What fixed gear would you choose in hilly terrain?

[William Crowell]

Years and years ago, Heidi Hopkins (a Berkeley, CA racer) told me to use a 67, but she was young, in great shape and had a favorable BMI. Those facts are inapplicable to the instant case, as the judges and J.B. would say. What size gear would you treacherous oldsters use for hilly fixed-gear work?

[jbeattie]

On Wednesday, November 10, 2021 at 6:21:46 AM UTC-8, William Crowell wrote:
> Years and years ago, Heidi Hopkins (a Berkeley, CA racer) told me to use a 67, but she was young, in great shape and had a favorable BMI. Those facts are inapplicable to the instant case, as the judges and J.B. would say. What size gear would you treacherous oldsters use for hilly fixed-gear work?

65-70" was the standard Rx. Find a gear in that range on your road bike and then go ride around and see what you think. IMO, the hard part is descending and not climbing. If you pick a gear that is comfortable climbing, it may beat you to death on the downhill -- unless you're that "smooth at 150RPM" guy, which I was not. Maybe start with a SS or a flip-flop, which means use a brake -- which is required by law anyway.

-- Jay Beattie.

[William Crowell]

Yeah, the downhills are a drag, all right.

[AMuzi]

On 11/10/2021 8:21 AM, William Crowell wrote:
> Years and years ago, Heidi Hopkins (a Berkeley, CA racer) told me to use a 67, but she was young, in great shape and had a favorable BMI. Those facts are inapplicable to the instant case, as the judges and J.B. would say. What size gear would you treacherous oldsters use for hilly fixed-gear work?
>

I'm not you, of course. I'm currently on 44x20 = 60 inches

--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

[funkma...@hotmail.com]

On Wednesday, November 10, 2021 at 9:21:46 AM UTC-5, William Crowell wrote:
> Years and years ago, Heidi Hopkins (a Berkeley, CA racer) told me to use a 67, but she was young, in great shape and had a favorable BMI. Those facts are inapplicable to the instant case, as the judges and J.B. would say. What size gear would you treacherous oldsters use for hilly fixed-gear work?

First off, I have to issue the caveat that I have front and rear brakes on my fixed-gear bike. I'm kind a wimp that way.
It's going to be tough to answer that question without knowing your riding style. Are you a generally a spinner (steady cadence ~90-100) or a masher (steady cadence ~85 or lower)?

What do you mean when you say "hilly"? short punchy or long sustained?

In general cycling terms, my area is considered to be flat/rolling (northeastern massachusetts). The biggest hill within 10 miles is a measly 300' over 1.5 miles (cat 4 according to strava). My fixed-gear non-competition riding will float between a 39x16 (~66") to a 42x14 (~81") depending on the time of year and the route. A 39x18 (~58") is pretty common for people on SS or fixed gears though.

I'm fond of riding the local TT in a 53x16 (~89"), and for some indoor events on a computrainer I'll ride a 53x14 (~102"). I'm a spinner and tend to keep my average cadence well over 90, but I'm also considered a climber, so I've lugged the 39x16 over that cat 4 climb many times. As you mentioned, the downhills are an issue - way more than climbing. That's one reason I run 2 brakes. Unless you can sustain a spin_WITH CONTROL_ over say 130, do yourself a favor and run brakes. Braking with your legs can only get you so far on a long downhill, and it's smart to have brakes if you're riding where there is any possibility of traffic.

FWIW - I am one of the "smooth at 150 guys" JB mentioned. There is a local shop team that still has roller races during the winter. They have a 100" gear restriction (but they allow a 52x14). It's a 1Km flying start on unloaded rollers. Winning times are under 30 seconds, which means being able to sustain ~180 RPM for that 30 seconds. My PR is 34 seconds,which is starting out the spin at around 175 and finishing at around 170.

[ritzann...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, November 10, 2021 at 8:21:46 AM UTC-6, William Crowell wrote:
> Years and years ago, Heidi Hopkins (a Berkeley, CA racer) told me to use a 67, but she was young, in great shape and had a favorable BMI. Those facts are inapplicable to the instant case, as the judges and J.B. would say. What size gear would you treacherous oldsters use for hilly fixed-gear work?

67 gear inches is about a 53x21 or 42x17 or 39x15. 50x20 and 34x13 also. Assuming you own a ten speed bike with some of these chainring and cog sizes, go shift the bike into that gear and go ride and never shift during the ride.

I have two single speed bikes. Both on the freewheel side of the double sided hub. One side fixed, one side freewheel. After using the fixed side and not being able to ever coast, I decided I liked to coast. I cannot recall exactly what gearing I have on the bikes. But I am pretty sure both my bikes are geared higher than your 67 gear inches. I'm using 53 or 52 chainrings and I think 18 tooth cogs. I'm sure of the chainring sizes but kind of sort of guessing on the cog size. Mid/upper 70s for gear inches. Great gear for flat riding and mild hills. Might have to stand up for slightly steeper hills.

[Ted Heise]

On Wed, 10 Nov 2021 10:08:35 -0600,
AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
> On 11/10/2021 8:21 AM, William Crowell wrote:
> > Years and years ago, Heidi Hopkins (a Berkeley, CA racer) told
> > me to use a 67, but she was young, in great shape and had a
> > favorable BMI. Those facts are inapplicable to the instant
> > case, as the judges and J.B. would say. What size gear would
> > you treacherous oldsters use for hilly fixed-gear work?
>
> I'm not you, of course. I'm currently on 44x20 = 60 inches

Nor am I either of you. I've run a 46x17 (71.4 gear inches)
forever, but I don't do big hills either. Like Russell, I stand
to climb when things are on the steeper side. Like Jay,
descending is tough for me--and one reason I have a front brake.

--
Ted Heise <the...@panix.com> West Lafayette, IN, USA

[Joerg]

On 11/10/21 6:21 AM, William Crowell wrote:
> Years and years ago, Heidi Hopkins (a Berkeley, CA racer) told me to use a 67, but she was young, in great shape and had a favorable BMI. Those facts are inapplicable to the instant case, as the judges and J.B. would say. What size gear would you treacherous oldsters use for hilly fixed-gear work?
>

Just curious, why would you want a fixed-gear bike in our rather hilly
area? For us older guys that sounds like a recipe for ruining the knee
joints. And on the downhill without a brake you'd be one chain-throw
away from a nasty crash.

To me all this fixed gear business sounds like masochism :-)

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

[William Crowell]

Hi, Joerg. I am trying to ride my fixed gear and my unicycle a bit in order to whip myself into better shape. But I'm not really sure if I have sufficient mental discipline!

[Tom Kunich]

On Thursday, November 11, 2021 at 2:56:57 PM UTC-8, Joerg wrote:

I have a serious concern for people that ride fixed gears anywhere for any reason. I cannot imagine fighting the weight of a bike both accelerating and decelerating with a gear that would allow you to get anywhere in a reasonable amount of time.

[Tom Kunich]

Bill, use a geared bike and ride more. I do San Leandro to Oakland, Up Tunnel Road, and back into Oakland and San Leandro via Skyline. Tunnel isn't really hard climbing so you shouldn't have any problems after the first quarter mile and the top quarter mile. If you live in Berkeley you could always turn left on the top onto Grizzly Peak and work your way back. Depending on where you live, you can go almost anywhere in Berkeley that route and not have a really long ride. Doing that three or four times a week would put you back into shape pretty fast.

[Roger Merriman]

I liked the SS bike it was light and fast. I couldn’t get on with fixed, I
missed freewheeling and well cornering at speed being the old MTBer I am,
so while I could ride fixed I didn’t enjoy it.

Must try it in a velodrome one day and see how it feels!

Roger Merriman

[Tom Kunich]

Fixies work well in a Velodrome because you have a lap to get moving and a lap to stop. For some reason, fixies became popular with bike messengers. Probably because they have almost zero maintenance costs. Replace tires and chains and once in awhile fixy gears.

[jbeattie]

On Friday, November 12, 2021 at 1:58:18 PM UTC-8, Roger Merriman wrote:

Good point about corners, which are not a problem in a velodrome. We just lost our neighborhood velodrome to development. Alpenrose was one of the steepest banked (43 degrees) permanent track in the US. https://hips.hearstapps.com/hmg-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/images/alpenrose-velodrome-09558-1569889293.jpg?resize=980:* https://pamplinmedia.com/images/artimg/00003582137737.jpg Surface repairs: https://tinyurl.com/yftde5yj

Minimum speed was supposedly 12mph through the turn, otherwise, you fell off the bank. I was racing there one day, and I picked up some glass riding over from my house and flatted at the top of the bank and went sliding down, which was embarrassing. it was a great little track and always open. You could just go over there and ride around on a road bike if you were so inclined, which I would do with my son. Sad comment on development, but its hard running an inner-city dairy with a bunch of free facilities centered on 1950s activities (little league fields, etc.).

-- Jay Beattie.

