I am still waiting to see any data that indicates that meat enhances more than hinders health. Meat is an outstanding source of complete protein, but there is no evidence whatsoever that it enhances health more than it hinders it.
Paleolithic Man was hardly that healthy. The average lifespan was 28 years. Compare this to the average lifespan of primarilly vegetarian/fruitarian peoples like the Hunza from Nepal or the Georgians, where centenarians are a dime a dozen, and you will understand.
Sure, the skeletons of Paleolithic Man shows strong bones and healthy teeth, and the marks of perfurations on their bodies indicates they died more from wear and tear from hunting/warring than from artherosclerosis, diabetes. However, the reason why they had strong bones and teeth was not because they ate lots of meat, which is actually bad for the Calcium deposits of the bones, but because they didn't eat refined sugar, which is much worse than meat as a causal factor in ostheoporosis. The reason why they didn't have heart disease is not because they ate meat, but because they didn't eat refined sugar and flour, which raises blood tryglyceride levels far more than than the fat in meat. Conclusion: Paleolithic Man was relatively healthy because of the foods he didn't eat, not because of the foods he ate. If Paleolithic Men stopped with the meat and ate a diet of raw fruits and vegetables, their health would be as far superior to what they had as their health is compared to someone who gets most of their calories from refined sugar and flour. The data is incomplete which leads us to flase assumptions and conclusions.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
