough from other sources such as toothpaste, mouth washes, etc [1].
Note that they didn't /remove/ the recommendation for fluoride in water. They just reduced the recommended amount.
I am all too aware as I have mild fluorosis in some of my teeth! Although I think the biggest cause of this was semi regular fluoride rinses at the dentist when I was a kid.
Well, if you're okay with putting excess amounts of chemicals on your skin that are targeting your teeth although you may get enough from green tea, I'm not, and many others aren't either. I bought a chlorine filter for my shower, and all my dandruff and skin itching issues have disappeared, so, call it a conspiracy theory or whatever, but you can't beat the facts.
I'm not a computer; I'm a human being, and I apply heuristics all the time. Maybe you're not. Anyway, data can be forged, and has been forged numerous times driven by corporate and political interest.
What I do works for me, and works well - I look for fluoride-free products - you can stick with using agricultural waste in your water supply, but I stay off it!
Thanks ... but I live in Norway. I'm not sure any of the water is fluoridated here. In the states, however, everywhere I lived had fluoride in the water.
Water is fluoridated in Norway if it needs be, i.e. the fluoride content of drinking water is moderated so that it is between 0.7 and 1.2 mg/l (i.e. around one part per million).
Yes, and it always has had - one would expect that during the human evolution, the human body developed to expect and utilize variable levels of fluoride in drinking water.
Nowadays we consume processed water which is clear of many impurities and tends to come just one source. The quality is extremely consistent, so we don't die of poisonings and contaminations. But then, the selection of where our drinking water comes from, and the purification processes may have the impact that the fluoride level is consistently lower than is good. Hence the possible need to add fluoride to water.
I just tried to find a way to buy another caffeinated toothpaste. I see nothing, though i didn't dig too deep. Seems like it might be the first intended for mass marketing/consumption.
It appears that there is a patent (filed 2002, published 2003) on "blended toothpaste formulas and method for manufacture", claiming in part "A toothpaste as defined in claim 1 wherein the stimulant is caffeine".
Caffeinated toothpaste is so 2016 Q2. I heard there's a stealth startup doing caffeinated toilet paper that will disrupt this market by hitting the customer with a dose of caffeine earlier on in the morning pipeline.
Yeah, this is bizarre to me. Kind of like adding an mp3 player to a word processor. Toothpaste has a purpose. If you want caffeine have coffee, tea, Red Bull, 5 hour energy, Monster, expresso beans, caffeine gum, or one of the million other ways to get caffeine.
"Why do you need caffeine gum? If you want caffeine have coffee, tea, Red Bull, 5 hour energy, Monster, expresso beans, or one of the million other ways to get caffeine."
"Why do you need Red Bull? If you want caffeine have coffee, tea, 5 hour energy, Monster, expresso beans, or one of the million other ways to get caffeine."
"Why do you need tea? If you want caffeine have coffee, 5 hour energy, Monster, expresso beans, or one of the million other ways to get caffeine."
"Why do you need coffee? If you want caffeine have 5 hour energy, Monster, expresso beans, or one of the million other ways to get caffeine."
So on and so forth. Why do you need one more way to get caffeine in your system? Why not?
> Also, what's the expected amount of caffeine per typical dispensing? How much of that are you figuring gets absorbed during brushing?
Wondering the same thing.
He said in another comment that an average-sized 'serving' of the toothpaste contains 80mg of caffeine (roughly half the amount of a small coffee from most chains), but there's no info on how much of that is absorbed when brushing.
There's no list of ingredients. Anyway, most toothpaste today has glycerin in it, which prevents tooth remineralization. Most toothpaste today also has carrageenan, which also is questionable - including by the WHO. SLS is not without issues either. Most non-natural toothpaste has aluminum. Most natural toothpaste is too abrasive. In general, I wasn't able to find a balanced product all these years - and it's a shame!
Point very well taken! Thank you for this!! I'm going to update our page with a high quality image of the back of our label with full list of ingredients.
Apologies for this omission that in retrospect is so obvious!
"... We made Power Toothpaste so that when you wake up, you can make your dreams a reality" - This text is placed right next to a blurry photo of the founders.
It's very 90s... Cheesy. Our generation is far too cynical for that kind of message.
This toothpaste won't make your dreams come true. If anything, it will keep you up all night long and prevent you from dreaming altogether.
I do like the tagline "Get a rush while you brush." though.
