On Wed, 9 Dec 1998, 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.

Before another vegetarianism war breaks out, I'd like to express
the opinion that the range of possible vegetarian diets is so
broad, as is the range of omnivorous diets, that I think it is
impossible to say that one is, in general, healthier than the
other.  Therefore we tend to polarize the discussion into
comparisons between *ideal* vegetarian and omnivorous diets.  The
problem with this move is that we really don't know what is ideal
and, in any case, we have no data.

There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that it is possible to
live a long and healthy life as a vegetarian.  Whether it is
*likely* is something that I can't answer.  There is also no
doubt in my mind that it is possible to have a vegetarian diet
that is nutritionally abysmal.  Exactly the same statements are
true of omnivorous diets.

If meat were necessary then *no one* would live to a healthy old
age without eating any.  We know that this is not so.  Vitamin
B-12 is necessary, and as far as I know there are no plant
sources of it, but you can get it from milk, and milk is not
meat.  But the fact that one can live, even to a ripe age,
without eating meat is no more an argument against eating meat
than is the fact that one can live to a ripe age without eating
vegetables an argument against eating vegetables.  These facts
tell us only that eating, or not eating, meat is neither a
necessary nor a sufficient condition for health and long life.

Todd Moody
[log in to unmask]