Slashdot Mirror

Alzheimer's suffers have amyloid-beta plaque deposits in their brains. Usually. Not always.

There are people who have amyloid-beta deposits in the brains. Some of them have dementia, including Alzheimer's. Not all.

Amyloid-beta plaque can be cleared from the brain by immunization. The dementia occurs anyway.:
AB42 Immunisation Clears Brain Plaques, Does Not Prevent Dementia ...
http://www.pslgroup.com/dg/225f1e.htm

Thus, this article should read "Amyloid-Beta Plaque Desposition and Clearing Possibly Associated With Sleep", and any implied link to Alzheimer's saved until the discussion section at the end.

There is a family of amyloids associated with Alzheimer's and dementia, of which AÃY42 is only one. While AÃY42 is typically the quickest to aggregate, AÃY40 can cause dementia just as easily (though it takes a lifetime to aggregate enough of it).

"... can cause dementia just as easily ..." implies a persistent belief in causation despite the reference providing evidence that one of the two obviously is not causative. What can be taken as adequately supported understanding of causation is the fact that Ab40 accumulation (by far the majority of plaque deposit) is seeded by the earlier accumulation of Ab42 (and 43) that forms tendrils much faster, attracting Ab40 out of 'diffuse plaque', the solution of non-tendrilled amyloid beta proteins with a hydrophobic C-terminal sequence anywhere from the 39 to 42 locus.

It likely takes much more than a lifetime to accumulate the kind of plaque deposition seen in AD from Ab 40 in the absence of tendril forming Ab42 accumulations. And, as stated by the reference above, and implied by the wording of most publications on the subject, there is plenty of evidence associating both Ab40 and 42 to AD, but not supporting causation.

Ref for my reply: http://neuro.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/11/1/19

Thanks for challenging me, I enjoyed it.

Alzheimer's suffers have amyloid-beta plaque deposits in their brains. Usually. Not always.

There are people who have amyloid-beta deposits in the brains. Some of them have dementia, including Alzheimer's. Not all.

Amyloid-beta plaque can be cleared from the brain by immunization. The dementia occurs anyway.:
AB42 Immunisation Clears Brain Plaques, Does Not Prevent Dementia ...
http://www.pslgroup.com/dg/225f1e.htm

Thus, this article should read "Amyloid-Beta Plaque Desposition and Clearing Possibly Associated With Sleep", and any implied link to Alzheimer's saved until the discussion section at the end.

There is a family of amyloids associated with Alzheimer's and dementia, of which AÃY42 is only one. While AÃY42 is typically the quickest to aggregate, AÃY40 can cause dementia just as easily (though it takes a lifetime to aggregate enough of it).

Alzheimer's suffers have amyloid-beta plaque deposits in their brains. Usually. Not always.

There are people who have amyloid-beta deposits in the brains. Some of them have dementia, including Alzheimer's. Not all.

Amyloid-beta plaque can be cleared from the brain by immunization. The dementia occurs anyway.:
AB42 Immunisation Clears Brain Plaques, Does Not Prevent Dementia ...
http://www.pslgroup.com/dg/225f1e.htm

Thus, this article should read "Amyloid-Beta Plaque Desposition and Clearing Possibly Associated With Sleep", and any implied link to Alzheimer's saved until the discussion section at the end.

How about a tax on foods of which more than 50% of the caloric content is provided by carbohydrates and sugars?

Ah, somebody who actually understands the primary cause of obesity. Problem is, the lawmakers in question don't, and they are just following the popular low-fat superstition, proposed and preached mainly by diet-guru-wannabes with MDs, some of whom have discovered one or two things that actually appear to work, and immediately concluded that they have all of the answers. Some of them (notably Ornish) either didn't understand the question, or answered the wrong one.

I would like to point out some interesting facts:

1) I have personally lost over 100 lbs on a high-fat diet (around 55% calories from fat at this point), and kept it off for 3 years now. In addition to the weight loss, I experienced several other major health improvements, most of which occurred within a few weeks of the time I started restricting the sugar and starch in my diet, and long before I actually lost a substantial amount of weight. I initially gained most of the excess weight following a low-fat diet.

