You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Some people (not you) are pushing an agenda that has years of practice of dismissing the obvious and fact whilst presenting fake fact as fact.
Who? On this thread?
if someone tells you its not an image barrier they just want to do something else do you need to question why ???
The point about the image barrier is that it's subversive, and you don't know it's happening. Obviously some people are aware, but many aren't. Many many examples of this all through life.
saying how it is all because of white male privelidge
Oh, is it because mentioning white male privilege makes you feel got at, as a white male? Tip 4 - it shouldn't, it's not a criticism.
And um, when I suggest it might be a good idea to ask women who don’t ride bikes why they don’t ride… that’s because I don’t I understand because apparently those women don’t have an opinion worth listening to.
I don't think anyone's suggesting we shouldn't ask women why they don't ride (obviously). It's about understanding how people and society operate.
Honestly mate you take every point and extrapolate it to the most bizarre conclusions and then get aerated about it. No wonder you're so angry all the time if that's how you see the internet.
Oh, is it because mentioning white male privilege makes you feel got at, as a white male? Tip 4 – it shouldn’t, it’s not a criticism.
Nope its because people are pedalling fiction as fact to meet an agenda.
Who? On this thread?
Did you read the Ontario article... ???
The point about the image barrier is that it’s subversive, and you don’t know it’s happening. Obviously some people are aware, but many aren’t. Many many examples of this all through life.
I've answered this countless times. (As has Vickipea in her way. )
Certainly for most teenagers (which is when most drop out of activities they have been coerced into) the image barrier is pure and simple what your mates are doing.
This is 2021 ... every child in my county gets a chance to ride bikes. I know the CC schools cycling coordinator and I really don't believe she is trying to bias boys or anyone else.
My house / home office is directly across from one of the places she uses for kids cycling proficiency... and from what I see from my window I don't see more boys than girls.
If they don't want to participate or drop out when they are teenagers or later then so what??
From my perspective I don't really care how many people like cycling, yoga, football or anything else so long as they are happy.
People have limited leisure time and if they enjoy what they do then why try to drag them off to try something else they feel they won't like?
“ Honestly mate you take every point and extrapolate it to the most bizarre conclusions and then get aerated about it. No wonder you’re so angry all the time if that’s how you see the internet.”
This is so true. Steve, most of us have given up reading your replies, as they’re like a weird stream of angry tangential consciousness at best.
This is 2021 … every child in my county
Is this county Dreamland?
Is this county Dreamland?
No just the real world, try it sometime.
OK, so this thread is asking why there aren't more girls riding bikes. The concensus seems to be that it is due to social conditioning amongst other things. The popular solution to this is to have positive examples available showing girls having fun on bikes.
Now, if I were a girl (sorry girls, I hope this is not patronising or offensive in any way. It is not meant to be.) and I had the slightest inkling that I might like to ride mountain bikes but was worried that it was not for women. I would probably have a look on t'internet for "girls riding mountain bikes" and ooh look! Loads of videos showing positive images of girls having fun on mountain bikes. All right some of those thumbnails do seem rather exploitative but you get my drift.
Problem solved, expect to see a whole load more girls ripping up the trails sometime soon.
No just the real world, try it sometime.
So in this county you live in every child has access to a bike, that's pretty amazing where is it. I mean in some counties kids don't have access to enough food, so yours is doing great. In other places kids don't have access to safe and appropriate housing....I might move where do I go?
^ @molgrips - Who’s ‘we’? Lots of diverse opinions on here. Assuming a collective just feeds into SteveXTC’s fantasy of legions of politically motivated menifeminazis who are bullying girls and women into liking messing about on bikes.
