I took a look at eatwild.com.  Interesting site but it seems that on the
nutritional benefits page, it really emphasizes the fact that grass-fed is
much leaner than feedlot meat. It also states that grass-fed is higher in
vitamin E and contains 2-6 times more omega 3 than grain-fed.  But the charts
show that total vitaman E and Omega 3 content is still pretty darn low.  I
think that this is why the site emphasizes the leanness of the meat and how
you will be consuming so many less calories if you eat grassfed.  Why is this
a good thing??? I thought we've discussed to death the fact that in a true
paleo diet, the fattiest parts of the meat (even lean animals contain fatty
areas) would have been prized if not for their taste (which is reason enough
in my book), than for their ability to give energy when eaten.  I find myself
dumping lots of olive oil on grassfed meat to make it taste better and to
help me feel satiated.  If one is concerned about vitamin E -- one could just
eat a few nuts.  Regarding the Omega-3 business, one tiny sardine will get
you more Omega 3 than a big portion of grassfed.  But if one actually prefers
the taste of lean meat, then grass-fed is the way to go.  I'm just not
convinced that as a whole, the alleged benefits are so tremendous.  I've been
paying more for it because it's hormone-free, but after Andrew's good  point
about the "insulin pie", I'm wondering if I've been wasting my money.