[AMuzi]

On 11/12/2021 4:36 PM, jbeattie wrote:
> On Friday, November 12, 2021 at 1:58:18 PM UTC-8, Roger Merriman wrote:
>> Tom Kunich <cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Thursday, November 11, 2021 at 2:56:57 PM UTC-8, Joerg wrote:
>>>> On 11/10/21 6:21 AM, William Crowell wrote:
>>>>> Years and years ago, Heidi Hopkins (a Berkeley, CA racer) told me to
>>>>> use a 67, but she was young, in great shape and had a favorable BMI.
>>>>> Those facts are inapplicable to the instant case, as the judges and
>>>>> J.B. would say. What size gear would you treacherous oldsters use for
>>>>> hilly fixed-gear work?
>>>>>
>>>> Just curious, why would you want a fixed-gear bike in our rather hilly
>>>> area? For us older guys that sounds like a recipe for ruining the knee
>>>> joints. And on the downhill without a brake you'd be one chain-throw
>>>> away from a nasty crash.
>>>>
>>>> To me all this fixed gear business sounds like masochism :-)
>>>
>>> I have a serious concern for people that ride fixed gears anywhere for
>>> any reason. I cannot imagine fighting the weight of a bike both
>>> accelerating and decelerating with a gear that would allow you to get
>>> anywhere in a reasonable amount of time.
>>>

>> I liked the SS bike it was light and fast. I couldn’t get on with fixed, I

>> missed freewheeling and well cornering at speed being the old MTBer I am,

>> so while I could ride fixed I didn’t enjoy it.

>>
>> Must try it in a velodrome one day and see how it feels!
>
> Good point about corners, which are not a problem in a velodrome. We just lost our neighborhood velodrome to development. Alpenrose was one of the steepest banked (43 degrees) permanent track in the US. https://hips.hearstapps.com/hmg-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/images/alpenrose-velodrome-09558-1569889293.jpg?resize=980:* https://pamplinmedia.com/images/artimg/00003582137737.jpg Surface repairs: https://tinyurl.com/yftde5yj
>
> Minimum speed was supposedly 12mph through the turn, otherwise, you fell off the bank. I was racing there one day, and I picked up some glass riding over from my house and flatted at the top of the bank and went sliding down, which was embarrassing. it was a great little track and always open. You could just go over there and ride around on a road bike if you were so inclined, which I would do with my son. Sad comment on development, but its hard running an inner-city dairy with a bunch of free facilities centered on 1950s activities (little league fields, etc.).

Yes, that's a sad story. Kenosha isn't all that banked but
it's outlasted many others:

https://www.visitkenosha.com/listing/washington-park-velodrome/416/

https://www.kenoshavelodromeracing.com/tuesday-night-racing/

[Roger Merriman]

There is a old velodrome deep in south london which I have visited for CX
racing a Halloween special! But not for 10 years or so, is the more modern
one from the 2012 Olympics and one in Newport.

Melbourne Australia seem to have quite a load of open air ones which was
good to see.

Roger Merriman

[jbeattie]

It looks like the Hellyer Park Velodrome in San Jose. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hellyer_Park_Velodrome That's the first place I raced track back in the '70s. Public park velodromes have a chance of success -- you can always get some 501(c)(3) to run them, and the land isn't going to get sold -- although someone may want to change the use to a petting zoo or something. Alpenrose was owned by Alpenrose Dairy, which basically held itself out as a public park. They also had cows and made ice cream, and school kids would tour the place. It was like a slice of life from the 1950s. It was also a great CX venue with huge fields. https://www.flickr.com/photos/bikeportland/8065467630
But then things changed, the land got super-valuable . . . so bye-bye track and little league fields and BMX course, etc. https://www.oregonlive.com/business/2021/05/alpenrose-dairy-property-could-become-193-house-subdivision.html I really can't blame them -- it is valuable private property in a residential area with a bunch of non-revenue generating entertainment venues, but I'll miss it.

-- Jay Beattie.

[Ted Heise]

On Fri, 12 Nov 2021 15:57:55 -0800 (PST),
jbeattie <jbeat...@msn.com> wrote:
> On Friday, November 12, 2021 at 2:56:20 PM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
> > On 11/12/2021 4:36 PM, jbeattie wrote:
> > > On Friday, November 12, 2021 at 1:58:18 PM UTC-8, Roger Merriman wrote:
> > >> Tom Kunich <cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>> On Thursday, November 11, 2021 at 2:56:57 PM UTC-8, Joerg wrote:
> > >>>> On 11/10/21 6:21 AM, William Crowell wrote:
> > >>>>> Years and years ago, Heidi Hopkins (a Berkeley, CA
> > >>>>> racer) told me to use a 67, but she was young, in great
> > >>>>> shape and had a favorable BMI. Those facts are
> > >>>>> inapplicable to the instant case, as the judges and J.B.
> > >>>>> would say. What size gear would you treacherous oldsters
> > >>>>> use for hilly fixed-gear work?
> > >>>>>
> > >>>> Just curious, why would you want a fixed-gear bike in our
> > >>>> rather hilly area? For us older guys that sounds like a
> > >>>> recipe for ruining the knee joints. And on the downhill
> > >>>> without a brake you'd be one chain-throw away from a
> > >>>> nasty crash.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> To me all this fixed gear business sounds like masochism
> > >>>> :-)

I suppose it could be, depending on the conditions you tackle. On
relatively flat terrain it can be quite enjoyable; it's also a
pretty bulletproof system in bad weather. Nice article from
Sheldon Brown (may he rest in peace):

https://www.sheldonbrown.com/fixed.html

> > >>> I have a serious concern for people that ride fixed gears
> > >>> anywhere for any reason. I cannot imagine fighting the
> > >>> weight of a bike both accelerating and decelerating with a
> > >>> gear that would allow you to get anywhere in a reasonable
> > >>> amount of time.
> > >>>

> > >> I liked the SS bike it was light and fast. I couldn???????t

> > >> get on with fixed, I missed freewheeling and well cornering
> > >> at speed being the old MTBer I am, so while I could ride

> > >> fixed I didn???????t enjoy it.

I'm fortunate to have the Major Taylor velodrome just down the
way. I've never tried my hand at riding it (shame), but have
attended a few events there. It's concrete, so maybe not as nice
as a wood track(?), but maybe less maintenance?

It's part of a park that now includes skateboard and BMX
facilities. The park is owned by Indianapolis Parks and
Recreation Department, and is currently being operated by Marian
University.

https://indycycloplex.com/track

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_Taylor_Velodrome

[Tom Kunich]

I've attended many races down at our local velodrome without ever having the inclination to try riding a fixy.

[jbeattie]

Didn't you race? Apart from track racing, fixies were prescribed for off-season training -- or at least that was SOP in the '70s and '80s in San Jose. Fixie riding on the road wasn't a thing for the teams I rode on in Oregon, but it was still a thing for roller riding. Everyone wanted to be the 200rmp guy, which I wasn't. Long femurs are inconsistent with 200rpms. Actual track racing includes a lot of events, some of which were more to my endurance bent rather than pure sprint power, but it was fun and a whole other thing than road racing because on a 43 degree bank, it gets a lot more three-dimensional, like being in a plane. You look up and down and not just across the road.

I've told this story before, but once again, I climbed Mt. Hamilton from the SW side on a fixie, which wasn't a big deal because of the moderate grade. https://www.southbayriders.com/forums/attachments/17426/ The descent, however, was miserable. I flipped the wheel and hung the chain over the axle. I had a brake and that worked, and then I flipped it back for the climb out of Grant Ranch and the second climb out before descending into SJ.

-- Jay Beattie.

[ritzann...@gmail.com]

You had to use a ladder to get up to the repairs on the track? Oh my. That is a bit steep.

[jbeattie]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jmCe099jt5g&ab_channel=DustinKlein Go to 1:29-1;50, the part of the track I disliked was the ladder down to the track, which was only a few rungs, but I always felt imperiled in cleats. The track was redone in the late '90s and was really nice for a few decades, and then it started getting tired again. Prior to being redone, the track had pot holes, and the transitions off the tops of the turns were like ski jumps.

We had a lot of track racing, Olympic trials and all sorts of stuff at that track. Thursday night practices and Friday night races. You could rent a fixed gear and give it a whirl in a citizens event or just ride a road bike. When my wife was a grade school kid, she went to Alpenrose for the dairy tour -- saw the cows and got a giant bowl of ice cream. Those days are sadly behind us. https://www.koin.com/local/an-epitaph-for-portlands-alpenrose-dairy/

-- Jay Beattie.

[Tom Kunich]

Yes, I originally raced but never enough to get out of Cat 5 before getting my injuries since the races were right there in Livermore somewhere I can't remember. I have NEVER seen anyone "training" on a fixie. Tell me all about how you think you can climb passes on a fixie. The only thing that I can remember about racing was that I Cat 4 & 5 would start shortly after 1, 2 and 3. I would run right up to the tail end of the 3's and then suddenly I couldn't keep up with the 5's and I said something to the Army and they gave me all sorts of medical examinations and told me my lungs were full of poison gas scars. After my concussion I had every conceivable examination. My neurologist told me that there were no scars in my lungs and that these things heal. But when I had the standard physical exam last year with X-rays the specialist and my doctor wanted to know how the hell I got all of those scars. Since my neurologist has just recently stopped teaching neurology at Stanford I can only assume that he doesn't remember how to properly read a lung X-ray.

I can imagine someone training on a fixie but I wouldn't believe they would since you'd have to gear for a climb and most of the climbs around here have really dangerous descents if you can't roll-out. Just (3??) years ago I did one of these climbs in a 39/25 without any trouble but the other side is a 10% average descent with a hard 30 degree turn just as you get up to speed and a 2 mile 30 mph run. And there are invisible driveways along this.

[William Crowell]

Tom Kunich wrote: 'I have NEVER seen anyone "training" on a fixie."

IIRC, Rebecca Twigg once attributed her race wins to her fixed-gear training.

[jbeattie]

On Saturday, November 13, 2021 at 5:11:49 PM UTC-8, William Crowell wrote:
> Tom Kunich wrote: 'I have NEVER seen anyone "training" on a fixie."
>
> IIRC, Rebecca Twigg once attributed her race wins to her fixed-gear training.

