• mriguy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    1 day ago

    Either that article is terribly written or the study cited says exactly the opposite of what is implied. “Substituted processed red meat protein for that found in nuts….” means eliminated the plant protein and replaced it with red meat protein. They almost certainly mean “substituted… with”, but as written that’s 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 papers’ 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.

      • 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.

  • A_A@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 days ago

    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.