Which reminds me, who are all these dead strawpersons scattered on the floor? Seems they were slain without any struggle whatsoever...😉
OK, so this thread is asking why there aren’t more girls riding bikes
Some contributors are. But not the thread. I was referring to my childhood experience. It’s in the title. I also didn’t write the OP as a question, more of a statement and a video share. It’s been interesting and I’ve enjoyed reading of some other experiences. The strawman battles and posturing tho? not so much tbh 🙁
My local road club have got loads more female members by having women only rides, I questioned why they needed, to my partner as she runs them but fair play they are really popular. So obviously us blokes are providing some sort of barrier.
anagallis_arvensis
My local road club have got loads more female members by having women only rides, I questioned why they needed
Good question, but what was the answer?
According to my road club it was mainly being concerned that they wouldn't be able to keep up/be good enough on a mixed spin.
A few didn't want to be oogled.
A few didn't want to be talked down to.
Good question, but what was the answer?
Well my partner says it's due to just being intimated by male dominated club, but before you go you don't know what they are like and she went along to normal club runs (I don't go on them as I ride Saturdays and couldn't go with her due to childcare). It's hard to grasp for me why it's be a problem. It does suggest that there are unseen barriers to women though.
anagallis_arvensis
Well my partner says it’s due to just being intimated by male dominated club
That's not hard to understand.
Saccades
A few didn’t want to be oogled.
A few didn’t want to be talked down to
If that's what happens then it's not surprising they don't want to ride with the men.
If that’s what happens then it’s not surprising they don’t want to ride with the men.
The point being women only rides attract new riders who have not tried the club before. It's what they think it will be like that's the issue. Most do a few women only rides before trying and carrying on with regular club runs.
Well my partner says it’s due to just being intimated by male dominated club
Intimated sounds very wrong!! I meant intimidated.
Just spotted this
However, royal household staff did not consider a bike to be a suitable form of transport for a future member of the Royal Family and she was ordered to stop riding it.
https://road.cc/content/news/princess-dianas-shame-bicycle-sold-ps44000-282905
So in this county you live in every child has access to a bike, that’s pretty amazing where is it. I mean in some counties kids don’t have access to enough food, so yours is doing great.
Don't mention some have horses, please don't mention horses.
OK, so this thread is asking why there aren’t more girls riding bikes
Some contributors are. But not the thread. I was referring to my childhood experience. It’s in the title.
Sorry about that, it seems to have gone on for so long that I forgot how it started.
Don’t mention some have horses, please don’t mention horses.
Yeah, I'm [i]really[/i] sorry I started that..!
I guess I’m not much help in suggesting why more women don’t ride mountain bikes (though there are plenty on road bikes round here). I don’t tend to be put off by male-dominated activities, I haven’t found that them intimidating or that they talk down to me. Sure, you do encounter the occasional alpha-male (and alpha-female) but not whole groups of them (then they wouldn’t be the alpha!)
According to my road club it was mainly being concerned that they wouldn’t be able to keep up/be good enough on a mixed spin.
A few didn’t want to be oogled.
A few didn’t want to be talked down to.
With the possible exception of the middle one those seem to be the same as males though
(I say possible as a few of my regular riding buddies might)
I went on a "no drop casual" ride back about a year ago. (Swinley)
I got talked down to for what I was wearing (jeans and t-shirt) and my cheap HT by someone riding a Race spec carbon mega and full body armour round Swinley.
The person who'd organised it spent the entire ride dropping a couple of noobs, waiting till they caught up and then setting off before they had chance to recover. I was quite happy to keep back and let them go their own pace and stay back with them to let them have a breather after catching up. One of them gave up 1/2 way round ..
As it happens (or perhaps there is a reason) I still ride with both of them quite often (the one who gave up and his mothers as well and neither of them has been back out with the guy who wanted to drop them (perhaps there is a reason).
I'm gravel curious enough to go for a fireroad ride with the other riding buddies BF who doesn't want to ride singletrack. (erm cos its just not for him, he tried and doesn't like it) and one of his female work colleagues who we meet at the pump track/DJ as well.
This doesn't seem to be a gender issue as much as what happens on a "mixed spin" or "no drop" ride.
Incidentally I also know a couple of competitive women riders who do the same...
