I sure hope you don't speak the same way you write in conversations, a good recipe for getting slapped.
Ah so violence is the answer when somebody shows you that you're wrong. Great to hear.
You are using double standards - I have to show "causative" for carbs causing cancer and you then show me "associations" as proof of the contrary?
Where is the double standard? You never even showed associations that carbs cause cancer.
What you have shown is that cancer cells that exist primarily use glucose for fuel. That point does not say anything about the conditions that cause cancer and is not very relevant to the discussion. Unless you're advocating for a very high, 70-80% fat diet, it does not even matter because protein will be turned into glucose in the body if carbs are absent.
Let's be clear, the Science in these cases is pretty bad either way as they mostly show statistical correlation - which proves nothing. The only RCT evidence is with animal models or other simulated conditions. Not very ethical to RCT humans for decades right?
That is simply not true. What you are having a hard time with is understanding that the causes of cancer and conditions that can create cancer are not the same as the conditions that may treat cancer. It is baffling that you do not understand this or see the importance of the difference between those two things.
Further, while population studies are not ideal, if we have well known mechanisms for how a disease can be formed and we have extensive amounts of population data to corroborate the effects, it is stronger evidence than a simple correlation study.
The eating fat is bad for you hypothesis has never stood up to scrutiny from experiments or data. It was true when cherrypicking the data in the 60s, but when other scientists try to replicate it, it just does not hold up. This has been the case for decades. If you trust the WHO, Breast foundations, Heart foundations or FDA for your health advice then that is your problem. I trust looking at the data myself and listening to people less involved with lobbyists.
It is more that eating saturated fat is bad for you. What is ironic is that you're claiming it is lobbyists that are saying that, but who are these lobbyists? The cattle, beef, and egg lobbyists are the ones that have funded and supported virtually any research they can to the contrary and the evidence still shows that excessive intakes of saturated fat is bad for you and especially bad for your heart health. It is not a particularly debatable subject. You haven't even provided one of these 'debunked' studies or a study to the contrary.
There is no truth here, only probabilities. I have read the evidence that has come my way and have put my faith in low carb being healthier than high carb.
Lol faith is a good word because you have no evidence and have posted no evidence to support your case.
If you want I can link you to all this evidence. There is tons. But I get the feeling you are only trying to win some sort of debate.
But you haven't and you just wasted a wall of text to continue with your dumbass argument.