Tom must have gotten a late start on racing. I think Cat 5 came into being in the early '90s sometime. Off-season fixed gear training was SOP from the '70s through the '90s, after which I dropped any pretense of serious training and have no idea of whether it was still a thing in the 2000s. I just raced now and then and only rode track with my son as kind of a father-son thing. He was coached by a guy who was a friend of mine and ran a youth development program. I'd go out with his kids, which was fun ,although a little sketchy.

-- Jay Beattie.

[Tom Kunich]

https://coachlevi.com/cycling/why-geared-bike-better-training-than-fixed-gear/

[jbeattie]

https://bikeraceinfo.com/training-fitness/fixed-gear-winter-training.html This guy is a USA Level 1 coach, two levels above Levi Bloom. He's a black belt. More of the same: https://bikerumor.com/2015/02/06/fixed-gear-winter-training/

The deal with racing is that you go from one team where coach Bob says one thing and then go to another team where coach Don says something different. What supposedly works changes with the weather. It's like bike fit over the years. I personally don't want to ride a fixie outdoors because my knees are shot and my outdoors have a lot of hills -- and I'm not training for anything. I ride fixed on my rollers these days, and that's about it.

-- Jay Beattie.

[Tom Kunich]

Jay, how long do you ride your fixie in the winter?

[jbeattie]

What do you mean how long? How long of a ride? How many weeks/months? Distance would vary depending on whether I was alone or with a group. A common group ride was from SJ down to Morgan Hill, over the rolling hills and back, which was probably 45 miles. That was with other fixie guys, so nobody was railing the down-hills.

A favorite solitary ride was going from my apartment in downtown SJ up to the top of the first climb on Mt. Hamilton, which was all I could tolerate descending. That was at the 5-6 mile mark, so maybe a total of 20 or so miles. I also commuted on a fixie (not my track bike), which varied in distance, sometimes just a few miles. BTW, I even commuted on a fixie after moving to Portland -- until the frame broke (it was a beater steel frame that had been in an accident), and then I got tired of beating myself to death on the downhills and went back to a geared bike.

My story of riding to the top of Mt. Hamilton happened because I was doing my usual fixie ride to the top of the first climb, and I ran into a friend on a road bike who cajoled me into riding to the top -- and then promptly turned around and rolled away. "Bye-bye." Todd, I'll never forgive you!

As for number of weeks or months, I'd ride a fixie for training during winter, and I would also ride my road bike with a 85" gear, which was the gear limit for the SJBC winter series races back then. Then during the season, I would do track racing on fixed gears, although never well and not a ton. It wasn't my thing. After moving to Oregon, track racing was an eat-your-peas part of riding for one club in Portland -- Thursday track. Winter in Oregon is not really conducive to fixie training outdoors, or I just didn't care anymore. Most of my fixie riding was on rollers or commuting, and training was on a fender bike with gears.

Its funny to think back on riding technique in the '70s and '80s -- you needed to spin so you could win a sprint or ride at a high tempo, but you did not spin climbing. You crushed some tiny cog and muscled up hills. How things change.

-- Jay Beattie.

[AMuzi]

[raises hand] No one can know that!

Winter may end in the middle of March. May, not will. Last
year it went right through to a hard frost on Decoration Day
(end of May) which killed all the freshly planted tomatoes.

[Frank Krygowski]

On 11/14/2021 11:43 AM, jbeattie wrote:
>
> The deal with racing is that you go from one team where coach Bob says one thing and then go to another team where coach Don says something different. What supposedly works changes with the weather.

Or (ahem!) with fashion. ;-)


--
- Frank Krygowski

[jbeattie]

You're hung up on fashion. Some of those training programs were super-science-y and based on DATA and yet they were wrong or not as good as the next thing. And then there was what to eat and when to eat, etc., etc. All of those programs were based on some study from some university. The early days of "sports science" had a lot of egg-head stuff you would have loved -- but that was superseded and/or disproved. Then there was just olde-tyme coaching, which was not fashion -- it was lore, which is a different thing. It's some guy's belief as to what works and what doesn't, often handed down from some ancient cyclist like Jacques Anquetil. I was a student of Jacque's wine-drinking regimen.

-- Jay Beattie.

[Tom Kunich]

Well, I was more trying to point out that habit of his of countering a man with a lot of knowledge about something or other with some opinion piece from Joe Nobody. Do you suppose that impresses juries? He did that same thing when I showed Tony Heller's website that shows all of the crap that NOAA and NASA have been doing to "prove" man-made climate change. He counters him (Oh, he has been proven wrong) by the advertising arm of Reynold's Tobacco and some psychologist that knows nothing about climate.

I have ridden a very long time and very large mileages and never once do I recall someone "training" on a fixie for anything other than track.

[Tom Kunich]

Jay, YOU do not understand real science. I don't say this to insult your intelligence but to point out that science isn't something you test by having one guy train on a Peloton and another on a Fixie delivering investment messages in San Francisco. If you believe that a fixie helped you racing, fine, but that ain't science.

[jbeattie]

Tom, YOU do not understand real science. I do say this to insult your intelligence and to point out that exercise physiology, nutrition and a lot of "sports science" is in fact science. Yes, some aspects of coaching are not very scientific, but the benefits of fixed-gear riding were proven conclusively by an extensive study conducted at the University of Minsk involving prisoners.

-- Jay Beattie.

[jbeattie]

That's because you didn't race much or get coached -- and you raced late, after the invention of Cat 5s, which was in the '90s. Fixed gear training was the rage for decades, probably waning by the '90s. After the '90s, I was racing for a road club with enforced track days -- but no prescribed fixed gear road riding. It was not like in the SJBC during the '70s and early '80s when Don Peterson was prescribing off-season fixed-gear road riding and gear-inch limits for winter series road races. It makes you move your legs around and maybe develop a smoother pedal stroke and faster cadence. Who knows if it works. Its not like I rocketed to the top of the pro ranks or anything after riding a fixed gear off season.

And what would riding "very large mileages" tell you about training for anything? You might as well be running in a hamster wheel. You should go get in a racing club, get some coaching and go tear-up the old guy events. At least that would give you some purpose for your very large mileages.

-- Jay Beattie.

[Frank Krygowski]

I'd say fashion and science can be mixed.

For a non-bike example, look at trends in diet advice. All veggie, all
carnivore, paleo, keto, Mediterranean and more have all claimed to have
science behind them, and their prominence wax and wane just like other
fashions.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[AMuzi]

If that's true, could you name a cultural change or belief
change which is not 'fashion' ?

I, like many, am bemused by multiple iterations of [item] is
good for you, deadly, beneficial, carcinogenic, [repeat].
But many of those pronouncements were from sincere people
trying to be helpful with flawed or incomplete data. I'm
sure some are flaks looking for publicity, but not all.

[Frank Krygowski]

On 11/14/2021 8:40 PM, AMuzi wrote:
> On 11/14/2021 7:11 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>
>> I'd say fashion and science can be mixed.
>>
>> For a non-bike example, look at trends in diet advice. All
>> veggie, all carnivore, paleo, keto, Mediterranean and more
>> have all claimed to have science behind them, and their
>> prominence wax and wane just like other fashions.
>>
>
> If that's true, could you name a cultural change or belief change which
> is not 'fashion' ?

A cultural change or belief change that's not "fashion"? If you mean
that change suddenly surges and becomes common, I think it would be
tough to name one that isn't driven heavily by "fashion."

>
> I, like many, am bemused by multiple iterations of [item] is good for
> you, deadly, beneficial, carcinogenic, [repeat]. But many of those
> pronouncements were from sincere people trying to be helpful with flawed
> or incomplete data. I'm sure some are flaks looking for publicity, but
> not all.

Certainly there are sincere researchers working on every conceivable
issue. Certainly, many of them uncover new facts that are indisputably
true - although their presentation of the facts may be biased. (See your
"flaks")

But the public's response to this knowledge varies widely, and often
enough is completely contrary to the indisputable facts. I think most
people are much more prone to follow what others are doing (the fashion)
rather than what rational analysis would recommend. (Not that attempts
at rational analysis are all correct, of course.)


--
- Frank Krygowski

[AMuzi]

Would you call the shift from geocentrism to heliocentrism
after Copernicus et al 'our current fashion'?

Fashion is a real force and phenomenon but is not a
universal explanation for every human action or thought.

Bicycle chain drives on the right side rather than left is
convention, fashion if you will. Any given rider's decision
to ride modern 2x12 may well be driven by the several and
significant features and improvements in the current system,
well beyond or even disregarding 'my bike has more
sprockets'. We cannot know that, even when we pretend that
we do.

[John B.]

Out of curiosity I once did a bit of research on the so called "paleo"
diet that is supposed to equate to what very early "man" ate and I
discovered that there was no all encompassing diet eaten by early man.
From the remains that have been discovered it appears that "paleo"
diets varied to a extremely great degree depending on the environment
in which a specific group lived.

Thus there can't be a "paleo" diet per se (:-)
--
Cheers,

John B.

[John B.]

I once read a book, by a doctor, or perhaps a veterinarian, from
Vermont who wrote that cattle seemed to do much better if you fed them
alfalfa and honey and bemoaned the fact that he hadn't been able to
get any humans to try this diet (:-)
--
Cheers,

John B.

