I can see that theory being very valid.

It would seem to follow along with this study:
Higher Prevalence of Depressive Symptoms in Middle-Aged Men With Low Serum Cholesterol Levels

Though I'm not one to rely on authority or credentials in evaluating science, it can be a useful first filter. A few red flags here: the first author is an engineer, and the second is an "independent reader of research." Only the third appears to be a doctor, for the Italian army, not known for their medical research acumen. In the references at the link, they cite only two of their own articles, both of which are also reviews and represent no actual research. From a brief reading of this article, there is no direct evidence of a link between sugar and Alzheimer's Disease. The article describes a _hypothesis_, which would invalidate it from being published in most journals.

It doesn't mean they aren't right, but as a scientist, it doesn't pass my sniff test. Get evidence for your position first, then publish. Don't waste my time.

The blog item is carefully written to indicate that the jury is still out on this. The abstract is as well. Note the scientific language: "may lead," "share many properties," and "may also be due."

Furthermore, regarding credentials, probably most doctors in America promote the diet -- not evidence-based -- that has made America obese.

As somebody who is concerned with people putting out good science, I'm disturbed that you say "as a scientist," immediately after the contentions you post above.

"As a scientist," you should know that the efforts to make connections and find evidence advance science, even if a particular conclusion can't be made from the particular piece of research. What matters is that researchers don't leap to conclusions the evidence doesn't warrant.

A basic first step would be to see if the theory predicts the prevalence of Alzheimers.

It should be easy to see if Alzheimer's rates correlate to obesity rates, or dietetic patterns.

Both are widely researched and available at any good research library.

I posit that the increase in Alzheimers and many other diseases is simply due to vaccinations, anti-biotics and massively improved public sanitation, food safety and nutrition, all leading to massive increased in longevity. With that longevity, we see a massive increase in certain diseases.

(It's also possible that people prone to get Alzheimers are also prone to get and die from certain diseases. We eliminate the latter and the consequences follow. This isn't a bad thing; still better to have lived to 60 or 70 than 6 or 7.)

This isn't a bad thing; still better to have lived to 60 or 70 than 6 or 7

Depends on if they had kids who genes are also so effed up the should be having kids

I ate a bowl of cereal the other day. Shredded wheat-not like lucky charms or anything. A few hours later, my blood sugar bottomed out and I nearly passed out, was all shaky and weak. Unpleasant. So today was back to bacon n eggs. I'm going to take a page from my BFF's book, and have DH grill me up a TON of meat on sunday, and eat on it all week with greens.

I'm also taking red krill oil. I can't stand fish oil, I'd rather die young. Krill it supposed to have the same benefits.

Let's not jump to conclusions: I find the _evidence_ that carbohydrates are generally bad for your health to be very convincing. The same lax standards that lead to promoting umpteen servings of grains also let things like this through.

This article is a review, which presents no new evidence but, as you say Amy, makes connections that may not have been obvious to everyone. They are essential to science.

There must be a standard for publication, however, or else every crackpot idea for which people are unable to find direct evidence can be published as a review in some small journal. And they are: the effect of concentrated moonlight on cancer, homeopathy, and (most damaging) the connection between autism and immunizations all have had review articles supporting them written and published.

Such a small thing, really, and maybe it is just an honest attempt at jump-starting the research. But they're used as evidence in court, people less careful than Dr. Eades present them as gospel truth in the media, and it becomes lodged in people's minds. Who here threw out their aluminum pans in the last go-around of a "cause for Alzheimer's?"

I identified myself as a scientist because I think it's my community's duty to not get stuck in a discredited path, like the ADM food pyramid nonsense, and also to be careful only to let ideas that are well-supported by evidence get published and popularized. It's also our duty to help people evaluate science, and to be extremely skeptical in cases like this.

There are quite a few reports out there lately about a possible diabetes/Alzheimer's link. I first read one a couple of years ago. One of the points of the paper was whether the diabetes was under control or not. A high percentage of people with uncontrolled diabetes with A1c values consistently over 7 go on to develop Alzheimer's, it seems.

I don't think it's a case of just people living longer. If so, we should have a huge AD population in Japan as well, and we don't. The increase in EOAD (early onset Alzheimer's Disease) in the US can't be explained by longevity either.

MIL has AD, she had diabetes for 12-15 years before she would go for treatment. She lives for carbohydrates, all her favorite meals and snacks are carbs. She always bragged about 'not eating sweets' but a bowl of ramen with a side of rice, and snacking on Ritz crackers or cup noodles while watching TV at night is no different. She was always 10-20 pounds overweight from all the carbs she ate(on a 4'5" frame).She is the first person in her family ever with AD, the first diabetic as well. Not many Japanese eat as wacky as diet as she always did. I would, though, like to see less of an emphasis on rice as a staple, especially polished rice.