2) I have personally surveyed several hundred 'studies', and have found that most, if not all, 'studies' in nutrition have essentially nothing to do with science. They appear to follow the general pattern of a) form a conclusion, b) do some 'research', c) toss out any data that doesn't reinforce the conclusion, d) get the 'research' reviewed by other folks that have already accepted the conclusion, and e) get published in some mutual-admiration-society journal. Even if some of the data in part c is included, the conclusion is published intact, and most MDs will read only the abstract anyway, and will never realize that the data either does not support, or may even contradict, the conclusion.

3) All of the evidence that I have found (anecdotal and otherwise) indicates that one of the most important keys to a long and healthy life (other than safety items like wearing your seatbelt and not operating heavy machinery under the influence of mood-altering drugs) is to reduce the body's need for insulin. There are three (approximately equally important) factors involved, namely, diet, sleep, and exercise.

4) So far, I have not been able to locate any 'study' where carbohydrate consumption was reduced which did not result in multiple health improvements, even in those 'studies' where the resulting health improvements were attributed to other causes. My favorite example of a study falling into the latter category can be found here. BTW, I read this study when it first came out, and the phrase "and sugar" was added to the abstract only after the 'researchers' got some rather nasty public feedback concerning the fact that they had not proven their case (both of the 'researchers' involved in this circus are so-called "ethical vegetarians", which only shows that being an "ethical vegetarian" is a serious impediment to doing real science). Note that the title was not changed.

5) Since the nanny-state not only has no clue whatever about what constitutes a good diet, but also is not really concerned with my health, I strongly prefer that they quit trying to tell me what I should eat. That is not a legitimate function of government. I have already conclusively demonstrated that I can do a better job of maintaining my health than they can, anyway.

I can only assume that you're trolling, but just so that no one else puts any stock in the bullshit spewing forth from the parent post...

There is NO relationship between sugar and hyperactivity.

ADD is genetic, not a result of bad parenting (although bad parenting can exacerbate the symptoms).

And as someone who is on medication to treat ADD, I can tell you that my life before and after starting the medication (both as a child and as an adult) is like night and day. Ritalin, the most common medication for ADD, is one of the most well-researched and longest-used (since the 1940s) drugs currently available. Like ANY medication, these is some risk involved in using it. The majority of the risk comes from not using the medication properly, overdosing, or allergic reaction.

There is not one, single, documented case of Prozac (the most common anti-depressant) creating a "psychotic". Not one.

I've grown tired of hearing members of the so-called 'medical' profession lecture me on how 'risky' my 'high-protein' diet is (seems most doctors are functionally deaf and/or immune to learning anything at all from a non-doctor). I gotta wonder how much more 'risky' my MODERATE protein is than being more than 100 lbs overweight. Seems doctors only read the conclusions of studies, and not the actual studies. I have come to the conclusion (based on my personal experience, and comparing notes with several dozen others in the same situation) that the typical 'research' paper follows these steps:

1: Write down a conclusion

2: Write a paper supporting that conclusion

3: Do some 'research', carefully structured to support that conclusion

4: Discount or discard any data that doesn't support that conclusion

5: Get the paper reviewed by a group of associates that agree with your conclusion

6: Publish the paper in some mutual-admiration society journal

My favorite along these lines is one entitled "Type 2 Diabetics Benefit From Reducing Intake Of Animal Protein". If you read the summary very carefully, you will see that the 'researchers' removed the SUGAR from the diet, and then concluded, from the resulting health improvements, that animal protein causes type II diabetes. (!!) This is, unfortunately, typical of what passes for 'science' in the study of diet.

Hmmm... I would think that the odds of dying from living off peanut butter sandwiches for a month would be much higher than 1 in a million... the reason being that according to this site about 1.1% of the population is allergic to peanuts and/or other tree nuts... I for one am very allergic to peanuts and would probably die within a couple days if not hours if the only thing I ate was peanut butter sandwiches...