[jbeattie]

Anything after the penny farthing is fashion. Or is it the safety bike -- or the Schwinn Varsity? Somewhere in there. I'm still waiting for the non-fashion index point to be disclosed. For Frank, I think it was his 1987 ST800. But even that bike is fashion -- OS 6061 tubes, Sansin sealed bearing hubs, Dia Compe aero brake levers. Pffff. Sealed bearings wear out and you have to punch them out and press them in. Aero lever? What for? "Oooooh look at me . . . I'm aero!" "My tubes are fatter than yours." "I have 15 speeds!" Talk about a fashion bike. There is only one true bike: https://mir-s3-cdn-cf.behance.net/project_modules/fs/d51f506567237.56027a6d1b531.jpg

-- Jay Beattie.

[funkma...@hotmail.com]

Fixed gear training in the winter was fundamental when I started racing in the mid 80's. I still do it, though not as much as I used to. The main goal with fixed-gear training is to teach you to be able to work outside your efficiency zones - everyone has a certain cadence where they are most efficient, a fixie will force you to spin higher or grind lower. There is some controversy with that however, one couch I had said "there is a difference between spinning an being spun".

Another coach said winter training should focus on long steady distance (LSD, sometimes called 'slow', but the focus is supposed to be steady targeted zones below AT), keeping your cadence in the lower efficiency range and heart rate below you aerobic threshold. IT was his contention that forcing a grind up a steep grade or spinning a downhill pushed you outside that range and defeated the purpose. This philosophy more closely aligns with the Polarized training approach develop by Stephen Sieler and used extensively by most coaches these days, And no, Frank, this isn't fashion or fad, there is a great deal of hard data to back up the approach, including physiological studies that show significant improvements in metabolic pathways for endurance functions as well as increased adaptability and durability. Sports science has come a long way n the past decade, I for one can't see a pendulum swing. There are a few hold outs for "sweet spot" training, but you don't find any serious coaches looking at that model any more.

What is has come down to WRT fixed gear _training_ is that is is used sparingly these days, usually in the context of specific drills. For the legit winter LSD rides a geared bike is the prescription. That said, I'll still go out for 2-3 hours on my fixed gear on rolling hills for adaptation workouts in the winter. One reason is that I like to do our local TT loop in a fixed gear.

One thing often overlooked is that in any given gear a fixed drive train is more efficient - less losses due to a spring-tensioned chain and inefficient pedal stroke - Inertia helps smooth out your pedal stroke. It only becomes problematic when the cadence is sustained outside your bio-mechanical efficiency range.

[funkma...@hotmail.com]

That's true to a certain extent. The major point of a paleolithic diet that is lost on many people is the focus to back away from processed foods. Any grain sources or anything containing processed sugar are pretty much forbidden. Paleolithic humans didn't eat much in the way of grains because the nutrients aren't very accessible in the raw state. It wasn't until the notion of cooking grains was discovered which made the energy in grains was more accessible to the human Physiology. Factory farmed meats are also frowned upon, but free-range meat proteins are hard to find for some people and generally very expensive.

The Inuit for example up until modern times ate extremely little non-animal foods. They've adapted to being almost constantly in ketogenic state (very little direct carbohydrate sources). Compare that to rainforest tribes who have plentiful and easily accessible fruit and vegetable sources. There are a lot of cases where people who grew up on a "western" diet have tried to switch cold to a strict ketogenic diet and become very sick. The metabolic pathways for conversion of protein to glycogen (called Gluconeogenesis) and fats to ketones ( called Ketogenesis) need time to develop. Not only will the body not immediately adapt to the the different micro nutrient profile, but the lack of glycogen directly from sugar metabolism can result in emotional swings a sin some cases cognitive issues. Try to feed an Inuit a Yanomami diet and vice versa could even result in death (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protein_poisoning).

[Tom Kunich]

So conclusive you can't even cite it. How absolutely lawyerly of you.

[Tom Kunich]

Yeah, I got you, "I did it right". Using prisoners in a "study" is REAL science. Jay, you finished last in your class and had to take the Bar exam 5 times didn't you?

[Tom Kunich]

Most "science" is that published by journals written up by journalists that think THAT is interesting and they have only a passing understanding of science. Diet science in particular stopped at "that plant is poisonous" in early homosapiens time.

[Tom Kunich]

Sincere boobs are still boobs. If you don't have real data but pronounce it enough, it ain't science and never will be.

[Tom Kunich]

Do you have any idea of how long it took us to discover the cause of AIDS? And we were hindered every inch of the way by "science" publications and morons with the media attention like that idiot Fauci. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3QFKuYD34b4

[Tom Kunich]

More science from the intellectual who thinks that you can improve yourself by eating nuts and berries and make yourself stronger by pedaling out of your most efficient cadence instead of simply using more gears so that you can maintain the correct cadence. It isn't as if Chris Froome didn't teach everyone that lesson.

[Frank Krygowski]

Andrew, when you asked about a "cultural or belief" change not triggered
by fashion, I assumed you were focusing on more sociological matters.
But of course I'm happy to expand to more nuts and bolts matters if you
like.

First, geocentricism vs. heliocentricism isn't on anyone's radar. It
doesn't matter unless you're an astronomer or space scientist. (And as
an aside: I recently got deeply interested into sundials. Most
technical, math-heavy books on them still describe the complex geometry
in terms of a stationary earth and moving sun; it's just easier to
process the math.)

But it's easy to identify a science-based tech development rejected by
fashion. One example is ever more efficient motor vehicles, with the
potential to save owners money, reduce environmental harm, etc. What do
people buy? Bigger and bigger pickup trucks. (And please don't say "We
can't know why that dude bought that pickup." There's been no surge in
people hauling hay bales and cattle feed in high-zoot suburbs.)

A flip-side case might be the mania against drinking straws that hit a
couple years ago. Some of the science was surely correct: "There's lots
of plastic garbage in the oceans!" and "This sea turtle got a straw up
his nose!" But straws were a negligible problem, and the fashion of
righteously eschewing them was nuts. (I notice that fashion has mostly
passed - and the couple I know who invested in anodized stainless steel
straws to carry into restaurants seems to have misplaced those
ridiculous things.)

Yes, in bikes, it's been cogs, cogs, cogs because small gear jumps are
SO much more efficient - unless you look at the data saying they're not.
But that doesn't matter, because now it matters more to not have a front
shifter. Because aero?? No, because fashion.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

On 11/15/2021 10:12 AM, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> That's true to a certain extent. The major point of a paleolithic diet that is lost on many people is the focus to back away from processed foods. Any grain sources or anything containing processed sugar are pretty much forbidden. Paleolithic humans didn't eat much in the way of grains because the nutrients aren't very accessible in the raw state. It wasn't until the notion of cooking grains was discovered which made the energy in grains was more accessible to the human Physiology.

A related aside: One article I read claimed that the early hominid use
of fire was probably critical in evolution of the human brain. Cooking
makes nutrients much more available to our digestive system, and without
the easier availability of those nutrients, our (literally) power-hungry
brains could not have evolved.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Tom Kunich]

Theories are not science. And that is and that is an especially egregious form of pretend science since there is no way to test it and you are presenting it as science. Homo Sapien didn't develop because of his diet but in spite of it. Fire was a very late development. A bit of historical accuracy would show that making fire required materials that were quite rare and difficult to recognize requiring higher mental faculties.

[funkma...@hotmail.com]

That's true, but depends on your perspective and the application of your interest. Engineers designing satellites general consider a geocentric model, since the mass of any satellite is significantly more affected by the earths gravity than the sun unless it is designed to leave an earth orbit. Geo vs helio models only matter to astronomers or cosmologists when considering very specific local phenomena. The gravitational pull of the sun doesn't figure into the equation for people researching the black hole at the center of our galaxy.

[funkma...@hotmail.com]

It was certainly a factor. The human brain prefers glycogen as a fuel source. Cooked grains release significantly more energy as available carbohydrates which converts very easily via glycolosis. Here's good primer on the subject: https://www.pbs.org/food/features/food-delicious-science-episode-food-on-the-brain/

[John B.]

On Mon, 15 Nov 2021 07:12:01 -0800 (PST), "funkma...@hotmail.com"
<funkma...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On Sunday, November 14, 2021 at 9:16:20 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
>> On Sun, 14 Nov 2021 20:11:37 -0500, Frank Krygowski
>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>> >On 11/14/2021 4:58 PM, jbeattie wrote:
>> >> On Sunday, November 14, 2021 at 11:16:09 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> >>> On 11/14/2021 11:43 AM, jbeattie wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> The deal with racing is that you go from one team where coach Bob says one thing and then go to another team where coach Don says something different. What supposedly works changes with the weather.
>> >>> Or (ahem!) with fashion. ;-)
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> You're hung up on fashion. Some of those training programs were super-science-y and based on DATA and yet they were wrong or not as good as the next thing. And then there was what to eat and when to eat, etc., etc. All of those programs were based on some study from some university. The early days of "sports science" had a lot of egg-head stuff you would have loved -- but that was superseded and/or disproved. Then there was just olde-tyme coaching, which was not fashion -- it was lore, which is a different thing. It's some guy's belief as to what works and what doesn't, often handed down from some ancient cyclist like Jacques Anquetil.
>> >
>> >I'd say fashion and science can be mixed.
>> >
>> >For a non-bike example, look at trends in diet advice. All veggie, all
>> >carnivore, paleo, keto, Mediterranean and more have all claimed to have
>> >science behind them, and their prominence wax and wane just like other
>> >fashions.
>> Out of curiosity I once did a bit of research on the so called "paleo"
>> diet that is supposed to equate to what very early "man" ate and I
>> discovered that there was no all encompassing diet eaten by early man.
>> From the remains that have been discovered it appears that "paleo"
>> diets varied to a extremely great degree depending on the environment
>> in which a specific group lived.
>>
>> Thus there can't be a "paleo" diet per se (:-)
>
>That's true to a certain extent. The major point of a paleolithic diet that is lost on many people is the focus to back away from processed foods. Any grain sources or anything containing processed sugar are pretty much forbidden. Paleolithic humans didn't eat much in the way of grains because the nutrients aren't very accessible in the raw state. It wasn't until the notion of cooking grains was discovered which made the energy in grains was more accessible to the human Physiology. Factory farmed meats are also frowned upon, but free-range meat proteins are hard to find for some people and generally very expensive.

