Please excuse my further comment on another post:
' I am sure you cannot train your brain to avoid Alzheimers or Dementia and would put this stuff on a par with cancer patients being told they can sort it out with crank diets. '
As I understand it, cancer is the incorrect replication (mutation) of cells, and whilst diet must have a huge effect on the body's physical state, here we're talking about how to directly affect the health of the brain organ by making it work. Exercise.
If 'training the brain' has no effect on A or D, that will mean that those who never use their brains will have on average the same level of function as those who do - the fact of education and schools scotches that idea.
However, I don't understand (because I haven't considered or researched it) how the test in question produces more than a numerical result on a combination of a person's abilities at a certain point in time and in certain circumstances. As such, I would think its value is purely comparative - in other words as a measure of gain/loss over a certain period - and would therefore hold value for us only on the second taking of the test at some future date. As in, if I score 20 less points in a year's time, should I attribute the score loss to the onset of A or D, or to my then two broken arms?
Tests are interesting, but of more value may be what they are testing - and how the results can be used to provide information of value to our shared situation or concerns.
We're surely talking here about how to measure our current brain state of health. Is there some test that will do this in some meaningful way that relates purely to our brains and in regard to degeneration - and not to other factors such as the limb breakages foretold by my psychic in his post-seance communication to me subsequent to my cheque bouncing.