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.

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.

It’s hilarious, he just makes bullshit claims then when called out makes another, gives it a wibble and moves onto another having told everyone they should understand his wibble.

Wibble

You appear to be confusing the vegetative part of grass with the seeds.
Um yes, pretty much from a biochemical standpoint.

From a biochemical standpoint the seeds of oats contain avonine, barley contain horodin, wheat gluten
Classification wise they are all prolamines .. but that doesn’t make them the same.

More to the point (or how we got here) the deliberate promotion by vegan activists to convince others “We’re wheat-eaters, not meat-eaters” is a very poorly thought out dogma to push their agenda or to steal the words of
p7eaven

(referring to the other meat example)

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

Both of these are as bad as each other … using pop science as a way to push an agenda.

To answer p7eavens question I think “Real men don’t eat quiche” was a headline in the Irish Times and lets not forget Yorkie… the mans chocolate bar…

Much as that may be telling people what to eat or not (or in the case of Yorkie just trying to increase market segment)… it is nowhere near as bad IMHO as using fake science to push an agenda.

Lets face it was Charlie and the Chocolate factory not about a boy who dreamed of a whole bar of chocolate to himself?

Perhaps moving back on track … the Ontario paper/article has no science and misuses facts to push an agenda.

This is like Nestle Rowntree promoting a load of quasi science and paying people to write articles pretending to be scientific saying it increases testosterone levels.

Steve, do you need to talk to a mental health professional? I don’t know what your motivation is behind your increasingly bizarre posts but in all seriousness, your behaviour makes me concerned.

From a biochemical standpoint the seeds of oats contain avonine, barley contain horodin, wheat gluten
Classification wise they are all prolamines .. but that doesn’t make them the same.

And….
Barley and Oats will hybridise they are so similar

zerocool

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.

Sort of but that wasn’t the question … the assertion was that we had specifically evolved to “eat wheat not meat”

Dogs can eat chocolate… in very limited amounts.
They can’t live off chocolate and they haven’t evolved to eat chocolate despite it also containing trace nutrients.

To evolve to eat something is not the same as being able to survive eating it unless that gives an evolutionary advantage. If we or an animal can tolerate something but it leads to lower fertility, higher infant mortality, or for mammals lack of nutrients in milk then its much less likely to be a successful adaptation/mutation.

Cows and sheep have evolved to eat grasses… and to thrive on a diet mainly composed of them.
Pandas sorta have (including bamboo in grasses) but they have issues with the fertility part…
Humming birds have evolved to exist on nectar and water, many from a single species of orchid …
etc. they have problems with the extinction part if the orchids are affected

etc. etc.

More to the point (or how we got here) the deliberate promotion by vegan activists to convince others “We’re wheat-eaters, not meat-eaters” i

That was all in your head, you made that point to back up some other thing you had made up ealier

chiefgrooveguru

Steve, do you need to talk to a mental health professional? I don’t know what your motivation is behind your increasingly bizarre posts but in all seriousness, your behaviour makes me concerned.

Yeah yeah… anyone who doesn’t believe in flat earth needs to see a mental health professional…. or perhaps you are just trying to insult people without getting banned…

Really, who cares what you think…

Yeah yeah… anyone who doesn’t believe in flat earth needs to see a mental health professional

😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆🤪🤪🤪🤪😳😳🤪🤪🤪🤪😆😆😆

Well, I leave the forum for twelve hours and all this has hapened. Wow!

I didn’t eat meat for over 20 years and never once thought about how unmanly it was, nor was I ever told it was. The only flack I ever got was from the local farmers for being some sort of traitor to the community. The only reason I started again was because I was longing for a bacon sarnie 🙂 Used to ride horses too as a youngster despite not having a penny to scratch my veggie arse with.

What d’ya mean 12 hours!? This shit has been going round in circles for a week now!

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.

Whatever it is, it is much better watching from the side lines. This thread did have a brief period of a proper discussion a few days ago but then he returned and it has not just gone crazy again.

Horses.

Well, I leave the forum for twelve hours and all this has hapened. Wow!

I know, ace isn’t it? I think it’s only way threads with stevextc should proceed from now on. Just a starburst of nonsense.

