I'm not sure how the medical establishment ignores this, from my understanding (and please correct me if I'm wrong as I'm not fact checking myself in this moment) - the association between the two is largely linked to vascular dementia (obesity, hypertension, yadda yadda).

I think it's hard to argue "The medical establishment" ignores diet as an important factor.

I think the reality a lot of the time is doctors prescribe something to help. They can't force a diet change on a patient, and they're not mutually exclusive interventions.

Diabetes is well known to be a massive risk factor for dementia - so no, people are not ignoring this!?

More broadly, diet is a frustrating modifiable risk factor - there are lots of studies suggesting the (somewhat nebulous) "Mediterranean" diet is protective, and beyond that, omega 3s.

But human diet is uncontrolled, highly varied, and reporting is difficult to obtain and unreliable (people don't want to admit what they ate), so a lot of these data are seen as interesting, promising but unconfirmed.

> The medical establishment and big pharma simple ignores the fact that the biggest health risk for a human being is the "modern" high sugar diet

The medical establishment isn’t ignoring this at all. They’ve been pushing for healthier diets forever. Primary doctors have always been pushing for healthy eating.

That doesn’t mean patients welcome the advice or follow it. Everyone knows that eating high sugar diets and being overweight is unhealthy.

There was some short-live resistance to the idea that being overweight was unhealthy, but that wasn’t coming from the medical establishment. That was an anti-science, anti-medicine movement that went mainstream under a misplaced desire to not make anyone feel bad in any way. That movement has lost steam quickly as an easier option has appeared for reducing appetite and inducing weight loss.

I don’t understand how you’re trying to twist this into a claim that big pharma is ignoring the impact of unhealthy eating. GLP-1 drugs work by reducing unhealthy overeating and cravings for unhealthy foods.

They controlled for BMI at least, so they knew that was going to be a common question. BMI is a pretty good proxy for that, and they still said that the majority of the effect came from the compound and not BMI.

Guess what category of drug reduces the intake of large amounts of sugar?

Fructose is blood sugar invisible, and plays no part in this conversation. Fructose can cause fatty liver and has been attributed with lots of voodoo, but the weird fructose focus of some is not evidence based. It's nonsense.

"The medical establishment and big pharma simple ignores the fact "

Do you really think the "medical establishment" hasn't been *screaming* about poor diets for decades? The fact that people ignored them doesn't give you an opening to suddenly spout horseshit. And big pharma has had an enormous focus on blood sugar for decades, and you're here yipping like they just want to sell you boner pills. What bizarre world is this?

> the "modern" high sugar diet that Kellogs introduced in the US and spread to the western world (even to Asia at some extent).

Kellogg? Did you know that white rice has a glycemic index significantly higher than table sugar (because, as previously mentioned, fructose is not a blood sugar)?

Yeah, a lot of people have bad diets, but infinitely more pressing is sedentary lifestyles. The reason Asia gets away with a rice-heavy diet (which is almost pure glucose, in a very simple form), though this is turning the wrong way, was busy, active lifestyles. The biological reality is that eating a big bowl of frosted flakes is perfectly fine if you follow it up with high amounts of activity.

Glucose is quite literally fuel for your body. And it's fine if you're actually using that fuel, but becomes a problem when often the overweight (and insulin resistant) and sedentary flood their blood with glucose, with nowhere for it to go.