But I just eat a normal diet, comprised of whatever my wife cooks and
haven't eaten any "processed food" in, probably, 50 years.
Well, except for whole wheat bread (:-)

>The Inuit for example up until modern times ate extremely little non-animal foods. They've adapted to being almost constantly in ketogenic state (very little direct carbohydrate sources). Compare that to rainforest tribes who have plentiful and easily accessible fruit and vegetable sources. There are a lot of cases where people who grew up on a "western" diet have tried to switch cold to a strict ketogenic diet and become very sick. The metabolic pathways for conversion of protein to glycogen (called Gluconeogenesis) and fats to ketones ( called Ketogenesis) need time to develop. Not only will the body not immediately adapt to the the different micro nutrient profile, but the lack of glycogen directly from sugar metabolism can result in emotional swings a sin some cases cognitive issues. Try to feed an Inuit a Yanomami diet and vice versa could even result in death (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protein_poisoning).

Exactly, which was essentially my point. While groups living in
inhospitable areas or climates certainly ate a lot of "animal" food
the Navaho Indians (whatever the socially correct term is) and other
southern tribes ate a considerable amount of "farmed grown" food.
Thus establishing XXX as the "paleo" diet is really not an accurate
designation.
--
Cheers,

John B.

[John B.]

Late development??? I read that "Claims for the earliest definitive
evidence of control of fire by a member of Homo range from 1.7 to 2.0
million years ago"
--
Cheers,

John B.

[Tom Kunich]

John, Is this another of your B50 is not a B29 deals? Your mental problems are getting worse by the posting.

"H. sapiens was thought to have evolved approximately 200,000 years ago in East Africa. This estimate was shaped by the discovery in 1967 of the oldest remains attributed to H. sapiens, at a site in Ethiopia’s Omo Valley. The remains, made up of two skulls (Omo 1 and Omo 2), had initially been dated to 130,000 years ago, but through the application of more-sophisticated dating techniques in 2005, the remains were more accurately dated to 195,000 years ago."

Nothing like having man discovering fire almost 2 million years before they existed.

I will tell you what you ignorant butt-head: post any other total stupidity as you've been doing every single posting and I'm sure that you can get your audience to applaud your vast overreaching intelligence. I am done with you.

[jbeattie]

Dear Dope, hominids existed before H. sapiens and, indeed, started fires -- a million years ago. Go look it up. By the way, a theory is science if it is a scientific theory, like the theory of evolution or the theory of relativity. However, you may not believe in those theories -- being that you are a supreme intellect and probably know the actual truth, like that men walked with dinosaurs . . . in Texas. Long horn dinosaurs. That's where men harnessed fire and had dinosaur BBQs. It says so right in the good book. https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/613sx2tjAbL._SX218_BO1,204,203,200_QL40_FMwebp_.jpg

And what does this have to do with airplanes?

-- Jay Beattie.

[AMuzi]

On 11/15/2021 5:57 PM, jbeattie wrote:
> On Monday, November 15, 2021 at 3:41:42 PM UTC-8, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Monday, November 15, 2021 at 2:58:11 PM UTC-8, John B. wrote:
>>> On Mon, 15 Nov 2021 08:44:51 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich
>>> <cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Monday, November 15, 2021 at 8:21:45 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>> On 11/15/2021 10:12 AM, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's true to a certain extent. The major point of a paleolithic diet that is lost on many people is the focus to back away from processed foods. Any grain sources or anything containing processed sugar are pretty much forbidden. Paleolithic humans didn't eat much in the way of grains because the nutrients aren't very accessible in the raw state. It wasn't until the notion of cooking grains was discovered which made the energy in grains was more accessible to the human Physiology.
>>>>> A related aside: One article I read claimed that the early hominid use
>>>>> of fire was probably critical in evolution of the human brain. Cooking
>>>>> makes nutrients much more available to our digestive system, and without
>>>>> the easier availability of those nutrients, our (literally) power-hungry
>>>>> brains could not have evolved.
>>>>
>>>> Theories are not science. And that is and that is an especially egregious form of pretend science since there is no way to test it and you are presenting it as science. Homo Sapien didn't develop because of his diet but in spite of it. Fire was a very late development. A bit of historical accuracy would show that making fire required materials that were quite rare and difficult to recognize requiring higher mental faculties.
>>> Late development??? I read that "Claims for the earliest definitive
>>> evidence of control of fire by a member of Homo range from 1.7 to 2.0
>>> million years ago"
>> John, Is this another of your B50 is not a B29 deals? Your mental problems are getting worse by the posting.
>>

>> "H. sapiens was thought to have evolved approximately 200,000 years ago in East Africa. This estimate was shaped by the discovery in 1967 of the oldest remains attributed to H. sapiens, at a site in Ethiopia’s Omo Valley. The remains, made up of two skulls (Omo 1 and Omo 2), had initially been dated to 130,000 years ago, but through the application of more-sophisticated dating techniques in 2005, the remains were more accurately dated to 195,000 years ago."

>>
>> Nothing like having man discovering fire almost 2 million years before they existed.
>>
>> I will tell you what you ignorant butt-head: post any other total stupidity as you've been doing every single posting and I'm sure that you can get your audience to applaud your vast overreaching intelligence. I am done with you.
>
> Dear Dope, hominids existed before H. sapiens and, indeed, started fires -- a million years ago. Go look it up. By the way, a theory is science if it is a scientific theory, like the theory of evolution or the theory of relativity. However, you may not believe in those theories -- being that you are a supreme intellect and probably know the actual truth, like that men walked with dinosaurs . . . in Texas. Long horn dinosaurs. That's where men harnessed fire and had dinosaur BBQs. It says so right in the good book. https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/613sx2tjAbL._SX218_BO1,204,203,200_QL40_FMwebp_.jpg
>
> And what does this have to do with airplanes?
>
> -- Jay Beattie.
>

That JPG is a dead link for me. Damn, I was curious about it.

[John B.]

On Mon, 15 Nov 2021 15:41:40 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich

As I have said so many times, you really do need remedial schooling as
your understanding of what is on the printed page is rather nebulous.

If you had read what I wrote, I stated ""member of the homo". The term
includes a number of "homo" dating back to at least 2 million years
ago. See
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo

But, I suppose, as the Good Book tells us, "a stupid man will get
understanding when a wild donkey's colt is born a man!"
(Job 11:12)
--
Cheers,

John B.

[John B.]

There is a nautical term that applies to many of Tom's posts:
"Any port in a storm", or perhaps in layman's language, "If you don't
know the answer just change the subject".
--
Cheers,

John B.

[jbeattie]

Hmm. Try this: https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/51WCnyk5QfL.jpg Legends of Texas Barbecue Cookbook: Recipes and Recollections from the Pitmasters It has recipes going all the way back to Homo eroticus, the early hominids who developed dinosaur BBQ in Texas. https://memegenerator.net/img/images/14720081.jpg

-- Jay Beattie.

[AMuzi]

On 11/15/2021 6:56 PM, jbeattie wrote:
> On Monday, November 15, 2021 at 4:41:07 PM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
>> On 11/15/2021 5:57 PM, jbeattie wrote:
>>> On Monday, November 15, 2021 at 3:41:42 PM UTC-8, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> On Monday, November 15, 2021 at 2:58:11 PM UTC-8, John B. wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 15 Nov 2021 08:44:51 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich
>>>>> <cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Monday, November 15, 2021 at 8:21:45 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>>>> On 11/15/2021 10:12 AM, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That's true to a certain extent. The major point of a paleolithic diet that is lost on many people is the focus to back away from processed foods. Any grain sources or anything containing processed sugar are pretty much forbidden. Paleolithic humans didn't eat much in the way of grains because the nutrients aren't very accessible in the raw state. It wasn't until the notion of cooking grains was discovered which made the energy in grains was more accessible to the human Physiology.
>>>>>>> A related aside: One article I read claimed that the early hominid use
>>>>>>> of fire was probably critical in evolution of the human brain. Cooking
>>>>>>> makes nutrients much more available to our digestive system, and without
>>>>>>> the easier availability of those nutrients, our (literally) power-hungry
>>>>>>> brains could not have evolved.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Theories are not science. And that is and that is an especially egregious form of pretend science since there is no way to test it and you are presenting it as science. Homo Sapien didn't develop because of his diet but in spite of it. Fire was a very late development. A bit of historical accuracy would show that making fire required materials that were quite rare and difficult to recognize requiring higher mental faculties.
>>>>> Late development??? I read that "Claims for the earliest definitive
>>>>> evidence of control of fire by a member of Homo range from 1.7 to 2.0
>>>>> million years ago"
>>>> John, Is this another of your B50 is not a B29 deals? Your mental problems are getting worse by the posting.
>>>>

>>>> "H. sapiens was thought to have evolved approximately 200,000 years ago in East Africa. This estimate was shaped by the discovery in 1967 of the oldest remains attributed to H. sapiens, at a site in Ethiopia’s Omo Valley. The remains, made up of two skulls (Omo 1 and Omo 2), had initially been dated to 130,000 years ago, but through the application of more-sophisticated dating techniques in 2005, the remains were more accurately dated to 195,000 years ago."

