Evelyn McWilliams wrote:

>Todd Moody wrote:
>"Tropical fruits and tubers would have been available.  These are good
>sources of starch and sugars.  Yams are native to Africa, and  waterlily
>roots are found in many places around the world for example.  Here's an
>interesting web page on the use of the latter, by Australian aborigines:"
>
>I wonder, then, why Australian aborigines have higher susceptibility to diseases like diabetes, etc when arguably their diet was always high in sugars and starches?
>
>Wouldn't they have adapted metabolically to sugars and starches?
>
>

I think a lot depends on what you consider "high" in sugars and
starches.  There are people on this list who consider 60g of carbs a day
to be a high-carb diet.  My guess is that the carbs available to the
aborigines were and are a substantial part of their diet, I doubt that
they rise to the level of what I would consider "high-carb."  My
personal cut-off point for that is about 150g/day, which would still be
somewhat less than what the brain and red cells would use each day.  But
compared to a "civilized" diet of baked goods, cereals, sweets, and
alcohol, even 150g a day of wild tubers and fruits is a very modest
level of carb consumption.  Suppose the average caloric intake for an
adult aborigine is about 2000 kcal.  If someone ate 100g of carbs, that
would be 400 kcal, or 20% of energy from carbs.  That's still pretty
low-carb by most people's standards.  And it's a far cry from pizza and
Foster's lager (sigh).

Todd Moody
[log in to unmask]