If I feel groggy in the morning, I'm also going to stick with the proven solution of going to bed at a more reasonable time the previous evening. But di and I are in the minority on this, I think. There is definitely a market for people who want to get higher, faster, when the double-shot of espresso doesn't quite do the trick any more, and when crushing up a caffeine pill in a coffee grinder before consuming the raw powder is still a bit too much.
So cheers to all you stimulant addicts out there for your new market option. You no longer need to ask a compounding pharmacist to do this sort of thing for you--unless, of course, there are other over-the-counter drugs you might want to take every morning, in imprecisely measured doses.
> We know many of you don't want fluoride in your toothpaste.
what? is this some new anti-vac kind of thing? In Denmark dentists are strongly advising against using toothpaste without fluoride.
Lena Bay of the Danish dentist school says about toothpaste without fluoride: "... if you insist on using it, then you should only use it once a day and use normal toothpaste with fluoride the rest of the time" and Ole Marker, vice president of the Danish Dental Association says that "There is a large risk of ruining your teeth [if you only use toothpaste without fluoride]"
I'm having a tough time figuring out whether this is a joke. Who's the target audience? What need are you filling? How are people meeting this need now?
Yes, we have a prominent warning on both the tube and the box that reads, "WARNING: For use by adults 18 years and older only. Keep away from children." Additionally, the tube comes shipped with a silver foil tamper-proof seal.
No child proof cap? Sounds like a disaster waiting to happen given that most people keep toothpaste in their bathroom and don't take extraordinary care to keep it away from children as they do with other toxic products. (floridated toothpaste is also hazardous to children, but much less toxic than a tube with over 7g of caffeine)
Brushing before breakfast seems like a weird idea to me. The mint flavor of the toothpaste would ruin the flavor of what I'd eat and I would need to brush again after.
I believe it's generally the soapy toothpaste ingredients (sodium lauryl sulfate) that mess with your mouth chemistry and make things taste weird for a while afterwards, not mainly the mint flavour. Other kinds of toothpaste (e.g. I sometimes use an aloe vera based one) don't have this problem.
And my understanding of the before vs after breakfast teeth-brushing debate is that it doesn't that much matter which you do: do it before, and you clear off the bacteria that have accumulated overnight before handing them a load of food to work on; do it after, and your teeth are cleaner for the next few hours instead.
Too bad that there isn't option bigger than the family pack. I'd have honestly loved to give my entire city the _power_, but looks like I need to wait.
--
Nice site. You have only 7 trackers at the moment.
How many milligrams of caffeine per pea-sized serving is there? People who really like caffeine also really want to know how much they're getting. "Medium" cup of coffee could be anywhere from like 30mg to 80mg.
The price comparison is a bit disingenuous IMHO: coffee is $3 only if you buy a latte at Starbucks. Homemade coffee is probably less than a tenth of that even if you use capsules, and a filter coffee can be as cheap as $1.
You can also buy 20 g of caffeine in pills on amazon for around $8 compared to your 7.2 g for $15.
Why would you compare with something that is effectively the cost of sitting down for half an hour in a clean warm place with toilets and internet? (I'm assuming the cost of actual coffee at starbucks is negligible)
Sorry to be negative: Introducing a vasoconstrictor to be used everyday topically in the mouth around the gingiva is probably an irresponsible idea. I think you need to do longitudinal animal studies before you can sell this in good conscience.
The U.S. military has studied the use of caffeinated gum (which has a higher concentration of caffeine and stays in your mouth much longer) and has not seen negative health impacts. I'll upload the studies I have collected to dropbox and post a link later today! Otherwise, I've spoken to a ton of dentists about this and they weren't concerned about caffeine's impact on the gingae.
My first thought was, why this vs. caffeinated gum? I've used the gum for years (look up "military energy gum") and it's perfect. But I don't want it every time I brush. Brushing teeth and wanting a pick-me-up seem like totally orthogonal needs.
Pro tip: keep a pack of caffeinated gum in your car. Great for road trips or late nights!
I also brush before I go to bed. I would need 2 pastes and be careful not to mix them up. I've accidentally put hand soap and moisturiser on my toothbrush before because I was so sleepy.
I have to be honest, this is a cool idea but after reading some of the comments, it makes sense that more information and health topics/concerns need to be addressed. Although overall, I would much rather just have a cup of coffee (I'm a coffee lover).
