Paul Saladino· MD
carnivores and generalists have different morphology of fat cells whereby uh generalists have smaller number of larger fat cells and carnivores have a higher number of smaller fat cells to store the same amount of fat
Loading…
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.
carnivores and generalists have different morphology of fat cells whereby uh generalists have smaller number of larger fat cells and carnivores have a higher number of smaller fat cells to store the same amount of fat
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.
this means that humans already were evolving in a very basic way to to become carnivores because uh primates don't have that structure primates have a structure of a generalist more more than we do so it's it's i in my opinion these are very strong and they say they say actually you know in the paper in 85 they said this means that human evolve to be a consumer of protein and fat rather than carbohydrates this is what they say
interestingly omnivorous species of the order carnivora bears badgers foxes and voles display more carnivorous patterns than their diet entails thus humans might also be expected to display organization closer to their omnivorous pilogenic ancestry however humans fall squarely within the carnivore adipocyte morphology pattern of smaller more numerous cells