> >I don't think that being attracted to sweetness would be explained by a
> lack of sweet foods, unless sweetness was associated with some
> physiological or survival benefit.  Aboriginals would, I guess, out of
> habit, have generally associated energy replenishment with their animal
> >food intake.
>
> I think you are absolutely right and this was what I should have been more
> clear about in my post.  Sweetness is usually (not alwys) an indicator of
> useful energy and hence its prevalence IMHO.

Bit of a naive question: We've got metabolic pathways which process sugars
quicker than other carbohydrates leading to short term effects (`sugar
rush'), and (by definition :-) ) sweet things taste different from
non-sweet things. Both of these effects are reasonably pleasant and when
strictly moderated by a natural scarcity of sugar dense plants -- and
certainly without the modern `bred for sweetness' fruits -- don't have any
deleterous effects on the individual. Is there any reason to believe that
there was a strong evolutionary pressure causing an interest in sweet
substances as opposed to there being no physiological/survival pressure
against people with sweet tooths?

___cheers,_dave_________________________________________________________
www.cs.bris.ac.uk/~tweed/  |  `It's no good going home to practise
email:[log in to unmask]  |   a Special Outdoor Song which Has To Be
work tel:(0117) 954-5250   |   Sung In The Snow' -- Winnie the Pooh

-----------------------------------------------------------------
The FAQ for Evolutionary Fitness is at http://www.evfit.com/faq.htm
To unsubscribe from the list send an e-mail to [log in to unmask]
with the words SIGNOFF EVOLUTIONARY-FITNESS in the _body_ of the e-mail.