Hello All,
 
Thank you for your responses to my original post about Nutrition Action.
 
I also took a look at the cspiscam site as well as the link it had to 
activistcash.com. I did find that their take on CSPI and its editor a little heavy 
handed though. 
 
I'm wondering is there a scientific nutrition publication (or web-site) out there 
that takes a less unbiased point of view? It seems every one has a bias and 
some axe to grind and that there are always some web-sites that present 
weird and incorrect viewpoints (i've kind of accepted that the world is not 
flat).   
 
With regards to the Nutrition article, besides the mention of the NIH-AARP 
diet, it does make some recommendations for cooking meat that seems to 
correspond with some things I've read from this list. For example, regarding 
cooked meat mutagens,they say that "consumers can avoid cooking meat at 
high temperatures and for a long time" and that the "more brown the meat is, 
the more likely that heterocyclic amines have formed on the surface". This 
seems to indicate that the closer to raw the meat is means fewer and fewer 
HCAs. 
 
They don't seem to find any faults with white meat - chicken,turkey and fish.
 
From some of the responses I get it as well as Cordain's book seems that 
grass-fed red meat is probably the best way to go. For me, the difficulty is 
both getting it (and it being certified kosher) and the expense.
 
Going raw personally would be difficult for me, both from a cultural point of 
view and also from a marital aspect (my wife would never go for it).
 
So far, I'm living more like Cordain recommends and I have lost weight and feel 
a lot better. I'm also taking an Omega 3 fish oil capsule a couple of times a 
day, eating flax bread and I experience no hunger symptoms. No breads, grains 
or dairy.

With regards to global warming and grass eating cattle I have some questions. 
I think there is one Youtube video of Gary Taubes where he was asked if, in a 
world population of 6 billion people it was possible to have people just eating 
meat. He doesn't really give a good answer to that. It seems that the reason 
Paleo man went to agriculture was that more people could live off a certain 
area of land and that only through agriculture could the planet support so 
many people. Would you agree? Is eating meat only an option for the elite of 
the world? 
Also, my wife has asked me... How come in Asian countries where so many 
people rely on cereals/grains that the perception is that many people there are 
healthier (and thinner) than those in the Western countries? 

Another issue I find a bit hard to get around is the whole idea of killing. I know 
that Paleo man had no qualms about that but of course, maybe they didn't 
have qualms about rape,slavery,murder and other things that may have gone 
down in history because of lack of laws, etc...

At least when you're eating a tofu-burger there was no violence involved in its 
production but maybe I'm too much of a bleeding heart left-leaning liberal ;) 
 
I know I have lots more to research and read about.
 
Another thing I'm a bit curious about... There seems to be some of you that 
only eat meat.
I'm wondering... Don't you miss certain food sensations? (like biting into a crisp 
apple, eating a luscious peach, a nice bagel with peanut butter, etc...)
 
Mike