Maybe market to an industry where it is necessary for someone to be caffeinated right away after waking up (think time sensitive, life / death) and health concerns are more gray area (ie. maybe soldiers can use this during war time). edit, spacing...
I love coffee too. Most of the people who have been buying Power Toothpaste and who enjoy coffee have been reporting that they still have their coffee, but tend to do so later in the morning.
Since drinking coffee is also a main cause of teeth-yellowing; if this substitutes coffee, then it could also be seen as another way of helping to keep teeth whiter?
Thank you! The FDA was created under the Food, Drugs, and Cosmetics Act. According to the law, everything they regulate falls into one of these categories. Sort of an animal/vegetable/mineral thing. Interestingly, toothpaste with fluoride is regulated as a drug, and without fluoride as a cosmetic. Not necessarily a big deal to be regulated as a drug... But as I dug into the regulations, I found it is actually still quite difficult to go through all the hurdles to bring a new fluoridated toothpaste to market. Comparatively, a new fluoridated mouthwash is really easy, just basic stability testing. I actually had to submit a Freedom of Information Act request to get a copy of the testing procedures. They were really something. The document I got back was a scanned pdf of a copy of a mimeograph of a typewriter carbon copy. And the testing quite onerous. They actually required animal testing for any new formulation! Pretty crazy given the well understood process of fluoridating toothpaste. So to get a product release, I'm forgoing fluoride in this version that lets me be a cosmetic. The regulations here are much simpler. There's testing, clean room requirements, ingredient safety stuff, but comparatively much easier, and I partnered with a manufacturer with lots of experience that's here in the United States.
Wow, just wow. This seems like one of those regulations that could be changed. Obviously the caffeine isn't a flagged substance: It would seem that a simple chemical composition test would be good enough to qualify a toothpaste - since we've done a lot of research on fluoride itself.
I go back and forth on the whole fluoridation issue. I personally think that a proper diet negates any reason to us fluoride, and ingesting it intuitively seems like a bad idea. Not sure if that's rational. But that's why I buy toothpaste containing Novamin rather than fluoride. (strangely, you can only buy it from overseas and they pulled it off the shelves in the US)
could you send me an email at [email protected] ?We're working out international shipping. If you give me your details, I'm trying to get (most of) it figured out in the next few days.
I like to snort lines of caffeine off my vanity in the morning; can anyone else with this habit who has tried Power Toothpaste comment on whether it's worth the switch?
Caffeinated gum is also a big thing. Same idea I think: passive caffeine consumption with the implication that you'll be saving tons of money that would've been spent in coffee shops. But don't most people want to limit their caffeine consumption?
I feel like caffeine has an identical mindshare as cigarettes in the '60s: Haha we know it's not great for you but everybody does it, especially business people!'.
Not trying to nock your product, it's just whatever I think of when people try to push more caffeine on me. I need more sleep, not more caffeine.
I believe this statement is short-sighted, and I would strongly recommend child-proof packaging for this product.
If a child eats a tube of toothpaste, it's not great for them[1], but eating a significant amount of caffeinated toothpaste would most likely kill them.
This is a problem because people don't normally store and secure toothpaste the way they do bleach or pesticides, and also because this product is formulated to have an interesting and attractive taste - i.e, it presents a kind of "attractive nuisance".
"It is unlikely for a child to have anything beyond short-term stomach upset from eating toothpaste. In rare cases, if an excessive amount of fluorinated toothpaste is swallowed, there can be more serious problems. Fluoride can lower the amount of calcium and magnesium in the body. Toothpaste formulated to help with sensitivity contains a second ingredient – a nitrate – that can also cause more serious problems if large amounts are ingested. This is unlikely to occur from unintentional ingestions by children, especially of over-the-counter toothpaste."
I'm not saying this caffeine toothpaste is safer than fluoride containing toothpaste just that toothpaste can still cause harm. From what I've read of caffeine overdoses your suggestion of a child-proof packaging is a very good one.
A tube of toothpaste might have enough fluoride to kill 30-50 mice, but not necessarily a child. Eating a whole tube of toothpaste is excessive and you should probably seek medical attention if your child does so. The adults who took part in this study[1] should be able to replicate the experiments by eating two tubes of toothpaste.
I'm just saying it's not an airy-fairy concern that this would be lethal, partly because of the sociology of toothpaste, and also because eating a tube surpasses the documented LD50 for adults.
Think of the warnings on acetominophen and then think this one through.
