>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.

Hi gts;

I would say that the consumption of alcohol would have taken place on a
trace-amount level basically since ripened fruit is only available during a
very short time of the year, and the actual amount of fruit rotted to the
degree so as to cause fermentation and not moldiness (as pointed out by
jean-claude) would occur during a fairly small window of time. Not enough
time for it to become a common foodstuff.

I don't think that the enzyme (is it an enzyme?) is necessarily an indicator
that early man had drunk wine-like potions but possibly a protection against
a potentially poisonous substance given that we (paleo people and other
animals) would eat in less than the most sanitary conditions.

Again, though I am not arguing that a glass of wine a day is not good for
you - it very well might be, but whether it is truly paleo. I don't think it
is and that it is, at best, a trace "food". Although we really don't know
whether early man took advantage of this harvest and produced ciders.
However if early man was a hunter he would be contantly moving from one
location to another - which tends to argue against any sort of storage.

>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.

However, is the gene simply a protective device conferred on mammal/man
(because of natural, unsanitary conditions), rather than a tool permitting
and encouraging ingestion of alcoholic-based foods (which you seem to be
arguing)?

What actually is this gene? Does it produce an enzme?

>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.

I personally think that a little wine is good for you - or at least that's
what current thinking seems to indicate - and for the strict follower of the
paleo diet, I would recommend only an occasional glass every few weeks or
so. Of course I am no expert :-)

Marilyn
----------------------------
[log in to unmask]
FAX: 1-508-437-5514
----------------------------