On Thu, 24 Jun 1999, alexs wrote:

> >This difference is one of degree, not of kind.  WE do have a
> >metabolic pathway for alcohol, notwithstanding differences in
> >capacity for detoxifying the stuff....
>
> Still don't see what makes human so unique in that aspect.
> Many other non-primate animals can consume alcohol without
> it killing tham outright. The toxic dose does vary.

Did I say humans were unique in that respect?

> >  We also create alcohol in
> >our own bodies, in small amounts.
>
> Especially in starch/sugar-rich diets, with yeasts and
> anerobic gut conditions doing the conversions. Sort of
> a personal whiskey mash.

We create alcohol even when we eat an apple.

> >There is no evidence that it is toxic in small amounts, and
> >considerable evidence that it is beneficial.
>
> Not really. In practice it absolutely is toxic (see
> genotype reference above); something doesn't have to
> kill you outright to be toxic.

I said there is no evidence that it is toxic in small amounts.
To be considered toxic, it would have to have demonstrable
adverse effects at those levels.

> >Complete abstinence
> >from alcohol is a significant risk factor for heart disease.
>
> Another misinterpretation of statistics; there is no
> causal relationship compellingly demonstrated.
>
> The French consume huge amounts of alcohol, yet also
> eat lots of fat, and they have less heart disease.
> Moron scientists outside France say, "well, fat=bad
> so the wine must be extra-beneficial or protective."

I'm afraid the misinterpretation of statistics here is yours.
The protective effect of alcohol is *not* based simply on the
French paradox.  The reasoning you have parodied above has
nothing to do with the evidence for that protective effect.

> >Whether it is essential for normal function is beside the point,
> >since the paleo diet is not limited to what is essential for
> >normal function (I.e., carbs in general are not essential, but
> >are part of paleolithic diet).
>
> A specious argument. Air pollution, dioxins, tetanus and
> birdshit are all part of one's environment, yet nobody advocates
> greater, intentional exposure to those.

Right.  No one does.  So why mention it?

> >So if the question is whether small amounts of alcohol should be
> >considered permissible on a paleo diet, it seems to me the answer
> >is yes.
>
> What a fine example of convoluted reasoning, evidently from
> one who likes consuming alcohol and builds a case for
> making it all okay, even tho it's clearly at odds with
> the Paleo outlook.

The case for *limited* consumption of alcohol on a paleo diet is
based on the simple facts that our bodies can handle small
(variable) amounts, since we produce it internally anyway, and
limited consumption of naturally fermented fruit was an option
for prehistoric people.  Wild grapes ferment on the vine,
although they quickly go to vinegar, which our bodies also handle
by means of a metabolic pathway similar to that for alcohol.  I
used to eat them when I was a kid, and well remember how quickly
they passed from ripe to vinegar.

> Drink all you want, but don't claim to be Paleo.

It depends on how much you want.

Todd Moody
[log in to unmask]