Horses

Evolved to eat hay and sleep on straw

@SteveXTC. Although I’m finding your posts increasingly more difficult to follow, you did however answer/address me specifically and it deserves a reply

P7eaven: Which reminds me, who are all these dead strawpersons scattered on the floor? Seems they were slain without any struggle whatsoever…😉

SteveXTC: 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.

What in all that is holy are you talking about? I see no ‘article’? I posted no ‘article?’ I (to the best of recollection) commented on no article. I posted a video along with recollections of my experiences growing up in a time and place.

And so, again, you just defeated another strawman by telling me that I am ‘unable to accept why most people don’t ride bikes’. 👏🏼 I honestly haven’t a clue why you are directing that at me.

Here’s a well-meaning tip, Steve: If you would instead directly quote the thing/s I’m (or whomever) supposed to have said and thought then I’ll be able to actually respond with something other than simply pointing out the fact that you are once again setting up and battling strawmen.

‘Battle’ my words by all means. But it’s dishonest of you to battle words and thoughts that you yourself write (or read elsewhere), only to then pin them on me/whomever. Wouldn’t you agree?

*second thoughts – ‘dishonest’ may be a bit strong of an accusation. Bad faith, confused, dismissive, rushed? etc. But it makes for an intellectually dishonest sort of exchange, whichever.

Only you would know why you do it, but you do seem to ignore when it’s pointed out (and then just go on immediately to reoffend!)

Again, ‘steel-manning’ would be more useful? Why not try that? ie quote me/whomever directly, and then steel-man their argument. That way the respondent can reply/clarify further without first having to spend ages clogging up the thread (ahem) defending against something they never said or thought.

Yes, I believe steel-manning is great way to debate/discuss. Straw-manning (I hope) will soon be ‘so twentytens’ and go the way of the dinosaurs.

Back on topic:

https://www.mbr.co.uk/news/bethany-age-11-writes-406819

Yep, not a single picture of a female rider in a whole magazine. But remember, that won’t in any way whatsoever be having an impact of female participation, none at all, ever.

I thought that panda’s lack of offspring was due to just not mating very often, rather than bamboo making them infertile?

p7eaven

What in all that is holy are you talking about? I see no ‘article’? I posted no ‘article?’ I (to the best of recollection) commented on no article. I posted a video along with recollections of my experiences growing up in a time and place.

Nope someone else posted this article…
https://www.coeo.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/Pathways_31_4.pdf

Here’s a well-meaning tip, Steve: If you would instead directly quote the thing/s I’m (or whomever) supposed to have said and thought then I’ll be able to actually respond with something other than simply pointing out the fact that you are once again setting up and battling strawmen.

I’m answering you because you are saying no-one is making those claims… so I was asking did you read this article that was posted on this thread.

It’s another disingenuous “pop-science” type article apparently providing proof.
The whole precept and title is “Outdoor Adventure in the UK is a Male Privilege”

It has a long list of references (and surprise these are either similar articles or actual real studies that are being deliberately mis-quoted or mis-used.

In the case of this it opens by saying

The UK has a problem in the outdoors. It is a space occupied for the most part by men. This is borne out by participation rates in outdoor sports. A 2015 Sport England Report on “Getting Active Outdoors: A Study of Demography, Motivation, Participation and Provision in Outdoor Sport and Recreation in England” identified participation rates of 65% males to 35% females.

Except here is the study…

https://sportengland-production-files.s3.eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/outdoors-participation-report-v2-lr-spreads.pdf

Its a very good study and not once does Jennie Price CEO, Sport England use the words male privilege. Indeed in the 64 pages (a4) it identifies a lot of very good stuff and as a very small sidenote mentions male/female participation.
It mentions all the other much more important factors as well.. that are completely ignored by the Ontario article.

.. and imagine they asked people who didn’t do something what stopped them or why they gave up, not just ask someone who does it…

Precis … start with family when young.. become teenager … do stuff with mates. Barriers due to economics, access to countryside and living in cities, Barriers for BAME (crosslinked to cities), starting work, other interests etc. etc. .. very much what some of us have suggested (all because we or certainly I ask people who don’t ride their reasons)

When I (and others) suggested asking women who don’t ride, I got told “that shows I obviously don’t understand social conditioning” and called a load of names (not by you)

So, there are barriers overwhelmingly access, keeping people interested in their teens, and they’d rather do something else with their limited spare time… and a rather small amount of “because of men”.

