You are missing a more important point.  The meat eaters ate less fruits,
probably less vegetables, and who knows what else.
OK, let's figure that the healthy food eaters ate lots of good things along
with more grains and such.  Sure, you can do pretty well when you are eating
really good things along with grains.
But I bet anything that the meat eaters were generally people who did not
care much what they ate as long as it tasted good.  Since we are already
told that eating a lot of meat is not good for you, then generally people
that eat a lot of meat do not care as much about diet as these people trying
to eat "healthy".  It follows that the bigger meat eaters were eating lots
of processed foods, lots of desserts, sodas, biscuits, and a lot less
vegetables.
This is a very skewed and slanted study, as they all are.  The only way to
do this study well would be to have meat eaters who are very concerned about
their diet, and compare to slight meat eaters or vegetarians who are very
concerned about their diet.

I almost died because of this kind of "scientific" thinking.

Paul
----- Original Message -----
From: "Cheyenne Loon" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2001 4:49 PM
Subject: Re: more 'meat causes cancer' studies'...


> Another one of those "meat causes cancer" news-articles.  This one was
> interesting because it so clearly shows the types of biases inherent in
> the study.  Note how "people who ate a lot of dairy products, who
> tended also to eat a lot of meat, had double the risk of both cancers",
> yet meat takes the blame.  Also - "The 'healthy' eating group -- 21
> percent of those surveyed -- also generally ate the fewest calories",
> but of course the grains rather than low-calorie approach gets the
> credit.
>
> http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20011220/sc/health_meat_dc_1.html
>
> Cheyenne
>
> ______________________________________________________
> Send your holiday cheer with http://greetings.yahoo.ca
>
>