>>>>
>>>> Nothing like having man discovering fire almost 2 million years before they existed.
>>>>
>>>> I will tell you what you ignorant butt-head: post any other total stupidity as you've been doing every single posting and I'm sure that you can get your audience to applaud your vast overreaching intelligence. I am done with you.
>>>
>>> Dear Dope, hominids existed before H. sapiens and, indeed, started fires -- a million years ago. Go look it up. By the way, a theory is science if it is a scientific theory, like the theory of evolution or the theory of relativity. However, you may not believe in those theories -- being that you are a supreme intellect and probably know the actual truth, like that men walked with dinosaurs . . . in Texas. Long horn dinosaurs. That's where men harnessed fire and had dinosaur BBQs. It says so right in the good book. https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/613sx2tjAbL._SX218_BO1,204,203,200_QL40_FMwebp_.jpg
>>>
>>> And what does this have to do with airplanes?
>>>
>>> -- Jay Beattie.
>>>
>> That JPG is a dead link for me. Damn, I was curious about it.
>
> Hmm. Try this: https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/51WCnyk5QfL.jpg Legends of Texas Barbecue Cookbook: Recipes and Recollections from the Pitmasters It has recipes going all the way back to Homo eroticus, the early hominids who developed dinosaur BBQ in Texas. https://memegenerator.net/img/images/14720081.jpg
>
> -- Jay Beattie.
>

Thanks that does look like fun. Maybe I ought to reconsider
Christianity; I've never ridden a dinosaur.

[funkma...@hotmail.com]

Our village idiot is on the loose again...Here tommy, Maybe this will help:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/04/120402162548.htm
"Microscopic traces of wood ash, alongside animal bones and stone tools, were found in a layer dated to one million years ago at the Wonderwerk Cave in South Africa."

"I will tell you what you ignorant butt-head: post any other total stupidity as you've been doing every single posting and I'm sure that you can get your audience to applaud your vast overreaching intelligence."

right back atcha, sparky, except your audience applause consists entirely of one person (two if you count yourself).

[funkma...@hotmail.com]

homo 'eroticus'. lol....Thanks for that laugh, I need it this morning.

[Tom Kunich]

I'm absolutely certain that you believe that pre-man used fire. Ash traces and animal remains certainly points directly to a BBQ to people like you. You couldn't find any other reason since your mind is so small.

[funkma...@hotmail.com]

"normal" is a relative term.

> >The Inuit for example up until modern times ate extremely little non-animal foods. They've adapted to being almost constantly in ketogenic state (very little direct carbohydrate sources). Compare that to rainforest tribes who have plentiful and easily accessible fruit and vegetable sources. There are a lot of cases where people who grew up on a "western" diet have tried to switch cold to a strict ketogenic diet and become very sick. The metabolic pathways for conversion of protein to glycogen (called Gluconeogenesis) and fats to ketones ( called Ketogenesis) need time to develop. Not only will the body not immediately adapt to the the different micro nutrient profile, but the lack of glycogen directly from sugar metabolism can result in emotional swings a sin some cases cognitive issues. Try to feed an Inuit a Yanomami diet and vice versa could even result in death (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protein_poisoning).
> Exactly, which was essentially my point. While groups living in
> inhospitable areas or climates certainly ate a lot of "animal" food
> the Navaho Indians (whatever the socially correct term is) and other
> southern tribes ate a considerable amount of "farmed grown" food.
> Thus establishing XXX as the "paleo" diet is really not an accurate
> designation.

Again, it's relative. It's true to say there isn't a "specific" paleo diet, but it's also true to say that there are certain common accepted dietary items that paleolithic humans had no access to. The modern iteration of the "paleo" diet is an attempt to move towards food items that paleolithic/early neolithic (hunter gatherers) human ancestors _would_ have eaten. In other words, if the Inuit had access to more carbohydrate rich food sources (fresh fruits and vegetables) before the industrial revolution, they probably would have eaten them.

[funkma...@hotmail.com]

Tell ya what sparky, you take that vast intellect supported by the knowledge of the three libraries you "read out" and write a rebuttal to the white paper I linked, then get it published for discussion at an anthropology conference. I'm sure you'll knock the socks off all the evil atheist evolutionist commie fascist pigs in the audience. Once you do that, and show your ideas are supported by verifiable data and given positive peer review (and no, the discovery institute doesn't qualify) maybe we'll give your skepticism some credibility. Until then your just a cranky old bastard suffering from memory issues and a healthy narcissistic personality disorder.

[Tom Kunich]

When you don't know anything at all about science perhaps you should simply keep your stupid mouth shut. According to these people, pre-humans with the IQ nearing 20 were not only using fire to cook animals but making fire. You ignorance is staggering and yet you continue to post.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MkqQIY7J0fQ

[Tom Kunich]

We should also add that I sincerely doubt that YOU, a modern man supposedly, could even recognize flint or how to use it if you tripped over it.

[AMuzi]

On 11/16/2021 10:33 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 16, 2021 at 8:29:38 AM UTC-8, Tom Kunich wrote:
>> On Tuesday, November 16, 2021 at 7:32:01 AM UTC-8, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, November 16, 2021 at 10:20:58 AM UTC-5, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> On Tuesday, November 16, 2021 at 6:49:21 AM UTC-8, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>> On Monday, November 15, 2021 at 6:41:42 PM UTC-5, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> On Monday, November 15, 2021 at 2:58:11 PM UTC-8, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>> On Mon, 15 Nov 2021 08:44:51 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich
>>>>>>> <cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Monday, November 15, 2021 at 8:21:45 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 11/15/2021 10:12 AM, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> That's true to a certain extent. The major point of a paleolithic diet that is lost on many people is the focus to back away from processed foods. Any grain sources or anything containing processed sugar are pretty much forbidden. Paleolithic humans didn't eat much in the way of grains because the nutrients aren't very accessible in the raw state. It wasn't until the notion of cooking grains was discovered which made the energy in grains was more accessible to the human Physiology.
>>>>>>>>> A related aside: One article I read claimed that the early hominid use
>>>>>>>>> of fire was probably critical in evolution of the human brain. Cooking
>>>>>>>>> makes nutrients much more available to our digestive system, and without
>>>>>>>>> the easier availability of those nutrients, our (literally) power-hungry
>>>>>>>>> brains could not have evolved.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Theories are not science. And that is and that is an especially egregious form of pretend science since there is no way to test it and you are presenting it as science. Homo Sapien didn't develop because of his diet but in spite of it. Fire was a very late development. A bit of historical accuracy would show that making fire required materials that were quite rare and difficult to recognize requiring higher mental faculties.
>>>>>>> Late development??? I read that "Claims for the earliest definitive
>>>>>>> evidence of control of fire by a member of Homo range from 1.7 to 2.0
>>>>>>> million years ago"
>>>>>> John, Is this another of your B50 is not a B29 deals? Your mental problems are getting worse by the posting.
>>>>>>

>>>>>> "H. sapiens was thought to have evolved approximately 200,000 years ago in East Africa. This estimate was shaped by the discovery in 1967 of the oldest remains attributed to H. sapiens, at a site in Ethiopia’s Omo Valley. The remains, made up of two skulls (Omo 1 and Omo 2), had initially been dated to 130,000 years ago, but through the application of more-sophisticated dating techniques in 2005, the remains were more accurately dated to 195,000 years ago."

>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nothing like having man discovering fire almost 2 million years before they existed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I will tell you what you ignorant butt-head: post any other total stupidity as you've been doing every single posting and I'm sure that you can get your audience to applaud your vast overreaching intelligence. I am done with you.
>>>>> Our village idiot is on the loose again...Here tommy, Maybe this will help:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/04/120402162548.htm
>>>>> "Microscopic traces of wood ash, alongside animal bones and stone tools, were found in a layer dated to one million years ago at the Wonderwerk Cave in South Africa."
>>>>> "I will tell you what you ignorant butt-head: post any other total stupidity as you've been doing every single posting and I'm sure that you can get your audience to applaud your vast overreaching intelligence."
>>>>> right back atcha, sparky, except your audience applause consists entirely of one person (two if you count yourself).
>>>> I'm absolutely certain that you believe that pre-man used fire. Ash traces and animal remains certainly points directly to a BBQ to people like you. You couldn't find any other reason since your mind is so small.
>>> Tell ya what sparky, you take that vast intellect supported by the knowledge of the three libraries you "read out" and write a rebuttal to the white paper I linked, then get it published for discussion at an anthropology conference. I'm sure you'll knock the socks off all the evil atheist evolutionist commie fascist pigs in the audience. Once you do that, and show your ideas are supported by verifiable data and given positive peer review (and no, the discovery institute doesn't qualify) maybe we'll give your skepticism some credibility. Until then your just a cranky old bastard suffering from memory issues and a healthy narcissistic personality disorder.
>> When you don't know anything at all about science perhaps you should simply keep your stupid mouth shut. According to these people, pre-humans with the IQ nearing 20 were not only using fire to cook animals but making fire. You ignorance is staggering and yet you continue to post.
>>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MkqQIY7J0fQ
>
> We should also add that I sincerely doubt that YOU, a modern man supposedly, could even recognize flint or how to use it if you tripped over it.
>

Among us Ancient Ones, flint is well known:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bviFhtW4fG0

[Tom Kunich]

Flunkmaster wants us to think that proto-humans had the ability to recognize and find flint and iron. That they knew how to dry moss finely enough so that a mere spark would cause it to start smoldering so that you could blow it into a real flame and have wood cut finely enough to grow that smoldering moss into fire and then to grill game on it. To me it always is a bit comical that they are willing to grant to proto-human knowledge that they themselves do not hold. I guess Flunkmeister is a REAL scientist.