I thought by ‘male privilege’ it was suggesting that men had more access to adventure due to social constructs, not that men were actively preventing women from accessing it. E.g. burden of care more often falls upon women so they have less leisure time so access the outdoors in a lower proportion to men.

“ I thought by ‘male privilege’ it was suggesting that men had more access to adventure due to social constructs, not that men were actively preventing women from accessing it. E.g. burden of care more often falls upon women so they have less leisure time so access the outdoors in a lower proportion to men.”

Exactly.

There’s also the issue that a tiny proportion of men have a habit of raping and murdering other people and more of the victims are women, which makes solo riding in the woods less appealing for the likely victims.

It’s a shame that men like Steve get so defensive about this stuff – such prejudiced responses based on unfortunate interactions with women. Steve, instead of typing so much, start listening.

It’s a shame that men like Steve get so defensive about this stuff – such prejudiced responses based on unfortunate interactions with women. Steve, instead of typing so much, start listening.

I am, I listen to women who don’t want to do outdoor activity.
However I’m then told that their opinion doesn’t count thus demonstrating I don’t understand social conditioning.

I view it as ironic that people have been socially conditioned to believe asking someone why they don’t do something is irrelevant.

There’s also the issue that a tiny proportion of men have a habit of raping and murdering other people and more of the victims are women, which makes solo riding in the woods less appealing for the likely victims.

You are conflating to crimes:
I think you’ll find the overhwelming majority of murder victims in EVERY age group up to 65+ are male.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/288184/homicide-victim-suspect-relationship-in-england-and-wales-by-gender/

Its a very good study

I’ve just read the first 14 pages and there are so far multiple references to why girls face barriers to outdoor sports/activities. To be fair a lot of those aren’t explicitly laid out in those terms, and I get the impression you take things literally, but there’s enough info there to form judgements;

page 9 talks about the 39% of women who’ve reported feeling scared to use outdoor green spaces

page 12 talks about the fact the 30% take up or try new activities because they’re introduced to it by friends. It makes sense then if your friends aren’t doing something…you’re less likely to.

page 14 talks about the preconception that outdoor spaces are “for boys” not girls and that girls must “stay out”

These are all socially conditioned responses.

“ You are conflating to crimes:
I think you’ll find the overhwelming majority of murder victims in EVERY age group up to 65+ are male.”

Yes, this always gets said. Men do the vast majority of the killing, women do very little. When it comes to wholly innocent (not involved in violent criminal lives, not getting involved in fights, etc etc) victims of rape and murder, they are more likely to be female.

But I’m not interested in arguing with the kind of man that wants to tell women that there’s so such thing as male privilege, just as I’m not interested in talking to white people who deny racism’s effects.

None of us are saying women should be forced to do MTBing that they don’t want to do, we’re just asking for the barriers (that you deny exist) to be removed.

P7eaven:

Here’s a well-meaning tip, Steve: If you would instead directly quote the thing/s I’m (or whomever) supposed to have said and thought then I’ll be able to actually respond with something other than simply pointing out the fact that you are once again setting up and battling strawmen.

SteveXTC

SteveXTC:I’m answering you because you are saying no-one is making those claims…

You’ll have to quote me directly, otherwise I’ll count that as another strawman because I don’t remember saying it. Fair do’s? I also just tipped a really good cold coffee away after spending approx 45 to an hour trting to find where I said say such a thing.

Maybe instead address the person who made those ‘claims’? When I say you’re building strawmen and knocking them down I’m referring to your many strawman arguments and setups of posters on here, not this ‘article’ (that I still can’t find in the thread)

Again, Here’s a well-meaning tip, Steve: If you would instead directly quote the thing/s I’m (or whomever) supposed to have said and thought then I/they will be able to actually respond with something other than simply pointing out the fact that you are once again setting up and battling strawmen. Also will save a lot of time and encourage clarity.

nickc

I’ve just read the first 14 pages and there are so far multiple references to why girls face barriers to outdoor sports/activities. To be fair a lot of those aren’t explicitly laid out in those terms, and I get the impression you take things literally, but there’s enough info there to form judgements;

page 9 talks about the 39% of women who’ve reported feeling scared to use outdoor green spaces

Firstly its 110 pages if you use page numbers)
Secondly the report is thorough and identifies multiple reasons for many different groups and lack of participation overall is not gender driven.

