Eating processed red meat, like bacon and sausages, is linked to a 16% higher dementia risk. This alarming finding highlights the importance of dietary choices in protecting cognitive function as we age.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
So the headline is correct, and the paper is confusingly worded?
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.
I think the journal article wrap up is pretty clear.
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.