3 ms·
> completely misstates the purpose and findings...primarily carnivorous, but still had some level of dietary plant consumption. That's exactly what the article
by mpweiher 6y ago
> completely misstates the purpose and findings...primarily carnivorous, but still had some level of dietary plant consumption.
That's exactly what the article says, so not sure why you're saying it completely misstates the purpose and findings.
- AlotOfReading 6y agoAre you saying that your initial reaction to the headline ("For 2 million years, humans ate meat and little else") and first line ("...hyper-carnivorous “apex predators” that ate mostly the meat of large animals") was to note the obvious corollary that "There is little argument that Paleolithic diets were higher in plants than recent Polar diets..."? Since the whole point of science communications is communicating nuanced ideas without perpetuating misunderstandings, the fact that discussions here are reflecting the former rather than the latter is what I mean.
- mpweiher 6y ago> initial reaction ... Polar diets... Nope. Because the article doesn't talk about polar diets and polar diets are not on my mind otherwise. Thinking about it for 3 seconds, a "mostly" meat diet doesn't seem at all at odds with being higher in plants than a polar diet, which I gather is pretty much exclusively meat-based.