I might not be a riding god but I could have dropped the organiser any time I wanted... its just my expectation of a "no drop" ride doesn't mean waiting for them to gloat in the car park and say how long I've had to wait ...
Vickipea
Sure, you do encounter the occasional alpha-male (and alpha-female) but not whole groups of them (then they wouldn’t be the alpha!)
Very well explained!!!!
idiotdogbrain
Yeah, I’m really sorry I started that..!
You also brought up the assertion men only eat meat cos its manly...
p7eaven
Who’s ‘we’? Lots of diverse opinions on here. Assuming a collective just feeds into SteveXTC’s fantasy of legions of politically motivated menifeminazis who are bullying girls and women into liking messing about on bikes.
Which reminds me, who are all these dead strawpersons scattered on the floor? Seems they were slain without any struggle whatsoever…😉
The problem is you are unable to accept why most people don't ride bikes and it seems you only want to hear the fem-splaining that ignores every relevant fact like the disgusting Ontario article posted.
The people that write this tripe may or may not believe it ... but its hard to believe they actually do believe when they make so much effort at falsifying facts.
An example is trying to extrapolate men who ride horses in the UK to Registered Olympic discipline competitors internationally. Posting that is simply trying to misrepresent numbers.
OK, so this thread is asking why there aren’t more girls riding bikes
So your OP aside ...
Every reason deliberately ignored in the Ontario article.
Umm, they get cars ... they develop other interests, they start work and have no free time...
The Ontario article tries to compare women doing outdoors activity in Ontario to the UK ... conveniently forgetting to mention the population density amongst other gross differences all under the guise of a title "Outdoor Adventure in the UK is a Male Privilege"
Most importantly it references similar fake papers that have ignored and constructed evidence as fact ... this is no different to Flat Earth.
Like flat earth challenge a precept "like gravity doesn't exist" and either "you don't understand do you because you have been socially conditioned" or "you wrote loads of bring words (and formulae) I refuse to read.
So in this county you live in every child has access to a bike, that’s pretty amazing where is it. I mean in some counties kids don’t have access to enough food, so yours is doing great.
I have a 20" in the shed, the sole purpose I keep it is to lend to the schools cycling...
“I don’t tend to be put off by male-dominated activities”
Although I’m male and participate in loads of male dominated activities, I definitely find new situations less intimidating when there are women present. And I’m not lacking in confidence in talking to new people or easily physically intimidated...
Regarding horse-riding, growing up in the countryside and moving in circles where people did ride, I recall considering it rather a girly thing.
In my 20s my girlfriend coaxed me into learning and it turns out I really enjoy it, especially heading out into the relative wilds on multi-day trips. Before we had kids I used to alternate MTBing and horse-riding each week, but now the horse-riding is on hold because it’s much more logistically complex (commuting on a horse or just dumping it in the garage when dirty, aren’t really options).
Regarding horse-riding, growing up in the countryside and moving in circles where people did ride, I recall considering it rather a girly thing.
No, not horses again. You do realise not everybody can afford a horse don't you and that is an important factor in this discussion for some obscure reason.
My cycling group started women only rides and now have several women coming along to those.
A couple of reasons they chose the women's only ride rather that going out with our slower mixed group were
- perceived themselves as not quick enough
- less competitive environment
My girls have said the same with the skateboard club they go to - at the girls only night the atmosphere is much more supportive of each other rather than showing off / competitive - I guess the same is true for mtb.
You do realise not everybody can afford a horse don’t you and that is an important factor in this discussion for some obscure reason.
Its hardly "not everybody" and along with "living in a city" the over riding reason most people don't ride a horse as a leisure activity.
Worrying about exact gender split in an elite hobby few can afford illustrates just how pointless it is worrying who chooses to do what or not do what and why...
If you go and ask 1000 people who don't ride horses scattered around the UK respecting population density the absolute overriding reasons are likely to be cost and where they live.
If only the other hand you go and ask 1000 people do you see riding horses as a male or female activity you may get a different answer... but since most of them will never have the opportunity its a pointless question as its not what's stopping most people riding horses.
