Geoffrey Purcell wrote:

>McDougall isn't suggesting that all meat-eaters  have such
>diseases, AFAIK, just that eating meat does lead to such
>illnesses. The number of studies damning meat-consumption
>is too vast to be just dismissed. And given that there are
>other studies which show that increasing animal-food-
>consumption in one's diet(and thereby, logically, lowering
>consumption of other(non-palaeo) foods) increases risk of
>mortality etc., that means that the evidence is rather difficult
>to dispute.

The number of studies supposedly implicating saturated fat in heart 
disease is vast as well, but that doesn't mean they can't be 
dismissed, after a little close scrutiny. I'm not aware of a vast body 
of valid studies damning meat consumption. If you know of even one, 
let's see it and see if it can be disputed. On the other hand, studies 
are truly piling up, more and more every year, showing the benefits 
for all health markers of consuming fewer carbs and more protein and 
fat. Which generally means more meat--cooked meat, mostly. In my 
personal, ongoing study (n-1), what is all the cooked meat supposed to 
be doing to me? (So I can watch out for the signs...seriously!) (And I 
hope we're not going to drag out and dust off Howell's enzymes or 
Kouchakoff's leukocytosis.)

cheers,
Hilary