To be fair a lot of those aren’t explicitly laid out in those terms, and I get the impression you take things literally, but there’s enough info there to form judgements;

You seem to be looking at this as a way to form judgements… SportEngland is looking at it as a way to increase participation.

page 9 talks about the 39% of women who’ve reported feeling scared to use outdoor green spaces

No it doesn’t but if you are looking for judgements then perhaps look why that is.

My judgement on this is that is because the media sell more views and clicks and it has nothing to do with actual statistics and everything to do with sensationalising every unfortunate incident and in fact we have been conditioned (everyone) to view this as a female issue and nothing specific to do with outdoor activities.

What it actually says is:

Perceived increased nervousness some people feel towards using open space (fear of dogs, traffic safety, cultural barriers, stranger danger etc.) for themselves or their children.

Research shows that 39% of women feel unsafe in the Capital’s green spaces.

A large number of men also feel unsafe in the London’s green spaces. Welcome to London.

Over 80% of parents state that children get less exercise today because parents are afraid to let them go outside alone.

Noone actually asked how many men reported feeling scared to use outdoor green spaces in London, possibly less than women but not zero and statistics say they are the ones at risk.

page 12 talks about the fact the 30% take up or try new activities because they’re introduced to it by friends. It makes sense then if your friends aren’t doing something…you’re less likely to.

Yes but then how is this gender specific? My riding friends and my lads riding friends are not distinguished by gender except when they choose to exclude males.

page 14 talks about the preconception that outdoor spaces are “for boys” not girls and that girls must “stay out”

No it doesn’t, It put a picture up of 10

Research has identified the following key factors affecting people’s overall participation in outdoors activities, which may contribute to exclusion and result in under – representation.

These were the key factors they investigated, not a conclusion.

What they found was: (summary)

• Too busy with family responsibilities (32%)
• Can’t commit regularly (30%)
• Don’t have the time (30%)
• Prefer to spend spare time doing other things (29%)
• It’s too expensive (24%).

and why people don’t keep it up

• Too busy/time constraints (41%)
• Job/studies/school got in the way (35%)
• Family commitments/too busyat home (34%)
• Injury/health reasons (30%)
• No opportunity (20%).

Indeed the groups they found the biggest barriers were
“Deprived Communities”
“BAME”
and “People with physical disabilities; visual impairments; hearing impairments. Elderly”

In detail:

Men are more likely to be active outdoors
• Whilst both male and female participation shows an overall upward trend, males tend
to be more active outdoors than females.
• However MENE (2013/14) showed male participation suffered a dip between 2012/13-2013/14.
• The Explorers are the only segment with a higher proportion of female participants (45% male and 55% female).
• Mountain biking, running, mountaineering, climbing and harder adventure activities all have a
slight male bias. Keeping fit outdoors, particularly walking and classes have a slight female bias. Women are more likely than men to short hike
(Commercial Consumer Data Source, ’14).

So here’s the question, do we need to specifically encourage more women into risk taking activities and why?
At the other end should we be trying to get women to give up going to a gym and do an outdoor fitness group so they count to the statistics ???

What if we just let people do what they like or feel they will like?
It’s not totally impossible that more men than women simply don’t want to do base jumping and regardless of how many women get invited to jump off a skyscraper or crane it’s simply not for them.

On the other hand the Ontario article starts off by stating

The UK has a problem in the outdoors. It is a space occupied for the most part by men. This is borne out by participation rates in outdoor sports.

It then rambles on about how this is all due to male privilege.
It takes conclusions from the only serious study it mentions, misrepresents them and quotes a set of articles written by other bitter twisted people as proof.

However it is referencing SportEngland and that is not what the report found (see above)… it takes for granted any type of outdoor activity not 50/50 is a problem, not simply because that is what people do.