[funkma...@hotmail.com]

On Tuesday, November 16, 2021 at 1:00:39 PM UTC-5, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> Flunkmaster wants us to think that proto-humans had the ability to recognize and find flint and iron. That they knew how to dry moss finely enough so that a mere spark would cause it to start smoldering so that you could blow it into a real flame and have wood cut finely enough to grow that smoldering moss into fire and then to grill game on it. To me it always is a bit comical that they are willing to grant to proto-human knowledge that they themselves do not hold. I guess Flunkmeister is a REAL scientist.

So I guess that white paper isn't coming anytime soon, eh? Did anyone make any claims about how human ancestors managed to control fire? No. That would have been a good place for you to maturely raise skepticism and possibly do some research into possible alternatives for the existence of what _appeared_ to be a fire pit used for cooking in a cave that was dated to 1M years ago, rather than insult the people who presented the information to you because of the source of the information.

Do you have any verifiable information to support your position?
Of course you don't.

Did you bother to read the white paper and perhaps offer any counter evidence to the study that shows anthropological forensics supporting consumption of cooked food as early as 1.9MYA?
OF course not.

Tommy's too smart for that.
Tommy knows all.
Tommy knows way more about anthropology than all those anthropologists put together, probably because they're all college-educated atheist evolutionist commie fascist pigs with an agenda to destroy america, while tommy, as a completely self-taught patriotic trump supporting american christian, is right about everything, all the time.

Ask yourself this: Why is that andrew - who holds political views somewhat similar to yours - doesn't get into ad hominem exchanges with people even when he allows himself to be diverted into said political discussions? Why is it that even when Andrew (or anyone for that matter) disagrees with frank over equipment selections, frank doesn't resort to changing the subject to some completely unrelated issue and attempt to paint the other person as a politically deluded fool who wants to destroy america? Why is it any of the other conservative voices in this forum don't end up in stupid little tete a tetes like you do when the discussion turns political?

I'll help you out - it's because Andrew respects people even when they disagree with him. It's because frank is enough of a gentleman to engage in a disagreement respectfully. It's because in general, the members of this forum are willing to engage and allow others to express ideas and opinions and accept them for that - an idea or an opinion. In otherwords, everyone here treats everyone else here with respect - everyone except for you.

I want to have an honest and rational discussions with people who have the intellect and temperament to have an exchange of ideas without it devolving into you calling people names like a petulant 5 year old whose mommy wouldn't buy him a popsicle (intentional irony duly noted). You on the other hand are the only person who constantly posts arrogant and rude responses to anyone who disagrees with you.

If you'd _like_ to have a rational discussion on the possibility of pre-sapiens hominids possibly controlling fire, do some research, present ideas that support your position, and _respectfully_ counter disagreements with more research, or at least logical rational deductive interpretations that support your position.

How you managed to survive this long without somebody caving your fucking skull in I'll never understand.

[John B.]

On Tue, 16 Nov 2021 08:33:15 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich

What has flint to do with primitive "man" making fire?

Or is this just another example of "Tommy the Twit" changing the
subject because he doesn't know the answer?
--
Cheers,

John B.

[John B.]

On Tue, 16 Nov 2021 10:00:36 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich

<cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Tuesday, November 16, 2021 at 9:35:10 AM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
>> On 11/16/2021 10:33 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>> > On Tuesday, November 16, 2021 at 8:29:38 AM UTC-8, Tom Kunich wrote:
>> >> On Tuesday, November 16, 2021 at 7:32:01 AM UTC-8, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> >>> On Tuesday, November 16, 2021 at 10:20:58 AM UTC-5, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >>>> On Tuesday, November 16, 2021 at 6:49:21 AM UTC-8, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> >>>>> On Monday, November 15, 2021 at 6:41:42 PM UTC-5, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >>>>>> On Monday, November 15, 2021 at 2:58:11 PM UTC-8, John B. wrote:
>> >>>>>>> On Mon, 15 Nov 2021 08:44:51 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich
>> >>>>>>> <cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> On Monday, November 15, 2021 at 8:21:45 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>> On 11/15/2021 10:12 AM, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> That's true to a certain extent. The major point of a paleolithic diet that is lost on many people is the focus to back away from processed foods. Any grain sources or anything containing processed sugar are pretty much forbidden. Paleolithic humans didn't eat much in the way of grains because the nutrients aren't very accessible in the raw state. It wasn't until the notion of cooking grains was discovered which made the energy in grains was more accessible to the human Physiology.
>> >>>>>>>>> A related aside: One article I read claimed that the early hominid use
>> >>>>>>>>> of fire was probably critical in evolution of the human brain. Cooking
>> >>>>>>>>> makes nutrients much more available to our digestive system, and without
>> >>>>>>>>> the easier availability of those nutrients, our (literally) power-hungry
>> >>>>>>>>> brains could not have evolved.
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> Theories are not science. And that is and that is an especially egregious form of pretend science since there is no way to test it and you are presenting it as science. Homo Sapien didn't develop because of his diet but in spite of it. Fire was a very late development. A bit of historical accuracy would show that making fire required materials that were quite rare and difficult to recognize requiring higher mental faculties.
>> >>>>>>> Late development??? I read that "Claims for the earliest definitive
>> >>>>>>> evidence of control of fire by a member of Homo range from 1.7 to 2.0
>> >>>>>>> million years ago"
>> >>>>>> John, Is this another of your B50 is not a B29 deals? Your mental problems are getting worse by the posting.
>> >>>>>>

>> >>>>>> "H. sapiens was thought to have evolved approximately 200,000 years ago in East Africa. This estimate was shaped by the discovery in 1967 of the oldest remains attributed to H. sapiens, at a site in Ethiopia’s Omo Valley. The remains, made up of two skulls (Omo 1 and Omo 2), had initially been dated to 130,000 years ago, but through the application of more-sophisticated dating techniques in 2005, the remains were more accurately dated to 195,000 years ago."

>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> Nothing like having man discovering fire almost 2 million years before they existed.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> I will tell you what you ignorant butt-head: post any other total stupidity as you've been doing every single posting and I'm sure that you can get your audience to applaud your vast overreaching intelligence. I am done with you.
>> >>>>> Our village idiot is on the loose again...Here tommy, Maybe this will help:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/04/120402162548.htm
>> >>>>> "Microscopic traces of wood ash, alongside animal bones and stone tools, were found in a layer dated to one million years ago at the Wonderwerk Cave in South Africa."
>> >>>>> "I will tell you what you ignorant butt-head: post any other total stupidity as you've been doing every single posting and I'm sure that you can get your audience to applaud your vast overreaching intelligence."
>> >>>>> right back atcha, sparky, except your audience applause consists entirely of one person (two if you count yourself).
>> >>>> I'm absolutely certain that you believe that pre-man used fire. Ash traces and animal remains certainly points directly to a BBQ to people like you. You couldn't find any other reason since your mind is so small.
>> >>> Tell ya what sparky, you take that vast intellect supported by the knowledge of the three libraries you "read out" and write a rebuttal to the white paper I linked, then get it published for discussion at an anthropology conference. I'm sure you'll knock the socks off all the evil atheist evolutionist commie fascist pigs in the audience. Once you do that, and show your ideas are supported by verifiable data and given positive peer review (and no, the discovery institute doesn't qualify) maybe we'll give your skepticism some credibility. Until then your just a cranky old bastard suffering from memory issues and a healthy narcissistic personality disorder.
>> >> When you don't know anything at all about science perhaps you should simply keep your stupid mouth shut. According to these people, pre-humans with the IQ nearing 20 were not only using fire to cook animals but making fire. You ignorance is staggering and yet you continue to post.
>> >>
>> >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MkqQIY7J0fQ
>> >
>> > We should also add that I sincerely doubt that YOU, a modern man supposedly, could even recognize flint or how to use it if you tripped over it.
>> >
>> Among us Ancient Ones, flint is well known:
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bviFhtW4fG0
>
>Flunkmaster wants us to think that proto-humans had the ability to recognize and find flint and iron. That they knew how to dry moss finely enough so that a mere spark would cause it to start smoldering so that you could blow it into a real flame and have wood cut finely enough to grow that smoldering moss into fire and then to grill game on it. To me it always is a bit comical that they are willing to grant to proto-human knowledge that they themselves do not hold. I guess Flunkmeister is a REAL scientist.

Tommy boy, you just go on and on, flaunting your ignorance for all the
world to see.

What in the world does flint and iron have to do with primitive "man"
starting fires?
--
Cheers,

John B.

[John B.]

Be kind. After all Tommy suffers from certain deficiencies. Poorly
educated and not overly intelligent he has a problem with facts and
figures and instead of ridiculing him you should be treating him with
the sympathy that the mentally deficient deserve.

After all, would you beat your pet rock with a stick?
--
Cheers,

John B.

[Tom Kunich]

There is one thing I've learned about you and John, you always blame me for doing the things that you are doing. Nothing but coverups. It is likely that a modern Chimpanzee has a higher IQ than homo erectis but you're complaining that I'm making fun of you because I know for a fact that 2 million years ago NO Homo species of any sort was cooking food.

[Tom Kunich]

I'm changing the subject because you believe that precursors to Homo Sapiens simply used matches to start a fire.

[John B.]

On Tue, 16 Nov 2021 07:20:56 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich

And you Tommy? What are you certain of? That the earth is flat and the
moon is made of blue cheese?
--
Cheers,

John B.

