Amadeus:
 >There are vegetarian' (I hate that clich=E9 as a oversimplification) health
 >topics, where vegetarians *in general* have better values than omnivores in
 >general. For example cholesterol, other blood lipids, several vitamins
 >(folate,B1,C,E,calcium).

Not because they are vegetarian.  And let us not forget that the role of
cholesterol as a reliable marker is hotly disputed.

 >In statistics vegetarians *in average* do better in obesity, coronary artery=
 >disease, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, and some types of cancer.

Again, not because they are vegetarian.

 >Average meat-eaters eat all their protein as meat, but it's still too low
 >in energy (desplite 20% fat in tissue). So they need additional food
 >energy - without protein. This usually comes in the form of desserts,
 >sweets, caces etc.. With the bad effects to expect- high insulin and low
 >vitamin.

Bad eating habits have nothing to do with eating meat.

 >Vegetarians need to derive their *protein* from plant sources, therefore
 >they *have to* take more of unmodified, whole plant sources.
 >Otherwise they would become unsuccesfull in the diet and stop it soon.

Since when did making bad food choices make a vegetarian change his ways. ;-)

 >Therefore they get more vitamins and vitaminoids.

To some degree if they eat more fruits and vegetables.

 >*This* is the real health benefit for beeing vegetarian in our society.IMO
 >And it's in the direction of paleo.

As usual you overlook that vegetarians eat more plant foods than they are
"designed" to eat with all the consequences that this can have.

 >Generally meat-eating facilitates to eat=
 >a lot if "crap-food" (like sweets) and this is the real disadvantage of not
 >beeing vegetarian, in general, in our society. I M O.

On the contrary if more people were vegetarians, we would have
an even greater problem with sweets.  I think it is no coincidence that
England whose population has one the highest consumptions of
sweets in the world also has one of the highest percentages of vegetarians.

 >Now of course you can find healthy vegetarians and unhealthy vegetarians,
 >because the question is not if you eat meat or not, the question is *what*
 >you select of the food items acceptable to you.

You can find vegetarians that are less unhealthy that is true.  I guess you
would fall into that category. ;-)

 >Likewise you find healthy meat eaters and many many very unhealthy meat
 >eaters.

I like how you use "many" only when describing meat eaters. :)

 >And what is necessary to be a healthy meat eater is exactely what
 >some paleo principles demand!

That is one of the few things we can agree on.

 >I think it's not reasonable to point only to the bad subjects of each
 >lifestyle or emphasise only the good ones.

I will grant you that as well.

 >A healthy diet is not the question to include meat or to avoid it.

Wrong.  There are no health reasons to omit meat from the diet
and many reasons to include it.

 >Both not.  IMO the necessary approach is to
 >1. avoid intoxicating situations (there are a lot) and then

True.

 >2. get reasonable amounts from what is necessary

Omitting meat from a health or paleo perspective is not "reasonable"
no matter how many times you repeat it.

 >If you don't have such a concentrate at hand (like vegetarians) you are
 >simply forced to eat vegetarian proteins. Most eat legumes, whole grains,
 >nuts, dairy or other, less dense plants simply in big amounts.

Which from a paleo perspective is the problem in the nutshell.

 >These food items (lets exclude dairy for now) taken amounts for sufficient
 >protein (RDA is some 55g) provide automatically a lot of vitamins and
 >minerals - and other beneficial stuff (phyto*s).

But they have their own set of problems as you well now.

 >In general, in the main statistic vegetarians score better - at least that's
 >what statistics (for general population) say. I've described my exlpanation
 >of this.

The standard omnivorous diet is so terrible scoring "better" means almost
nothing.

 >Think paleo - unmodified food helps the most.

If we are talking about your wide interpretation of paleo, the opposite
is often the case.

Ken:
 >>In both camps you are going to find people who take
 >>the high road and some who take the low road.

Amadeus:
 >That was the essence of what I wanted to say.

Your attempt to pass as "a reasonable vegetarian" will not get you far with
me. ;-)

Peter