Marilyn Harris wrote:

> 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?

Maybe, or maybe not. If Todd is right then we could well have started
consuming alcoholic ciders by the late paleolithic. We might also have been
deliberately consuming primitive wines. And we don't really know the most
appropriate amount of *any* paleo food. In this respect alcohol is no
different from any paleo food. For example is it best to consume 40% of
calories from animal foods? Or is 70% more accurate? The truth is of course
that no one can say for certain; the amount of animal foods consumed during
the paleolithic varied from region to region and from time period to time
period. 

Also as I mentioned in another post, women who choose to drink should
probably consume less than men, because for some reason men produce more of
the enzymes for its metabolism. One glass of wine with dinner hardly seems
like it should a problem for any woman who isn't an alcoholic, and two
glasses is probably fine for at least larger men. Loren Cordain recommends a
glass of wine with dinner in his book _The Paleo Diet_.


> 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?

As far as I know animals don't die from alcohol very often. The main point
is that if animals eat a given food in nature then it was likely consumed by
paleos also. Both birds and our closer relatives the mammals eat fermented
berries. And paleo foods are those foods we define as "healthful." Regular,
even if only seasonal, consumption by paleolithic humans is our selection
criteria for healthful foods. We can't have it both ways. 

As for the scary word "poison," just about anything is poisonous in enough
quantity, including ordinary drinking water. In case you didn't see it, Jens
here made an excellent analogy between alcohol and salt. It seems that both
are healthy and paleo in small amounts while also being "poisonous" and
non-paleo in large amounts.

> 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 don't think paleos drank enough to get seriously intoxicated, except
perhaps in primitive religious rituals (purely my speculation). But even
assuming the unlikely scenario that intoxication was a regular part of paleo
life, I don't think it would have been much of a problem in comparison to
the problems such intoxication causes moderns. It may even have made the men
more courageous in battle, in hunting and in the competition for mates (much
as it does today). 

The point here is that we cannot look at the modern problem of alcoholism
and map it into the paleolithic society. Paleolithic people did not need to
drive cars or balance checkbooks or attend college or show up at exactly 8
AM for work each morning. Society was not so structured and specialized as
it is now, and the need for higher intellectual functions was lower, so at
least from a social perspective alcohol intoxication would not have
registered as a serious problem. If intoxication was a regular phenomenon
then this would explain why it is such a serious problem in complex modern
societies. Obviously the genes associated with alcoholism were never
selected out of the human population. 
 
> Whether alcohol is actually good for you is not the question
> I am debating, but whether it is in fact, paleo. 

I don't believe we can debate one question without addressing the other. How
do we explain that 1) alcohol is a naturally occurring substance to which
our genes have been adapted for millions of years, and 2) the majority of
modern epidemiological studies show that moderate consumption of it is
healthful? I think the natural paleodiet explanation would be that alcohol
is healthful because it is paleo. 

No one would disagree with that argument if was about cucumbers. But people
get nervous when the subject is alcohol. Everyone remembers Uncle Harry who
got drunk each night and beat his wife. But Uncle Harry wasn't consuming a
glass of wine with dinner. He was skipping dinner and guzzling a quart of
whiskey.


> Wouldn't two glasses of wine a day boost carbohydrate/suger
> consumption and be a factor towards hyperinsulimia? 

Even the sweetest wines contain only about 1 or 2 percent sugar, and no one
is suggesting that sweet wines are better than dry wines. If it's a concern
then I would stick with dry wines. As for the second part of your question,
no, I don't think so. In fact Dr. Cordain tells us in his book that wine
with dinner is likely to increase insulin sensitivity. Insulin resistance is
what causes hyperinsulinemia.

> And does not alcohol kill brain cells?

In large amounts it almost certainly does, but as I've said I am not
advocated it (or anything else for that matter) in large amounts. For most
adults a glass of wine is not a lot of alcohol. It's typically about 88%
water. 

Also, just to be clear, I am not advocating the idea that people who don't
drink alcohol are not following a paleo diet. I am advocating only that
people who do choose to drink a little wine can do so without feeling that
they are breaking the diet. It's a choice.

-gts