[Tom Kunich]

On Tuesday, November 16, 2021 at 2:50:43 PM UTC-8, John B. wrote:
>
> Tommy boy, you just go on and on, flaunting your ignorance for all the
> world to see.
>
> What in the world does flint and iron have to do with primitive "man"
> starting fires?

Well gee John, explain to us all how you think that the precursors to man started a fire to cook that food you're so sure they did?

[John B.]

On Tue, 16 Nov 2021 07:23:28 -0800 (PST), "funkma...@hotmail.com"

Hmmm...So cutting down on the canned tuna and spam makes it "palio"?
Oh yes, and milk, it takes a strong man to run down and milk a
lactating dinosaur.
--
Cheers,

John B.

[John B.]

No Tommy, nobody blames you for what they are doing. We blame you for
what you are doing... Telling lies.

As for the IQ of a chimpanzee versus primitive man? How would you
know? Are you friendly with a chimp?
--
Cheers,

John B.

[John B.]

On Tue, 16 Nov 2021 15:04:37 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich

Really? Did anyone actually say that primitive man used matches? Or is
this simply another example of your "vivid" imagination.

St Mary Bethlehem, Bethlehem Hospital, sometimes known as "Bedlam" was
established in 1247. Originally not a "hospital" in the modern sense
it became "an institution supported by charity or taxes for the care
of the needy" and ultimately began to specialize in the care and
control of the insane.

Until about 1790 one could, by paying a fee, visit the institution to
view the antics of the population and there exists a 1610 record which
details Lord Percy's payment of 10 shillings for the privilege of
rambling through the hospital to view its deranged denizens.

Just think. How lucky we are to have our very own Tommy, right here on
RBT where we can view his antics without paying a single cent.
--
Cheers,

John B.

[John B.]

Well, certainly not by the use of "flint and steel", as the term used
for many years.

You see Tommy, the first use of iron, or steel, is said to be as early
as 1200 BC, some 1 to 2 millions years after "man" learned to use
fire.
--
Cheers,

John B.

[jbeattie]

Low intellect creatures often stumble into favorable circumstances, like you actually fixing a bike. Hominids before H. sapiens used tools and lived in savanna, and it is possible one of them was beating iron pyrite against flint or some other favorable rock, enjoyed the sparks and lit up some dry grass or some other tinder. Who knows. They had a few thousand years to get it right, and there wasn't anything else do do at night. Controlling fire allowed our pre-H. sapiens ancestors to migrate into colder climates, like Croatia. https://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-fossils/species/homo-heidelbergensis Those are your people. I descended from these people. https://tinyurl.com/2s2k438h. God gave them Zippo lighters, and it was good.

-- Jay Beattie.

[Frank Krygowski]

IIRC the speculation is that the earliest use of fire was opportunistic - that hominids took advantage of fires that
started naturally, for example by lightning. Once those fires were found to be valuable, the next stage would be
to learn to keep a fire going by conserving it, or at least conserving hot coals that could be used to start another
fire. That latter behavior was common among American Indians and other stone age tribes until historic times,
at least. Starting a brand new fire would have come much later.

But I admit, I haven't read the most recent research on this. That will be Tom's article, once it's accepted for
publication.

- Frank Krygowski

[John B.]

I can just remember both my grandmothers cooking on a wood stove and
in fact my mother was capable of doing so although I don't remember
her actually doing it.

But my point is that even long after matches were invented people
still didn't let the fire go out as it takes some time to get a fire
started and ready to cook with so disregarding primitive folks it is
probable that anyone that depended on a fire spent considerable effort
to keep it burning (:-)

>But I admit, I haven't read the most recent research on this. That will be Tom's article, once it's accepted for
>publication.
>
>- Frank Krygowski

--
Cheers,

John B.

[funkma...@hotmail.com]

On Tuesday, November 16, 2021 at 6:02:17 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Nov 2021 06:49:18 -0800 (PST), "funkma...@hotmail.com"

> >https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/04/120402162548.htm
> >"Microscopic traces of wood ash, alongside animal bones and stone tools, were found in a layer dated to one million years ago at the Wonderwerk Cave in South Africa."
> >
> >"I will tell you what you ignorant butt-head: post any other total stupidity as you've been doing every single posting and I'm sure that you can get your audience to applaud your vast overreaching intelligence."
> >right back atcha, sparky, except your audience applause consists entirely of one person (two if you count yourself).
> Be kind. After all Tommy suffers from certain deficiencies. Poorly
> educated and not overly intelligent he has a problem with facts and
> figures and instead of ridiculing him you should be treating him with
> the sympathy that the mentally deficient deserve.
>
> After all, would you beat your pet rock with a stick?

Trust me when I tell you I have a vast amount of pity for him, and even more for those unfortunate enough to _have_ to deal with him.

> --
> Cheers,
>
> John B.

[funkma...@hotmail.com]

Can you present any evidence that human ancestors were _not_ cooking 2MYA? Because I've linked a white paper that shows the opposite. Go ahead sparky, back up your claim - and no the phrase "I know for a fact" isn't evidence.

[funkma...@hotmail.com]

no, eliminating processed meats is a step towards following a paleo diet. To throw another caveat into the discussion, there is a lot of evidence that shows the soft tissues were the preferred choice before eating muscle meat. mmmmm....haggis!

> Oh yes, and milk, it takes a strong man to run down and milk a
> lactating dinosaur.

It would indeed, including needing a time machine. As has been mentioned, hunter/gatherers were opportunistic. Would they have drank the milk from a lactating wildebeest they managed to kill? Maybe, They also would likely have gorged themselves on a find of fresh mangos - which is generally frowned upon in the currently defined paleo diet. Likely would have sucked up a few handfuls of fresh honey had they decided to brave the bees - Honey is at the bottom of the list in a paleo diet. Tobe clear John, I'm generally agreeing with you. In a historical context a "paleo" can't really be specifically defined. .

> --
> Cheers,
>
> John B.

[William Crowell]

I know for a fact that ancient man made fire about a million years ago, because I watched the movie "Quest For Fire". If you haven't seen it, you should. No dialogue, just grunts. That's the way Real Men should live! And as that delicious babe Rae Dawn Chong demonstrates therein, they learned about fire around the same time they switched to the missionary position.

[funkma...@hotmail.com]

Yes, That is the speculation. Starting a fire is hard, especially when all one has is wood and stone tools. I'm sure tommy could start a fire by rubbing his hands together really really fast, but for those of us normal humans, that isn't very doable.

[funkma...@hotmail.com]

On Wednesday, November 17, 2021 at 5:32:54 AM UTC-5, William Crowell wrote:
> I know for a fact that ancient man made fire about a million years ago, because I watched the movie "Quest For Fire". If you haven't seen it, you should. No dialogue, just grunts. That's the way Real Men should live! And as that delicious babe Rae Dawn Chong demonstrates therein, they learned about fire around the same time they switched to the missionary position.

That movie surprised me. It had a lot of really funny scenes - when the three guys on the quest got trapped in the small tree by the lion - the slapstick comedy when one 'caveman' dropped the coal in the water. It's actually a fun movie.

[funkma...@hotmail.com]

Your mother isn't here tommy, you need to do your own homework.
On that note, When you first expressed your scepticism, you might have done 5 minutes of googling and come up with this paper:

https://web.archive.org/web/20151017032715/http://faculty.ksu.edu.sa/archaeology/Publications/Hearths/Hominid%20Use%20of%20Fire%20in%20the%20Lower%20and%20Middle%20Pleistocene.pdf
"Hominid Use of Fire in the Lower and Middle Pleistocene: A Review of the Evidence"

Of course, that was a 1989 paper, and quite a lot has change since then such as radioisotope analysis of heavy carbon ash in 2019 (https://www.chemistryworld.com/news/neanderthals-were-master-fire-starters-cave-chemistry-suggests/4010595.article) , but at least you'd have _something_ as back up rather than just running your mouth.

[Tom Kunich]

Jay, Hominids are social creatures and so live in social groups. One of the odd things about them is that they are born practically without any IQ at all and totally unable to care for themselves at all and hence their parents must do that. As they grow older, their brains continue to grow. This means that their skull capacity also grows. Until it reaches certain evolutionary limits. The brightest toolmakers among Homo Erectus had IQ's of about 50 which is about an average 7 year old among Homo Sapiens. The average Homo Erectus had IQ's closer to 40. They could make sparks all they wanted and it would NEVER ring a bell that it could be used to light a fire. Making fire is an extremely complicated process that sparked the entire human race's civilization. There was NEVER any civilization of Homo Erectus. So there was no purposeful use of fire.

You might think to yourself that a 7 year old could figure out that fire had uses. Firstly if he had never seem fires save those to run from, he would be unlikely to. Secondly, if he did it would be because he had seen fire being used and would still be unlikely to understand how you could make fire from things available to him at that time. Thirdly, Homo Erectus did not have the capacity to grow his intelligence which Homo Sapiens does.

[Tom Kunich]

Frank, how many papers have you had accepted for publications and can you refer me to them?

[jbeattie]

That sounds reasonable -- although there is evidence of Zippo lighters during the Flintstonian era. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ntrsMAlIQWA&ab_channel=Stryder45

-- Jay Beattie.

[Tom Kunich]

Flunkmaster the scientist. I cannot tell you the mirth you bring to me with your belief that your feelings one way or the other means anything at all. John's pure ignorance showing that he is in the middle of dementia and thinks that people didn't let fires go out because they took too much time to restart. This must be his memories of choo-choo trains.