• mriguy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      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. It’s clearly unintentional - they’re not deceptively trying to say red meat is good for you, but words actually mean something, so using the wrong ones doesn’t help anybody.

      • BobTheDestroyer@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        23 hours ago

        I think the journal article wrap up is pretty clear.

        Discussion

        Higher intake of red meat, particularly processed red meat, was associated with a higher risk of developing dementia and worse cognition. Reducing red meat consumption could be included in dietary guidelines to promote cognitive health.

        • mriguy@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          20 hours ago

          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.