[gjulianm]

> I have never heard of this. Where did you get this?

I meant that sugar causes cancer through obesity, not that there's an intermediate step between sugar and obesity.

> Bacon aside, there is no proof which shows that red meat causes cancer. Yes, there are studies that show a correlation between red meat and cancer. However those studies did not differentiate between fresh unprocessed red meat and other processed meat like bacon, sausages, etc.

Most studies do differentiate between unprocessed and processed red meat. And the correlation is fairly strong, not to mention the rest of health effects that a diet high in red meat is associated with.

> I'd argue the opposite, bacon aside. Red meat is a highly nutrient dense food. Sugar on the hand is just empty carbs, Metabolizing sugar will drain you body of important vitamins (e.g. B1).

Do you really think it's easier to take out sugar of your diet? I think the only way is to go full carnivore (not even milk or its derivatives). On the other hand, you don't even have to go vegetarian to remove red meat and bacon from your diet.

[sapiol]

> I meant that sugar causes cancer through obesity, not that there's an intermediate step between sugar and obesity.

Yes, I understood that. However this is new information for me. Where did you get that?

> Most studies do differentiate between unprocessed and processed red meat. And the correlation is fairly strong, […]

Where are those studies? In vivo? In humans?

> […] not to mention the rest of health effects that a diet high in red meat is associated with.

You mean greater longevity, better mental health (less depression, less anxiety, …), better cognitive function?

> Do you really think it's easier to take out sugar of your diet?

Let's say processed sugar. And with "easy" I meant - that you won't suffer any negative health effects in the long term. If you stop eating something and in consequence suffer from malnutrition then that won't be "easy" to keep up in the long term.

[gjulianm]

> Yes, I understood that. However this is new information for me. Where did you get that?

There's not a lot of evidence that links sugar intake to cancer risk directly, when controlling for weight. Sugars aren't in the IARC list either. And the link between high sugar intake and obesity is clear too.

Obesity, though, is a well known cancer risk, and for quite a lot of cancers there's causal mechanisms proposed.

> Where are those studies? In vivo? In humans?

The IARC monograph has the details of the evidence collected to declare processed red meat as carcinogenic and unprocessed red meat as probable carcinogenic, and of course it includes studies in humans and studies that separated processed/unprocessed https://monographs.iarc.who.int/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/m...

> You mean greater longevity, better mental health (less depression, less anxiety, …), better cognitive function?

I find it funny that you're asking repeatedly for sources for things that are repeated by every health agency in the world, and then just drop these claims with nothing to back them up.

> Let's say processed sugar.

But no one was saying "processed sugar". The diet I started criticizing was an all-meat diet, with the comment even criticizing fruit.

> If you stop eating something and in consequence suffer from malnutrition then that won't be "easy" to keep up in the long term.

You won't suffer from malnutrition by not eating red meat. In fact, most scientific diet recommendations include the limitation of red meats. You will, however, suffer from malnutrition if you withdraw from all foods that contain natural sugars, because that includes almost all fruits and vegetables.

If we talk about added sugar, diet recommendations usually include limiting its intake too. However, the point I was making in my original comment is that there's far more evidence linking red meat consumption to cancer risk than for sugar, and therefore I can't really trust the advice of someone who claims that an all-carnivore diet is better "because it has no sugar".