gts;

But, paleolithic man would have eaten fruit only on a seasonal basis and
then, would only ingest *minute* amounts of alcohol nothing on the scale
that you propose. Wouldn't the equivalent of 2 glasses of wine a day require
a huge amount of rotten fruit to be eaten?

I am not sure why you consider observing animals being intoxicated as a
reason for man to follow suit? Would it not appear that the animal/bird was
poisoned and therefore the particular food to be avoided?

Could early man afford to be intoxicated even for a short time, given his
rather dangerous environment (sabre-tooth tigers and other large hungry
predators)?

I agree that some alcohol consumption in paleolithic times was inevitable
but not to the scale that you advocate and its ingestion made possible
genetically (as with all other mammals) probably for the reason to allow an
animal or man to avoid being poisoned.

Whether alcohol is actually good for you is not the question I am debating,
but whether it is in fact, paleo. Basically, I don't think so.

Wouldn't two glasses of wine a day boost carbohydrate/suger consumption and
be a factor towards hyperinsulimia? And does not alcohol kill brain cells?
That much alcohol drunk on a continual basis like that can't be good for you?

Marilyn




At 10:19 AM 6/14/03 -0400, gts wrote:
>> Maybe cheese and alcohol pass this test.  I don't think they do, but
>> I'm willing to admit the possibility.
>
>Just to summarize why I think modest consumption of alcohol is paleo:
>
>1) We have genes that encode for its metabolism. These genes did not evolve
>recently; they were inherited from our primate ancestors (according to Dr.
>Cordain). Furthermore these genes are present in all mammals.
>
>2) The majority of epidemiological studies into the subject show positive
>health benefits in modern humans from modest consumption of 1 or 2 drinks
>per day (increased longevity, lower risk of heart disease), but ill effects
>from consumption of large obviously non-paleo quantities (alcoholism,
>cirrhosis). These outcomes are exactly as they should be if small but not
>large amounts of alcohol are paleo.
>
>3) We can observe other animals in nature eating fermented fruits and
>berries and even becoming intoxicated by them. Early humans probably learned
>what to eat largely by watching other animals.
>
>4) Alcohol is produced in non-negligible amounts in the human gut whether we
>drink it or not.
>
>
>If modest alcohol consumption is *not* paleo then the facts above are
>inconsistent with paleodiet theory.
>
>If on the other hand modest consumption is paleo then paleodiet theory
>remains whole and is proven to be more robust than otherwise. I vote in
>favor of paleodiet theory.
>
>Obviously this is not to say that paleo people operated full-scale wineries
>or distilleries. They did not drink wine by the bottle. It is only to say
>that there was a modest amount of alcohol in their diets. The source may
>have been seasonal consumption of fermenting fruits and berries, or,
>perhaps, as Todd surmises, it may have been from the deliberate making of
>simple ciders in bowls as might have come about through experimentation with
>soaking foods in general.
>
>Cheese is in a completely different category, in terms of the evidence
>for/against, and for that reason I think it is misleading and unfair to
>consider cheese together with alcohol in the same argument. It is pure
>speculation that humans should be genetically adapted to cheese consumption.
>There is no empirical evidence to support that conjecture. By contrast there
>are at least four solid items of empirical evidence, as listed above, which
>support the theory that humans are adapted to modest alcohol consumption.
>
>This idea that modest alcohol consumption is paleo draws some criticism
>because of the modern social stigma attached to alcohol abuse. However abuse
>of alcohol would have been almost impossible in paleo times; they did not
>have large-scale wineries and breweries and distilleries. No one here is
>suggesting that alcohol abuse is paleo.
>
>-gts
>
>
>