Jim wrote:

> Your article might back up your earlier contention
> that drinking is only
> good for a subsection of the population.  I didn't
> see in the article how
> to determine if one has "slow" or "fast" genes.  Do
> you know how?

A genetic test would determine it but there is no
reason to think such a test is really necessary. The
moderate consumers as a group were healthier than both
the non-consumers and heavy consumers, regardless of
their genes.

The point is that those moderate consumers with the
"slow" gene were the healthiest among the healthy,
with even lower risk of death and heart disease than
the other healthy moderate alcohol onsumers. This
indicates there is a genetic reason that moderate
alcohol consumption leads to health benefits: for some
reason humans are adapted to it, some more than
others.

This thread title is a misnomer, by the way, and
appears to me like an unfair attempt by you to make it
appear there is really substantial research to support
your views.

The study from your other thread can be properly cited
as a study that "calls into question" the benefits,
but this theory to explain the french paradox is
nothing more than a theory. It remains to be seen
whether the effects of the French diet will really
"catch up" to the French as this author contends, and
even if the effects do catch up to them there will be
no reason to blame it only on their wine consumption.
This article is about the French diet in general,
which includes other controversial elements besides
wine.

-gts