Could it be that the reason alcohol seems to have
health benefits is because some populations have
adapted to it? Could it be that a similar study on a
*non*-adapted population would not show any benefits?
Has there been any such study?





6/10/2003 2:00:02 PM, gts <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>Jens Wilkinson wrote:
>
>> Isn't the argument on alcohol a bit the same as what
>> could be argued about salt? It's clear that paleo
>> people consumed some amount of alcohol from fruit,
>> just as they consumed salt from animal and fish meat,
>> etc.
>
>Yes, I think that is an excellent analogy. We are adapted to salt just as we
>are adapted to alcohol. Both are healthy in moderation. Unfortunately both
>are also unhealthy in excess.
>
>Numerous studies have appeared in the last few years showing health benefits
>from moderate alcohol consumption, defined usually as one or two drinks per
>day. Moderate drinkers appear to have longer life-expectancy and lower risk
>of cardiovascular disease than non-drinkers. Those who think alcohol is
>inherently unhealthy and non-paleo need to explain the outcomes of these
>studies.
>
>-gts
>
>