The headline is broadly defensible, but the qualifications matter. Effect sizes vary by population, the strongest claims rest on shorter trials, and credible voices push back on how it's typically framed.
i think almost 100 percent of the studies and i think there are more than 10 show that humans were carnivores i mean there are more carnivores actually than the carnivores in their area because the large animals accumulate higher percentage of that isotope so when you eat larger animals your level of the isotope is is higher
Every Sunday: the week’s new conflicts and verdict changes — and nothing else.
Native comments, Twitter mentions, and Reddit threads about this claim — surfaced together so the conversation isn't fragmented across platforms.
Bookmarking — the dossier-vs-overview split is the right call. Most of the time I want overview; sometimes I want receipts.
Would love a "what would change this verdict" RSS feed. Sign me up if it exists.
there are uh yeah maybe there's 15 here or 14 papers and you can see that in almost every single one the stable isotope levels were suggesting that the diet was composed of a carnivorous level
so we're looking only at the at the end of the stone age you start to see a an increase or reduction in the trophic level and you start to see lower levels of that isotope