CBBC educational?

This afternoon there is a feature on CBBC about the nutrition of the caveman on tv. I figured that would be massively interesting. And its sure food for conversation as we found out there are several things mentioned in there which are simply not true.
One of them is that the caveman in the UK valued the rabbit meat. This surprising as the rabbit is not native to the UK, so how can the caveman in the UK have eaten rabbits then, when the vikings brought them over, or were the vikings historically before the caveman in the timeline??
So this is simply not true.
Just like hares weren't in the UK until the Romans, which means that hares were there before rabbits even. And in the time of the Romans there were no caveman anymore.
Besides the rabbits wouldn't have been valued that much as the meat is way way way too lean for the caveman to stay healthy on. They needed the fat from other animal sources and they made sure they got it, as the caveman was healthier than the majority of humans in the western world today.
The other thing that was mentioned is that the caveman first ate its food raw. Sure, very healthy. Then the comment came that by the time the caveman discovered fire there was a boost in healthy. I doubt that very much.
Of course there were more different types of food that became to the caveman, but those were not necessarily boosting its health. Its not for nothing that these days people are going back to the caveman diet to become more healthy, as simply their food was very very healthy.
There was also a fear mongering bit in there about eating meat raw, even my kids know there is nothing wrong with that and they started complaining to the tv :-)
So much for educational tv. Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. It became clear to me again that I have to be with them when they watch something "educational" to make sure they also get the other side of the politically correct story.
I keep being surprised about all the inconsistencies.

Good that they didn't go on about the caveman only becoming about 30 and then mentioning in the same phrase that girls didn't get their periods until 16, 17 or 18 and that is the reason why women get more cancer these days in the reproductive system as they get their periods earlier and earlier and are therefore exposed to the hormones much longers.

UGH??? How can that be, mom dies at 30, but you weren't born until she was like 17, so you are 13 when she dies, how can mankind have survived then?
As you are with yr 13 the oldest, the rest must be much younger.
Its soooo stupid those comments.

There is research that shows that stone age people didn't go through puberty like humans today and reached adulthood by about the age of 12 to 13, but then the periods must have come sooner to women and not like around 16, 17. Because that doesn't make any sense then at all.

In a way I am convinced that its all still quite a lot of guess work in stead of real factual stuff, as its very difficult to find real information, as nobody wrote anything down.

I am, however, convinced that the paleolithic diet was a healthy one and that it was not the diet which made people die very young, there must have been more that had to do with it. And maybe it was just more genetically and that we grew older with the centuries.

Whatever was the real truth, its definitely great conversation material with the kids and they keep digging and digging to find out what scientists have come up with :-)