As to salted meat maybe it doesn't prevent scurvy as fresh raw meat does because the L-ascorbic acid is quite completely destroyed by oxidation during the long period it may be stored before being eaten (salt is a means to preserve)

In contrast L-ascorbic acid in sauerkraut has been shown to remain perfectly intact because of the anaerobic preservation conditions.

As far as I know one way James Cook and other sailors prevented their crews from getting scurvy was embarking barrels of sauerkraut which is lacto-fermented cabbage that contains traditionally only a tiny amount of seasalt typically about 0.5%.

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sauerkraut

I've noticed that grain foods seem to be a substitute for meat. They have the same "mouth-feel," the same satiation (though short-lived), they are even dressed the same (with fat and salt).

Weren't the first agrarians primarily grain farmers? I remember that one of the oldest agrarian archaeological sites ever discovered contained a granary (9500BC, in Jordan).

I've always thought primitive grain farming must have been incredibly labor-intensive. I've always wondered why that took hold and spawned a cultural (and biological) revolution. It seems to me that it would have been much easier and nourishing (rewarding) to "specialize" in animals when the time came to settle down.

I have yet to find a genuine source of UK-based 100% pastured fowl. Almost all fowl in the UK is raised on a 100% grain-filled diet, with a few, like some geese, raised partially on a grass-fed diet.  It's always explained that, in order to lay enough eggs per season, even the geese must be fed some  grains.

It's perfectly true that scientists are sometimes studying just  processed meats. But if you check, many studies focus also on less processed meats, albeit mostly grainfed meats, and they show similiar, if slightly reduced results. Another point is that those studies focus specifically on the molecules created by the cooking process, such as advanced glycation end products, hetertocyclic amines. These molecules have been shown,in isolation to have extremely harmful effects - cooked grassfed meats also have these harmful molecules, no matter how full of healthier nutrients they are(and many such nutrients (eg:- omega 3)are significantly damaged by cooking, anyway). So, in some ways it would be much healthier to eat raw grainfed meat than to eat cooked, grassfed meats, as that would involve a dramatic drop in the intake of heat-created toxins.

The trouble is that Taubes seems to be just a self-publicist author, not a serious food-scientist. And many criticise his own reviews of studies.

Thanks for clearing that up.

I personally think life expectancy isn't much of a good indication of health. It's quite a mystery to me, looking at various people and seeing when they die or how long they live. My grandfather is 90, barely eats anything, and what he does eat is milkshakes, Chinese food (noodles), pasteurized juices and fruits. NO MEAT. He cannot eat hardly any meat because he has this problem with his throat closing up on him. He is stressed out and angry often because he owns a business and still goes there every day to run it, but isn't a good business owner. He gets no exercise and hasn't for decades. He gets almost no sun, and as far as fresh food I think it's almost nothing, occasionally some fresh fruit like grapefruit. Sometimes my mom makes him cooked eggs (grocery store eggs, nothing to write home about) and toast.

What I'm saying is that he is doing everything wrong in terms of what most on this forum, including most in mainstream health, thinks is wrong for longevity. Yet he's still alive, and actually gets up every day (7 days a week) to do stuff. Meanwhile plenty of people on paleo diets, or raw paleo diets (tribes people) die way earlier.

In fact I have yet to meet an old person who knows anything about paleo nutrition in my life. I remember one old person who talks about healthy diet, but her idea of that is stuff like diet soda. She's in her 80's.

I've been trashed too many times in the past by Fallon/Enig/Price supporters to want to comment on Cordain vs. Fallon, but I will say that I disagree with both on some things and agree with both on other things and I learned something from both, so why not check them both out (for both there are free Youtube videos, articles and interviews online that you can access before you decide what if any book to buy)? Surely it's better to get a variety of perspectives on a topic as important as nutrition and health.

Those studies that you talk about use very high levels of fructose (at least from all of the ones I have read). All of the studies that I have read also use isolated, unnatural, refined/crystalline fructose, which IS actually different than natural fruit sugar. In fact, fruit sugar, in it's natural form, should really be called laevulose (NOT fructose), where it is bound to other chemical compounds, canceling out any 'negative' qualities. When you isolate a chemical outside of it's natural biochemical sequence, it then becomes more like a drug, not a food, to the human body because the dependent qualities are lost. For example, we all know that benzoylmethylecgonine (cocaine) is a highly addictive substance. But why? Benzoylmethylecgonine is the alkaloid that is derived from coca leaves. This alkaloid is what makes the drug highly addictive. However, in the coca plant itself, this alkaloid is in it's natural state, where the addictive qualities are canceled out by other chemical compounds, therefore it is not recognized by your body as a drug like cocaine is. Go ahead, chew on some coca leaves. It's like drinking coffee and may southern American countries do that legally. It's nothing like loading up on cocaine. This is one of the most overlooked subjects in biochemistry and nutrition. People forget that not all harmful isolated chemicals are harmful in their original form of natural biochemical sequence. So, to say that laevulose (fruit sugar) is the same exact thing as highly refined, isolated, crystalline fructose would be wrong. That would be like saying cocaine is the same thing as coca or that heroine is the same thing as those poppy-seeds on top of that bagel in the market. Also, fruit is not the major source of fructose (laevulose) in the normal diet. Most people don't get much of it in it's natural form. In fact, only certain fruits are high in laevulose, while others are relatively low. Here is a list of foods that contain fructose (natural and refined), in descending order:

• High Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS)
• Table Sugar, which is a 50:50 combination of glucose and fructose
• Brown Sugar
• Maple Sugar
• Cane Sugar
• Molasses
• Honey
• Concentrated Fruit Juice
• Fruits
• Vegetables

As you can see, fruits and vegetables are at the very bottom. Now factor in the simple fact that this is laevulose, not refined, isolated, crystalline fructose. Completely different than HFCS in both quantity and biochemical sequence. There is also another important fact that the "all sugar is created equal" crowed misses: Unlike glucose, laevulose is an insulin-independent monosachharide. In a healthy person, fruit does not spike blood sugar violently, like table sugar does. So, in other words, stay away from refined, man-made fructose, but fruit in it's natural form is fine. I think one of the most important thing some raw paleo/meat eaters often overlook is the need for antioxidants in todays environment.