Are 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.