The preoccupation with percentages is perhaps more of a problem.
In the Ontario paper it is strongly stated that this is a problem needs to be fixed yet it completely ignores the MAJOR findings.

Why does it matter if 70% of base jumpers are men or 55% of recreational walkers are women?
There is a clear trend between participation in high risk sports and male representation. Perhaps women are just more sensible on average?

Do we need to encourage more pensioners into high risk sports to balance the percentages or can we just accept the lifecycle (Lifecycle of participation on p16) that SportEngland present as not far off?

Does anyone actually read posts that long and pointless?

You know, given the effort that has been out in, I feel sort of guilty for not reading it all. But then it also reminds me of being in Edinburgh Old Town during the Fringe and seeing all that performing art going on and just walking on past it.

Does anyone actually read posts that long and pointless?

I skimmed it, he’s totally wrong and misses the points (like I said I think he misses stuff that’s “not explicitly” said), and I can’t be arsed arguing anymore.

Nickc, I concur with your assessment

In other news:

Steve you’ve been told over and over again that you’re missing the point, and yet you still are banging on about the wrong thing.

I don’t want to persuade women to do a thing they don’t want to do.

I want to remove the barriers, both conscious and unconscious, that prevent women (and anyone else) doing something they might enjoy.

I can’t put it any simpler than that.

Molgrips

Steve you’ve been told over and over again that you’re missing the point, and yet you still are banging on about the wrong thing.

I don’t want to persuade women to do a thing they don’t want to do.

I want to remove the barriers, both conscious and unconscious, that prevent women (and anyone else) doing something they might enjoy.

I can’t put it any simpler than that.

I’m not saying YOU don’t but that is not what some twisted people with their agenda want.
However at the same time you seem preoccupied with a single set of barriers that are specifically constructed as to be specific for women.

If you read the SportEngland (I appreciate you are in Wales) Report then they clearly state their findings as to how to increase participation overall and inclusively.

Assuming you want to see more women cycling or riding MTB (for some reason I can’t fathom*) .. then increasing the number of people cycling or riding MTB will achieve that goal without having to for example ban males from cycling in certain places at certain times.

3 of our female riding buddies went riding Saturday … 2 of them have brothers (both younger) who were not allowed to ride ..one of them had to be taken to grandparents, the other I have no idea who looked after him .. I fail to see how that is actually good for the sport as it broke apart families in pre-teen riders and it broke apart friendship groups in the teens.

One of them kept messaging junior throughout Saturday saying she’d rather be riding with us (*), she didn’t even want to be at the female only day. *By us I think she meant her MTB friend group rather than us specifically, not a bunch of strangers she doesn’t know…

From our POV Jnr had already arranged to coach someone so we were doing that anyway.

nickc

I skimmed it, he’s totally wrong and misses the points (like I said I think he misses stuff that’s “not explicitly” said), and I can’t be arsed arguing anymore.

You were arsed enough to misquote the SportEngland study .. (yet another “accidental misquote in pursuit of your agenda” ???)

scotroutes

You know, given the effort that has been out in, I feel sort of guilty for not reading it all. But then it also reminds me of being in Edinburgh Old Town during the Fringe and seeing all that performing art going on and just walking on past it.

Sadly that reflects the world today and the increasing use of soundbites, clickbait and misrepresentation to cover up fact or to push an agenda.

Worth looking up when you have time Edward Bernays (nephew of Sigmund Freud) who’s most remembered achievement was addressing the low percentage of women smoking by creating the Torches of Freedom movement.

@stevextc

Assuming you want to see more women cycling or riding MTB (for some reason I can’t fathom*)

I don’t think he has said that he does want that. Just to have the barriers removed so that they can feel free to ride IF they want to.

@Jordan

I don’t think he has said that he does want that. Just to have the barriers removed so that they can feel free to ride IF they want to.

I’m not going back 11 pages … so it’s an assumption.

My question is really why THESE barriers and not others that prevent far more people cycling/MTB and would also increase the numbers of women/girls cycling far more (based on “outdoors activities” in the SportEngland study) but not drastically change the percentage?