Same as other spurious assertions such as men eat meat cos its manly... quite frankly never heard a man say that before this thread... but then that man was a vegan.. and are driving their religion/agenda yet somehow knows all the men who eat meat do so "cos its manly" but don't ask us cos we'z social conditioned aint uz so our opinion doesn't count.
See, I said don't mention horses...
at the girls only night the atmosphere is much more supportive of each other rather than showing off / competitive – I guess the same is true for mtb.
I would say that is definitely true of MTB and it generally portrays as a very lads environment. The side of it I dislike.
Not sure that is true for other cycling though and it doesn't always have to be a group activity but guess many people need a group to join to start with.
kerley
See, I said don’t mention horses…
Exactly as you don't want anything to show how pointless trying to balance participation in a sport based on gender is.
I wonder if safety is a concern to women? We've discussed a lot how women don't feel safe. If you are a runner you can go around your neighbourhood on your own and there (or can be) are plenty of other people about, and the roads have plenty of cars. Road cycling would be likely to involve much quieter roads and MTBing gets you out into the middle of the woods with no-one around.
trying to balance participation in a sport based on gender is.
Not trying to do that. How many times Steve?
Molgrips
Not trying to do that. How many times Steve?
Once again I'm not saying YOU are....
Did you read the Ontario paper ???
When YOU are told YOU eat meat as a man because you are socially conditioned to do you not think there is a religion/agenda behind this or does that just slip by?
Ffs Steve, are you damn well deliberately trying to misread what people type..!?
I have not once, not ever, said men only eat meat because its manly. What I said was that there was a societal construct that perceived eating meat as manly/masculine, which has been borne out by numerous studies.
Read people's posts properly before deciding to spew out your ridiculous stream-of-consciousness posts and people might, just might, not think you're a complete and utter weapon, and might listen to what you have to say. 🤦♂️
Ffs Steve, are you damn well deliberately trying to misread what people type..!?
Don't feed it is my approach.
Well, what if I feed it a vegan meat-substitute..? 🤔😂
Also: https://experiment.com/u/zPWRw
Tl:dr
Finding:Men routinely incorporate red meat to preempt the negative emotional states caused by threats to masculinity.
idiotdogbrain
I have not once, not ever, said men only eat meat because its manly. What I said was that there was a societal construct that perceived eating meat as manly/masculine, which has been borne out by numerous studies.
By numerous studies do you mean ones that totally forgo science and then reference each other?
There are numerous texts written by vegans
https://viva.org.uk/health/the-evolution-of-a-vegan/
Which are simply a set of assertions ignoring the evidence.
It's 2021 though... you can eat what YOU like ... but at least think before spreading what is essentially dogma.
But for example dogma like this is actually dangerous...
We’re wheat-eaters, not meat-eaters
Pure speculation here but Western society seems to be looking to replace Christian dogma.... and for example replacing the dogma of original sin... perhaps as humans that is something we seek?
But for example dogma like this is actually dangerous…
Really..? Do go on...
but at least think before spreading what is essentially dogma.
Does that come as a paste and is it any good on toast?
Finding:Men routinely incorporate red meat to preempt the negative emotional states caused by threats to masculinity.
Yes exactly like that ....
Quasi science... as a scientist my first questions are:
Where is the questionnaire they claim to have used?
Who determines "threats to masculinity" vs "threats in general"?
Where is the control of men subjected to threats vs specific threats to masculinity to show eating red meat isn't just a response to threats... and how do we know women wouldn't also respond the same way ???
I have no issue starting off determining if preferential eating red meat is a response the threats ... undertaken as a scientific study not a quasi-science agenda. There are after all proper scientific studies showing both males and females subjected to extreme stresses have a tendency to have intercourse...
As follow-up questions ...
A total of 140 male participants with a mean age of 30 years living in the United States were recruited to participate in a survey, purportedly to evaluate an online pizza ordering system.
How were these men selected?
What was their BMI?
