----- Original Message -----
From: "Wally Day" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Monday, October 28, 2002 2:06 PM
Subject: Re: new world foods


> >Since the Australian Aborigines have only been there for about 40,000
> years,
> >all the usual arguments about "evolving" with a diet would answer this
> last
> >question - they haven't had time to adapt.
>
> Huh? Adapt to what? First, we have no clue what their 'average' carb
intake
> was over the past 40,000 years - they may have adapted from a higher to a
> lower carb intake as far as we know. And, as Todd pointed out, it depends
> on what you consider to be 'high carb' (high sugar). If it has been medium
> to low all this time, then of course no adaptation needed to take place.

My use of verbs may have been poor. I was speaking to the oft-stated premise
that the "paleo" diet was what early humans had "evolved" on, and this is
the "excuse" for concluding that New-World foods are not "paleo."

If that premise is accepted, then whatever the Aborigines ate 40,000 years
ago, or what they may eat now, is just as "not paleo" as New-World foods.

I don't understand why this is such a difficult thing. The same argument can
be applied to any foods other than those found in the parts of Africa where
we "evolved."

If, on the other hand, 40,000 years is time enough to "adapt" to new foods,
as in the case of Australia, then it must be so for the New World as well.

I am looking for some consistancy in what is said about "new" foods on this
list.

Tom Barber