I tend to agree with you, Brad. Some of the main claims for grass-fed
beef's benefits are that it is higher in n3, lower in n6, and lower in
saturated fat. But I think if you look at the numbers, you may find
the differences are small. I figure I get so much n3 from Alaskan
salmon that the amounts in beef, whether grain-fed or grass-fed,
become irrelevant. I also figure my n6 intake is so much less than it
would be on SAD, because of my avoidance of grains and vegetable oils
(other than olive) that the small amount in grain-fed beef wouldn't be
a problem at all. I'm also not worried about the saturated fat. I tend
to follow Eades, Taubes, and Atkins more than Cordain, on the
saturated fat issue. That said, we tend to get grass-fed organic beef
and lamb from a local farmer who has a self-serve freezer in his barn
(when we don't raise the animals ourselves, that is).

On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 9:50 AM, Cooley,
Brad<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> In my reading of anthropological literature, hunters have targeted old, young,
> and sick animals as easier to kill, just like other predators.  I have always been
> a little perplexed why people believe that "grain-fed, sick" cattle are somehow
> unhelathy to eat.  I agree that grain-fed meat has a different nutritional
> profile than grass-fed, but I question the relative health benefits (recognizing
> that some people do not tolerate grain-fed meat).  I eat mostly grain-fed
> meat and have never been healthier.
>