Why weren't they offered other options than pizza including other vegetarian or vegan ones?
Again its scientifically documented that people comfort eat ... and from the description this masculinity threat: threat vs. non‑threat just sounds like making people feel bad about themselves.
One topping set had only red meat toppings available (allowing masculine identity restoration: steak, meatballs, bacon, and pepperoni), while the other set only had vegetable toppings available (inhibiting masculine identity restoration: eggplant, spinach, broccoli and artichoke hearts).
So one of those to a non vegetarian sounds like something I'd comfort eat and the other I'd select because I thought I should select the healthiest option.... in particular badly cooked aubergine, spinach and broccoli... sounds potentially disgusting...
What dogma am I spreading!? That we shouldn't eat meat? I haven't said that anywhere. I simply pointed out that there is a strong social construct that associates the consumption of meat with masculinity - and there are innumerable (non-biased) studies that show this.
There is also a strong social construct that riding bikes, amongst other sporting activities, are also more masculine, and thus the women who do participate are the ones that either a) rebel against this, or b) are shown role models that defy it. Which is the whole point of this damn thread!
nickc
Really..? Do go on…
What's the word limit?
whatever you like. But be specific, explain why 1. it's dogma, and 2. to whom, and why is it dangerous.
Really..? Do go on…
To start off they choose a food that we most specifically didn't evolve to eat...
Then you get evangelists trying to poison people deliberately just to prove we did.
I've lost count of the number of times a vegan place has tried to poison me with platitudes like "it's organic though"... or "well its only a been in the same toaster/blender"
I actually quite like a lot of vegan food but the risk isn't worth it.
It's ironic really ... if I asked them to cook some sausages in the same pan/griddle as the vegan food they'd be horrified yet they will assure me there is no wheat in something that's been in the same pan/blender/toaster/griddle and when pressed fall back on "but this won't hurt you it's organic".
It was so easy to know who you were as a real man before the cucked male soyboys* and vegan feminazis began painting us as insecure meat-identitarians.
That was back in 2008. Imagine such an advert in 2021? I know right? You can’t, because today it would be CANCELLED by the cucked feminista vegan post neo marxist soyboys
(thought I’d join in and have a go at straw-manning there. Find it feels cheap, easy and dirty but ultimately unfulfilling 🙁. SteveXTC, how do you keep it up? Don’t tell me, meat, right? 🤫. Oops, there it went again! #puttingthemaninstrawman)
*One of the most ‘successful’ and popular memes of the 21st Century
Let’s ask Google:
Nope. No notable differences. Go back to sleep, veggieveganvaggie feminist agenda. There is no meat is mainly manly agenda.
Etc.
Seriously, SteveXTC? Do you not even know when you’re strawmanning, or are you #deeptrolling?
Nope. No notable differences.
Erm yes there is but it's like it went entirely over your head...
A significant number of the foods in the upper search promote vaginal/feminine health.. whereas I see no penis/mens health in the lower one.
How does salad promote vaginal health? Asking for a friend...
To start off they choose a food that we most specifically didn’t evolve to eat…
you're not off to good start.
Lapierrelady
How does salad promote vaginal health? Asking for a friend…
I truly have no idea not if it even does.
Possibly more importantly do the people who are promoting it or are they selling a book, service?
Is any of this based on peer reviewed scientific study?
To start off they choose a food that we most specifically didn’t evolve to eat…
nickc
you’re not off to good start.
Seems you just want to ignore thousands upon thousands of peer reviewed scientific and medical papers and just pretend they were never published, presumably for the same reasons they chose something that rhymes as a slogan without bothering to understand the science and medicine and why claiming "We’re wheat-eaters, not meat-eaters" is not only proven wrong but dangerous.
Erm yes there is but it’s like it went entirely over your head…
Back at you. I was strawmanning. As an illustrative example. I even told you that I was. Now do you begin to see how frustrating it can be to debate with someone who is doing it?
Now, how do we address that Google don’t seem to care about men’s health?
