I am asking for help on clearing something up.  Forgive me if the answer is
a simple one that I've overlooked.

I can understand the logic behind Cordain's and others' description of the
superiority of wild game and grassfed beef to grainfed beef.  I understand
why a 2:1 or 3:1 ratio of Omega 3 fatty acids to Omega 6 fatty acids is a
good thing, that our ancestors fed on animals that shared similar Omega
ratios.

Here's what I cannot understand.  If the makeup of the fats we consume is
of primary importance, rather than a nice next step to the paleo eater
wanting to even further improve one's health, how on earth have my blood
cholesterol levels gone from barely tolerable to excellent during the same
time period that I've increased my consumption of fat, primarily in the
form of grainfed beef fat and the grease from uncured bacon, five-fold?  If
Omega ratios are of primary importance, I shouldn't be healthy, should I?

Well, I am healthy.  Undeniably, much healthier than before I started this
life-changing diet.  And my feeling is that, say, 90% of the benefits of
paleo eating can be gained by simply eliminating grains, dairy, etc and not
worrying about fat.  I believe that we're carrying over ideas, such as the
emphasis on low fat, that rely on the consumption of these non-paleo foods
for their efficacy.

I'd appreciate your thoughts on this.

Jim Swayze