New study links red meat to faster cognitive decline - If people substituted processed red meat protein for that found in nuts, tofu or beans, they could reduce their dementia risk by 19%.
https://www.psypost.org/new-study-links-red-meat-to-faster-cognitive-decline/
9 Comments
A_A@lemmy.world · 18 pts · 1y
Put a picture of beans to have immense success here at Lemmy with your post ... especially since this article is about beans
On top of that, since you are in a vegan community, this picture of bacon could be undesirable.
You can simply edit your post by moving the link to the header section and replace the URL by some Bean picture link.
Martineski@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 9 pts · 1y
Agree about the pic.
F04118F@feddit.nl · 3 pts · 1y
Maybe it's plant-based bacon?
A_A@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 1y
š„š³āš„šš¾ !
mriguy@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 1y
Either that article is terribly written or the study cited says exactly the opposite of what is implied. āSubstituted processed red meat protein for that found in nutsā¦.ā means eliminated the plant protein and replaced it with red meat protein. They almost certainly mean āsubstituted⦠withā, but as written thatās not what they say.
EDIT: the original scientific paper uses a similar awkward construction, but in context it is clearer than in the popular article. Most of the papersā authors appear to be non native English speakers, but their co-authors, the journal editors or the reviewers should have corrected that. Ambiguity in scientific papers is bad.
SamboT@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 1y
So the headline is correct, and the paper is confusingly worded?
mriguy@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 1y
The post headline correctly reports the way the article incorrectly paraphrases the confusingly written journal article.
The phrasing in the journal article is clumsy but clear in context. The article this post cites removes the context, so the only reading of the sentence in the article is directly opposite to what the journal article says. Itās clearly unintentional - theyāre not deceptively trying to say red meat is good for you, but words actually mean something, so using the wrong ones doesnāt help anybody.
BobTheDestroyer@lemm.ee · 2 pts · 1y
I think the journal article wrap up is pretty clear.
mriguy@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 1y
The journal article is generally fine, and if the article had quoted that line from the discussion it would have been ok.
My complaint was the popular article paraphrasing the one sentence in the journal article that used words in a way that completely inverted the message of the journal article.