(There I go again. It’s so easy to just make stuff up, pin it up here/onto someone else/a legion of like minded strawpeople and then ‘defeat’ it! It’s addictive. No struggle at all)
BTW (normal mode) - I completely agree with Steve that the linked pizza meat/no meat = ‘threat to masculinity’ was a rubbish experiment. The very worst sort of pop science in my limited opinion. There are also countless counter ‘pro-meat’ pop-science studies to use as straw-rebuttals
That said, I grew up in an environment and culture where the gender stereotype of meat was definitely the manly thing. ‘Vegetarianism’ stereotype was for girls and women. Even veg and healthy low fat diets were mainly for women whom society decreed needed their veg and salad to stay trim and healthy while men brought home the bacon and manned the BBQs. No food was more ‘manly’ than the sight of a big raw steak or massive meat pie. Nothing was more ‘feminine’ than a salad or a boiled egg. Even chocolate was mainly marketed for women and children. Real men also didn’t eat quiche. The very few Western veggie and vegan men were imagined (or actually) cuckolded into it by their veggie wife or GF. That was my memory of food gender culture/politics the 70’s, 80’s, early 90’s*. ymmv
*Unless I imagined (or misremembered) it all. I don’t have the peer-reviewed science to back it up. I have adopted many of my father’s attitudes even today. Proper food is meat. It puts the ‘nature’ in you, as he said. He never saw value in food other than meat and fruit. Salad was woman’s food.
You’re not off to a good start as there’s evidence that humans have been eating grains for at least 100,000 of years. There’s actual grain starch residue in tooth tartar dating back 40,000 years.
Also, Steve, you've mentioned that you're a scientist; please present your credentials and links to peer-reviewed studies that you've published. 😉 K thx bai
What the hell has happened to this thread?
Also, Steve, you’ve mentioned that you’re a scientist; please present your credentials and links to peer-reviewed studies that you’ve published. 😉 K thx bai
And whilst:you;are at it, which county has access to bikes for every kid?
And whilst:you;are at it, which county has access to bikes for every kid?
Surrey has access to every kid that wants to take the school cycling.
Any kid that doesn't have their own access can arrange to borrow one through the school.
Surrey has access to every kid that wants to take the school cycling.
Any kid that doesn’t have their own access can arrange to borrow one through the school.
What about kids who don't attend school? Is this just state schools? In which age group are we talking? Having access to a bike to do some training doesn't help much if they can't access a bike otherwise either does it? I imagine take up by those who don't have bikes is low as theyight not be able to ride one
So to encourage more female participation in cycling/ male participation in horse riding am I to selotape* an avacado or bacon roll to the handlebars / horse's head?
*Other tapes are available
You’re not off to a good start as there’s evidence that humans have been eating grains for at least 100,000 of years. There’s actual grain starch residue in tooth tartar dating back 40,000 years.
wheat has only been around circa 10,000 years and cultivation of grains around 20,000 ..
But then you suddenly switched from wheat to grains?
Humans (Homo sapiens sapiens) have survived/subsisted on all sorts of things (including wild grasses) when resources have been scarce but that doesn't mean we evolved to eat them.
Far from it, in the case of grasses (including wheat) we have for one reason or another totally failed to evolve in that direction.
Humans (Homo sapiens sapiens) have survived/subsisted on all sorts of things (including wild grasses) when resources have been scarce but that doesn’t mean we evolved to eat them.
So when resources were scarce we ate wheat but it had no impact on evolution? Could you explain why not?
Far from it, in the case of grasses (including wheat) we have for one reason or another totally failed to evolve in that direction.
How do you know?
What about kids who don’t attend school? Is this just state schools? In which age group are we talking?
Seriously just read the Surrey CC website...
The reality is kids who don’t attend school - home schooled kids seem to have better access to bikes than the average
Is this just state schools? I hope so... kids at private schools can probably afford a bike.
We also have a weird state boarding school locally and as far as I know they have bikes.
Having access to a bike to do some training doesn’t help much if they can’t access a bike otherwise either does it?
