I just wrote an answer to the question What are the natural and healthy ways to increase blood sugar?. I am not a health care professional, and most of my knowledge on the matter comes from popular science sources, not peer reviewed publications.
The problem is that carbohydrate metabolism is a contentious topic, which seems to divide the medical community too. So the sources I have read have been written by proponents of one of two warring sides of a debate.
I trust them enough to get the basic, observable facts right, and I have recounted those facts in my answer. For example, as far as I am aware, nobody disputes that eating glucose is followed by a spike in blood sugar levels, which is followed by a spike in insulin levels.
The OP also asks the question starting from the assumption that eating sugar or glucose is unhealthy. So I explained the mechanism behind the "sugar is unhealthy" hypothesis, of course from the point of view of the anti-carb side. I did not even claim that it is certainly so, although I tend to personally agree with the hypothesis.
For both, I could have given some books as sources, the ones where I have read this information. But the problem is that these books make much stronger claims beside these - and I don't believe that their arguments are good enough for those stronger claims. Linking blood sugar spikes to insulin disregulation and obesity is one thing, suggesting that it could be the secret behind Alzheimer is another. But the books I have read do both. This is why I am wary of making broadly visible advertising for them, such as linking them in a SE question. The authors I'd be most likely to cite are Gary Taubes and Robert Lustig, they are the least questionable ones I know in this area. (Although I'd have to revisit Lustig, I'm not sure if he has something good on glucose or if he's only about fructose).
I guess that with additional research effort, I could find a more limited source. But it is hard to convince myself to put even more effort in after all the time it took to write the answer (I had to delete more text than what is left). Also, I don't know if I have the chance of finding a neutral source on a topic which causes such hot dispute.
What would be the best course in this case? Using sources which I think are reliable for what I cited but at the same time spread gospel I don't agree with? Using Wikipedia because hey, it's easy and better than nothing? Hoping that somebody else will help me find sources (maybe add a comment asking for help with that?) Go searching primary sources which will be likely to be hard to get for most users anyway (some expensive physiology textbook, I guess) and possibly only cover half of my answer?
I would ultimately invest the time in finding and citing new sources if you agree that this is best, but I think that not every user here will be willing to do that in a comparable situation. So I'd like to also hear thoughts on what we'll suggest to other users in a similar case if they are less invested in the network and less willing to spend time researching.
