"Beckwith, Gary" wrote:
> I've wondered why many studies show that vegetarians are healthier and live
> longer than meat eaters.  This seems to go against the paleo perspective
> that meat is so necessary.  It's my own theory that it's the combination of
> eating meat AND grains that causes the problem. Perhaps meat aggravates
> gluten intolerance. If this was the case, taking the meat away would make
> the person healthier.  On the other hand, studies of modern day hunter
> gatherers who eat meat but no grains show cancer to be virtually
> non-existent.  It would be interesting if someone could do a study on
> vegetarian vs. paleo dieters.
> The results might be decidely different.
You also have to keep in mind that many studies are either politically
motivated or simply poorly done. In grad school I had to take 'Journal
Club' for 2 years. That's a class where we had to read a different
(assigned) study each week and then critique it in class (small group
of people, about a dozen or so). It is amazing how many studies are
poorly performed. And that was in a field relatively free of special
interest pressures (whereas nutrition is not). The thing that was most
surprising to me was the number of studies where abstract contradicted
the study itself. The body of the study and the conclusions would say
one thing while the abstract itself would say an opposite. I would no
longer be surprised to see a study where in the body and the conclusion
they would show that vegetarians are in worse health than meat eaters, yet
in the abstract they would recommend reducing meat consumption.

This is really a tangent. What I wanted to say in this message was that
studies on vegetarianism are often sponsored by various groups with a
bias towards it and the desire to show it as a preferred way of eating.
Such a study would almost invariably show this to be the case.

Ilya