Agreed, though giving them the chance is then going to help them get a bike.
Not every kid with bikes attend either, mine didn't as he has no wish to ride on roads and thought it was a waste of time for him. (I don't agree but I wasn't going to force him)
There is also Wheels for All who provide specially adapted bikes for people of all ages with disabilities.
This is the one 1/2 mile from me.
https://cycling.org.uk/locations/woking-wheels-for-all#_
I imagine take up by those who don’t have bikes is low as they might not be able to ride one
Not as much as I'd like but the 20" does get borrowed a few times a year as do others.
A lot seem to just find it easier to borrow a bike from a school friend ...
Seriously just read the Surrey CC website…
I did, it doesn't back up your rather bold claim
You do realise if a charities aim is "making cycling accessible to all" that kind of implies it isn't already don't you?
England (2017/19): 42% of people aged 5+ own or have access to a bicycle = c.22 million people; at 83%, bike ownership is much more likely among children aged 5-10 than for any other age group
https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/national-travel-survey-statistics
Well now. This thread got a bit strange ...
wheat has only been around circa 10,000 years and cultivation of grains around 20,000 ..
But then you suddenly switched from wheat to grains?
wheat = grains it's the same thing. Cultivation hasn't changed it to any great extent. Wheat has been around since well, forever really, it is just grass after all. We (and our ancestors) have always eaten it. Like I said there have been starch remains (of wheat/grains/grass) in human tooth tartar from 40,000 years ago. so, no we haven't just been eating it for 20,000 years, we've been eating it for at least 100,000 years (excavated remains) , and probably longer, although there''s no proof off that, obviously.
but that doesn’t mean we evolved to eat them.
we're not evolved to eat meat and yet we can and...Nearly every animal will eat cooked meat if it's available, behaviour that even been seen in things like deer and rabbits. Because it makes sense to do so, in the same way the most animals will seek out sugar and salt. They haven't got digestive systems designed for meat, and yet they too can process it. We have a digestive system that's best at soft fruit and vegetables (including grasses/grains/wheat) but can be pressed into service to consume meat as well. That's because mostly evolution doesn't work to perfection, it works to "good enough"
anagallis_arvensis
So when resources were scarce we ate wheat but it had no impact on evolution? Could you explain why not?
I said grasses.
Why did this have no impact on evolution?
Again I didn't say that, I said didn't evolve to eat grasses which is not saying it had no impact on evolution .. one reason could be that fertility was so affected, or lactation or infant mortality were so high the genes of those that didn't die were not passed on.
There is a big difference between not dying and thriving... and if stress events were long or short lived or recurrent.
The overall number of individuals exposed to selection is greater when the population declines gradually under a constant stress, or is progressively challenged by gradually increasing stress. In gradually deteriorating environments, survival at lethal stress may be procured by prior adaptation to sublethal stress through genetic correlation.
I wider terms that is the difference between an extinction level event like a meteor and progressive ice ages.
It is however an interesting Q...
How do you know?
Because homo sapiens lack the digestive tracts and human transglutaminase (TG) X (TGM5) has not developed to digest grasses.
One example is if you inject mice (who can digest grasses and wheat) with human recombinant TGase 2 (the human expression of the same controlling gene) it triggers a cellular response against TGase 2
This is interesting as predecessors to h. sapiens almost certainly could digest grasses and derive adequate nutrition from them hence this is one of the many adaptations we actually lost. Their earlier tree dwelling ancestors however couldn't or at least well.
This leads to the question of why was that adaptation lost or another way to look at it what was the benefit we gained that as a by product took away our ability to digest grasses? This sounds weird perhaps but it is a common thing in evolution.
To put that into a wider perspective its like asking why Pandas faced with extinction don't start eating other grasses than bamboo and very specific bamboo species?
What the hell has happened to this thread?
I'm poking it for my own amusement to raise a response, what about you?
