Of course this doesn’t mean taking away your son’s X box and dumping him into a pre 1788 hunter gatherer way of living. Neither possible nor desirable. You could get even more absurd and ask exactly which one of his thousands of great-great-great-etc grandparents he should emulate. But in broad terms a family history of type 2 diabetes indicates a mismatch between the genes and recent lifestyle. I’d be encouraging your son to choose a diet something like what his ancestors thrived on (in terms of quantity and types of foods), and to maintain his physical activity well into middle age and beyond as his ancestors did. This is, of course, sound advice for just about any human, but is particularly important for anyone whose family history highlights a mismatch between genes and lifestyle. And with the growing availability of cheap, low quality food rich in fat and processed carbohydrate there are more and more of us encountering that mismatch.

Family history is an important if somewhat indirect predictor of the kinds of health problems one is likely to encounter, and of the kinds of preventive action we should focus on. One day we’ll all be able to read our own individual genetic codes and be able to do this much more precisely. The question is whether “race” is a useful “superfamily” concept for the targeting of this kind of health promotion. I take your point about the dangers of this, particularly given the ways the concept of race have been historically abused, including in this country.

But at the same time I reckon that understanding our genetic heritage, including the relatively small ways we differ as individuals, is hugely important. Not as a way of demonstrating “superiority or inferiority” – that’s not only ethical but also scientific garbage – but because it can teach us a lot about who we are and how we can make the best choices to live as well as we can. That is, create the kind of material and cultural world that suits us, and the genetic heritage we carry.

Rainier, you seem to have misunderstood my post.

"So how can you use this 'from the bush to domesticity' hypothesis?"

It's quite simple, really - diet and exercise are the keys to avoiding Type 2 diabetes, particularly in individuals who have inherited (i.e. genetic) susceptibility. Nobody's suggesting that Indigenous people need to revert to hunting and gathering, any more than people of non-Indigenous descent should.

However, a balanced diet consisting of whole foods with minimal fatty, sugary, starchy and processed ingredients would assist people predisposed towards Type 2 diabetes, as would regular amounts of exercise. Of course, such a diet and exercise regime would be good for just about everybody.

My 'hypothesis' explains why there is a higher prevalence of Type 2 diabetes among Indigenous peoples than in non-Indigenous populations. I'd be genuinely interested if anyone can offer a better one.

Thanks CJ and Snout,

My research suggests that the wrong kind of food does not cause diabetes. However, it may cause obesity and this is associated with people developing Type 2 diabetes which concurs with what you have pointed out – “such a diet and exercise regime would be good for just about everybody”.

Amazingly you would be surprised how many practicing anthropologists in this country know jack about this or the real facts behind race theory. No wonder Yorta Yorta didn't get up!

Thanks to you both for discussing this, I hope some of the luddites who infest this website browse through this thread and learn something.

GY, I’m having problems tracking down the transcript for that ABC radio national broadcast. I’ll keep trying.

You're welcome, Rainier.

"Amazingly you would be surprised how many practicing anthropologists in this country know jack about this or the real facts behind race theory."

Actually, I wouldn't ;)

Snout, I think you've got the wrong handle on evolution. According to Darwin it's caused by adaptation to circumstances. For your theory about diabetes to be correct using standard Darwinian theory those europeans who were less prone to type 2 diabetes would have had to have out-competed those who were more prone to it, so that as a percentage of the population they declined. Which presupposes an obesity epidemic with premature mortality at some earlier stage in Western Culture. As this didn't happen, I don't think the evolutionary theory stands up.

I suspect that most populations of human beings are equally prone to diabetes 2 if they get to be over-weight, eat too much starchy food and don't exercise. Some will be more prone, because of inherited traits, but this won't essentially be racially based.

I think that there is another mistake being made about aboriginal diet here too. The gathering part of the equation provided most of the calories, and a lot of the plants would have been high in starch, just like potatoes and rice are.

Graham, you’re assuming there that the selecting event is type 2 diabetes, which is not necessarily the case.

What I suspect is that there is a slight genetic variability in the ways individuals process carbohydrate. It is likely that at the time hunter gatherer ancestors settled into farming there was a shift in diet so that people relied more on grains to make up their staple diet. Those whose metabolism was best adapted to this new proportioning of food groups would have had a slight advantage over others in this new environment. Proneness to type 2 diabetes might be a modern manifestation of the two (or more) genotypes, but the selection pressure would have been applied by differing ability to thrive on the new diet, not proneness to diabetes.

I suspect, though, that even in Neolithic times actual diabetes may have been a significant factor in differential reproductive success, even without epidemics of obesity knocking people off before they could have kids: pregnancy alone is a very common precipitant of transient diabetes even in women who aren’t obese, and untreated, results in significant perinatal and maternal mortality. The transient diabetes of pregnancy is a pretty accurate predictor of later type 2 DM.

Traditional aboriginal diets may well have had a fair amount of carbohydrate, but almost certainly proportionally less of the more refined types (sugars especially) than either modern diets or even those of Neolithic farmers.