Caffeine is a really difficult flavor to deal with. It's bitter and metallic. It's masked well with competitive bitter and astringent drinks (coffee and tea) but is more difficult otherwise. Energy drinks taste kind of weird because of the caffeine. I learned a lot about flavor chemistry as I developed the toothpaste and went through somewhere over 60 iterations before I settled on this formula. There were also some process improvements we refined along the way to get it to improve smoothness and texture.
I like the idea, and the logo (not the video, though).
The problem with your product IMHO is that you need two toothpaste, because besides in the morning you also brush your teeth before going to bed, but you definitely don't want caffeine before you go to bed.
What is the diff between this and other pandemic illness? Meaning (in all seriousness) why certain things and not others? What or who formed these decisions
> I am literally quoting the head of the largest aluminum processing conglomerate in the WORLD on what he said to my dad.
One part of your post was framed as a quote, the part about "dental benefit BS" and "why isn't any other medical benefit made free and literally forced upon you like fluoride is???" was not.
But the sentiment I have is the same: on the one hand, I quoted some questionable logic from head of alcoa - then I asked a fair question: "if the government is so concerned with my health, why is all other healthcare not free/forced upon me???"
As another user pointed out, Iodized salt is mandated.
How about other medical practices? Why are mammograms not free and forced upon all those with breasts?
Prostate exams?
Lung cancer checks?
Liver issues???
it doesnt matter that its beneficial - what I am asking is "Why these, and not those?"
That makes absolutely no sense. They decided to feed it to people as a way of getting rid of it? Why not blast it out into space or bury it in a bunker or any other thousands of easier ways we have to dispose of things than coming up with a conspiracy for having people ingest it?
Yes I did... Tell my why, irrespective of anything else, that the dental benefits of Fluoride in everything is what we should do?
I am not saying we shouldnt I just want to hear the statement for it... as I do not know. Again, I am just relaying a quote... and I personally have no idea. Also, I'm not "defensive" and I actually find calling someone defensive to be a really lame way of discussing anything.
Don't be defensive when I call you out for beating your wife. Stop resisting.
WTF am I supposed to be helping. Reading comprehension apparently fails this audience.
so yeah. Fuck that. Read a quote. Did I say it no, hence we have the term in english called "quote" - we even have fricken literal characters on our keyboards and in our lexicon called "quotes"
Let me try this for you: "Don't kill the messenger" -- SamStave
Well the fact that you are diverting discussion of the content of your quote through claiming that quoting it was not an endorsement of its sentiment -- a claim I still find specious at best under these circumstances -- seems to suggest that you are not confident in its validity. Is this the case? Because that's understandable, and we'd get a lot further in this discussion through recognizing it rather than not and continuing to avoid saying whether or not you actually believe what you quoted.
When you accompany the quote with your own words expressing doubt in fluoridation, then yes, people will think you agree with what you're posting. Especially if it's something you keep posting.
The question was directed at the speaker of the quote, I was only asking you because I assumed your recapitulation of it meant you believed it. If you didn't, my apologies.
I find it funny that no one yet has called you on your bullshit: Who the fuck is John Haymaker? There was no Haymaker CEO of Alcoa. You quote this person, and you don't even know their first name? Sounds legit.
He was president of ALCOA in the mid-80s -- I cant find him online - but I posted a link to his son's profile page who is an architect. John Haymaker, JR. I also make mention of my dads other best friend: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_S._Herrington who happens to have a wiki page....
So, I dont know what to say about the fact that John SR doesnt have a page about him online as he was head of ALCOA in ~1985...
not my job to prove shit to the internet.... if you dont like my quote - then move on and dont attack me for it.
Yeah, get bent dude. It sort of is your job to prove who you're quoting or get called out on it. The nearest I can tell is the guy you're talking about is George Haymaker, and if that is who it is, he was CEO of Kaiser, not Alcoa.
But when you do things like this:
"FFS; I am relaying a quote I heard from the head of fucking ALCOA! y'all motherfuckers know what ALCOA is? and how far their reach is...."
That detail mattered because you made it matter. No one attacked you for that.
Hmm... You may be correct - and I apologize for my failing memory! I was freaking twelve when I heard him say this...
George may be correct - I'll have to ask my dad now.
While people have posted the listed CEOs of ALCOA in the 80s - I know that for certain he was head of ALCOA. My dad built his freaking house and I worked on it with John Haymaker (who my dad was required to employ during the build of his house on the Truckee River in Tahoe so his kid (the one who is now an architect) could get some build experience)...