Again I didn’t say that, I said didn’t evolve to eat grasses which is not saying it had no impact on evolution
That makes no sense at all
one reason could be that fertility was so affected, or lactation or infant mortality were so high the genes of those that didn’t die were not passed on.
This has to be one of the finest examples of complete and utter bobbins I've ever read
wheat = grains it’s the same thing.
Um no...
We (and our ancestors) have always eaten it. Like I said there have been starch remains (of wheat/grains/grass) in human tooth tartar from 40,000 years ago.
Um no because they are not the same thing... bamboo is a grass but have we evolved to eat bamboo?
and regardless starch in tooth tartar ???
Have you perhaps ever picked a stalk and chewed it?
Have you ever seen a dog eat grass in order to vomit as it can't digest the cellulose?
That doesn't mean dogs can eat grass...
we’re not evolved to eat meat and yet we can
and here we are back to anti-vax, flat earther
Because homo sapiens lack the digestive tracts and human transglutaminase (TG) X (TGM5) has not developed to digest grasses.
You appear to be confusing the vegetative part of grass with the seeds.
wheat = grains it’s the same thing.
Um no…
Um yes, pretty much from a biochemical standpoint.
Again I didn’t say that, I said didn’t evolve to eat grasses which is not saying it had no impact on evolution
That makes no sense at all
You really need to think about it. Failure to adapt affects evolution way more than actually adapting.
How much do I have to explain because I'm certain if you sit and think you'll see the difference?
Think in terms of a logical fallacy...
All blackbirds are black therefore the black bird over there must be a blackbird
Failure to digest grasses has many outcomes.
These can (and do) include adaptation for a lower metabolism... allowing more of a population to survive a famine or in many bears the ability to lower their metabolism so low they survive winter by hibernating whereas other mammals that can eat grass like buffalo scrape though clearing snow to get to grass.
This must be the most elaborate #deeptrolling I’ve ever seen!
Not only has it steered away from a ‘girls on bikes back in the day/girls on bikes today’ thread to one instead about protohuman diets - but now someone is literally stuffing the new strawman with actual grasses (not grains, you see!) and then cutting them down with the quiet confidence of a master-mower. The now-defeated straw argument is then used as further bait to lure in more argument. The cycle goes on. It’s almost like ‘debate’, yet more akin to a rambling (of course male) pugilism. Is mumsnet like this*, do they bicker a lot?
In fact, my even pointing it out in someway risks enabling the digression further away into That Land Of A Certain Dominant Voice/Down that Red-Pilled, Reverberating Rabbit-Hole.
Maybe Steve XTC or someone would open another thread about diet and evolution?
(This is reminding me of those J*rdan P*terson threads 😬, And that recent one where SteveXTC *literally managed to succeed in insulting everyone’s mum just before the thread was closed down 😉)
Again I didn’t say that, I said didn’t evolve to eat grasses which is not saying it had no impact on evolution
That makes no sense at all
You really need to think about it. Failure to adapt affects evolution way more than actually adapting.
Thought about it, it still makes no sense.
How much do I have to explain
All of it, especially how Blackbirds are involved.
Failure to adapt affects evolution way more than actually adapting.
This is just made up bobbins on your part. You are talking complete gibberish.
I think I need to hibernate. Might have some toast first.
thread to one about protohuman diets – but now somekne is literally stuffing a new strawman with actual grasses
Is it wheat straw or barley straw and are you totally sure it's not hay?
I know I said I was done with replying to (what I assume are) trolls but…
I was under the impression that humans COULD digest wheat, just not fully (and the indigestible fibre is still an important part of our diet). It’s full of protein, carbs, fibre, B vitamins, magnesium, iron, etc which are all important. Even Celiacs can digest wheat but part of it causes an autoimmune response when it’s absorbed into the walls of the small intestine.
Not sure what this has to do with the OP as we seem to have wandered farther from the point than the average Trump rant (at least QAnon or Hilary’s emails haven’t been brought up, but there’s still time).
I honestly don’t know if this is trolling, doubling down again and again due to being unable to admit they might be wrong or just what.