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.