But I stand by my comment... those statements were made.
Here it is:
"Mr. Haymaker was Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Kaiser Aluminum Corporation from January 1994 through December 1999, and was Non-Executive Chairman of that company from October 2001 until July 2006. Prior to joining Kaiser, he served in executive positions for Alcoa Inc., and Alumax Inc."
Not sure who you're thinking of. Maybe it was a weird childhood memory. But based on Alcoa's history page, nobody with that name was the CEO during the 80's.
>"Mr. Haymaker was Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Kaiser Aluminum Corporation from January 1994 through December 1999, and was Non-Executive Chairman of that company from October 2001 until July 2006. Prior to joining Kaiser, he served in executive positions for Alcoa Inc., and Alumax Inc."
There is a George T. Haymaker Jr. who "served as an Executive Vice President of Alumax Inc. from 1984 to 1986 and Vice President of International Operations at Alcoa Inc. from 1982 to 1984" [0].
His profile at Genstar Capital includes what seems like a recent photo [1].
No one is attacking you personally. A lot of people read HN for insightful or evidence backed commentary and the voting mechanism is there to maintain this quality. No one can quote your story and retain any credibility -to a third party relating your story sounds like this: "A dude in a web discussion forum claimed that a man who, based on his childhood memories, was a CEO at Alcor, said that...". It has degenerated to a gossip - something that is readily available elswhere. High quality diacussion, on the other hand, is hard to come by.
It's okay to relate anecdotal experience - some these type of comments are really good - but the style in the comment should then reflect the fact that the claim cannot be validated in any concrete way.
No, you did not 'prove' with any value of proof anyone else here would recognize. None of us can know did that conversation happen, if it did, were they serious or joking,etc etc. There is no way any sensible person could integrate this into their theory of the world.
Basically, unless you can provide evidence that is well known/scientifically rigorous/would hold in the court of law, what you wrote, is hearsay.
You can stand by your statement - no one is claiming you to be a liar. But claiming fluoridation of water is just some nefarious big-corp scheme is, to put it mildy, extraordinary. Given the prevalence of anti-vaxxers and other crazies in the mainstream outlets I can only imagine the toleration level for unscientific gossip on public health matters is really low.
Calm down dude, no need to get personal on people.
>why isn't any other medical benefit made free and literally forced upon you like fluoride is?
Not only does this not have any merit regarding whether or not we should add fluoride to our public water supplies, but the U.S. government (and many others) quite literally already does this.
We add niacin to flour. We add iodine to salt. We add vitamin D to a litany of food products.
And this quote:
>aluminum production produces fluoride acid - a substance so toxic that we cannot dispose of it... So we began fluoridation of the water because the only place we can store it is in your liver"
Is just completely rubbish. He's basically claiming that we're just walking land fills, using our livers to avoid leaving fluoride acid everywhere.
I can imagine plenty of valid reasons for not being able to ship a brand new product outside of the US. The author didn't promise anyone that at least 6% or more of the global population could immediately order this product or anything.
> In any case, most of HN probably lives in the US.
I agree with your main point, it's not up to us where someone sells their product, but I'm not at all sure that most HN users live in the US; I don't have any more evidence than you, I would just assume most are outside.
It is significantly easier to sell many kinds of products in the US compared to other countries with large consumer bases.
That isn't always true, but could be the reason.
The US has relatively few regulations compared to places like Europe. Few enough that California can introduce new ones that become defacto national regulations.
Our toothpaste gives you a quick caffeine boost that works as soon as you start brushing, even faster than coffee. (I still drink coffee, just later in the morning)
I made version 1 with a hammer in my kitchen. I smashed a caffeine pill into dust in my cast iron pan, mixed it with toothpaste from my bathroom, and I had the first-ever caffeinated toothpaste. It worked. It was a little buggy. Since that point we have raised over $40k on Indiegogo and we’ve shipped over 2,000 tubes of toothpaste so far, all made in the made in the USA. I would love to answer any questions you might have or share any knowledge I’ve gained about plastic/tube packaging, cosmetics regulations, logistics, fulfillment, domestic manufacturing, and shipping physical products in general. I’m not an expert, but I’ve learned a lot. If you want to try Power Toothpaste, I live in the Bay Area, and I’d be happy to meet up and give you a squeeze of my toothpaste.
Cheers, Ian