General public isn’t scared of those things, so they would’ve made a poor example.

i have got to ask, i understand the sugar part, but the meat? Are you referring to the red meat or the fat in meat? Could you elaborate on the meat part?

It's not just that meat and sugar are unhealthy, but also that presence of meat and sugar correlate with absence of healthier foods, such as vegetables, legumes, seeds, fruits and nuts.

Referring to particular foods as "healthy" or "unhealthy" is reductionist and unscientific. All foods have both positive and negative effects. Certain meats are generally quite good, at least in moderation, particularly for getting high quality protein. Eating too many Brazil nuts can cause acute selenium poisoning.

Be more specific. If you want to convince anyone here then please cite high quality studies which actually meet evidence-based medicine criteria. All of the studies so far which claim to show meat is unhealthy were badly flawed observational studies which relied on subject reported data, lacked proper controls, and only showed very small effects.

There is still much scientific controversy and no real consensus. Much of what passes for nutrition "science" is basically junk. To be more specific, hardly any studies justify an "A" grade recommendation according to evidence-based medicine criteria.

https://guides.library.stonybrook.edu/evidence-based-medicin...

There are many people who follow carnivore diets who seem quite healthy. It's ridiculous to assume that we know the right answer when so much research remains to be done.

As for sausage versus vegetables, you'll have to be more specific. Those are two very broad categories of food and the exact effects will vary tremendously depending on specific ingredients, cooking, the eater's genetics and microbiome, etc.

You know that dietary cholesterol has no relation to blood cholesterol levels, right? You know that the saturated fat myth--started by the sugar industry--was debunked, right?

If meat were really so obviously bad for you, then Inuit should be keeling over from atherosclerosis by their 30s or so. They don't.

(If you're unaware, the Inuit diet is very heavily meat-based; there just simply isn't a lot of opportunities for plants in the High Arctic. They're getting sufficient vitamin C from meat, which is actually moderately difficult!)

Isn't it interesting that meat provides all essential amino acids and fatty acids. And not some complex combination of various food groups like a vegan diet must include, just red meat. Meanwhile there are no essential carbohydrates.

Really? What is eating meat and sugar responsible for?

Obesity, diabetes, heart disease, etc. STDs are _nothing_.

In absence of a caloric surplus / chronic overfeeding, also known as energy poisoning, you have absolutely no proof for the claim. There isn't even an association, let alone causation.

And it would be naive to think that eliminating added sugar and meat would prevent people from eating too much.

Which actually beats dying of starvation, which is what people used to do ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ — comparing food with cigarettes or viruses is completely ridiculous.

It would be historically correct, though.

What do you mean by "historically correct"?

You mean blaming sugar or meat when historically people started eating too much, in the 20th century, due to food availability?

Everything has become more abundant recently - clean water, vegetable, meat, fat, sugar, even clean water.

And less hunger too. I remember yawning repeatedly / feeling faint when I was younger but didn't know what I hungry until my mum pointed it out.

So you can't point to one or two food groups and claim their current abundance cause obesity.

Well, except white sugar lol.

id instead point to high fructose corn syrup. even more sugary than white sugar, and it's in basically all junk food instead of white sugar

Show us a reliable study comparing table sugar with HCFS that can confirm what you're saying.

You won't find any.

In absence of guns being fired at people, guns are completely safe. There isn't even an association, let alone causation.

> And it would be naive to think that eliminating added sugar and meat would prevent people from eating too much.

I guess that people could still gorge themselves on potato chips, popcorn... Maybe a few other foods? But surely it's clear that 90%+ of overeating occurs with meat and sugar?

Comparing guns to food is also completely ridiculous.

FYI 100 grams of walnuts has 654 kcal, roughly equivalent to 350 grams of French fries, or... 400 grams of chicken breast, which also happens to have 124 grams of protein, which no natural vegan source can match. Or 650 grams of cod w/ 148 grams of protein.

Show me the people that got fat from eating boiled chicken breast or cod. Show me the studies that show any kind of association between lean meat and disease for that matter.

Also 500 grams of watermelon, which we can easily eat at a single meal has 150 kcal and about 6 teaspoons of sugar (fructose and sucrose).

Show me the people that got fat or sick from eating too much watermelon.

---

100% of the people that got fat or sick also breathe air and walk around. Maybe they should stop breathing, no?

That's not a correlation unless you can show the variables are dependent.

Show me the studies showing dependence. I'll wait.

I have no idea which point you think I'm making. I'm certainly not claiming that boiled chicken breast is unhealthy. Cod is healthy, and not meat.

The point I'm trying to make is that it is a challenge to overeat on a diet that doesn't contain meat or (added) sugar.

And since overeating is a major cause of obesity, diabetes and heart disease, it's fair to say that meat and sugar are responsible. Without meat and (added) sugar, we would not have the current level of obesity in the west.

I'm specifically not claiming that meat or sugar is unsafe in any quantity.

Meat is almost never a problem for overeating. Where are you getting that idea?