6 ms·

Is this website reputable? The related articles it's trying to give me are: - Strengthening bone, not muscle, is the reason to lift weights - Red meat

Is this website reputable? The related articles it's trying to give me are: - Strengthening bone, not muscle, is the reason to lift weights - Red meat is not a health risk. New study slams years of shoddy research - Years of shoddy research have overstated the risk. - What you eat can reprogram your genes - How to eat if you want to age slowly - Americans are ignoring the one true “superfood”

bannedbybros 3y ago
[dead]
crazygringo 3y ago
The website itself doesn't really matter, the paper is linked directly: https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/15/4/838 https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/15/4/838 Is "Nutrients" a reputable journal? Do the authors have a good track record? I have no idea, but would love if someone more knowledgeable here can comment.
- curiousgibbon 3y ago
  In my field, which is not science, MDPI seems to publish many, many bad journals. They're embedded in the for-profit publishing corner of the science-industrial complex and I would consider the very real possibility this paper is part total garbage part evil moneymaking scheme.
- zeroonetwothree 3y ago
  It’s consistent with other research I’ve seen that suggests higher protein intake is beneficial.
  - lolinder 3y ago
    That doesn't answer OP's question. Is that other research published in reputable journals by people without a conflict of interest, or is it also funded by a protein shake company and published in a controversial journal? We've long passed the point where we can trust papers written in the field of nutrition without looking extremely critically at their funding and research methods.
- PaulHoule 3y ago
  MDPI is controversial, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MDPI https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MDPI and also https://www.mdpi.com/about/announcements/5482 https://www.mdpi.com/about/announcements/5482 https://retractionwatch.com/2023/05/08/article-that-assessed-mdpi-journals-as-predatory-retracted-and-replaced/ https://retractionwatch.com/2023/05/08/article-that-assessed... I know YOShInOn ingests a lot of articles from MDPI journals, more than any other source. The report I have at my fingertips now is "bottom scoring" articles by my preference and MDPI papers feature prominently in that but that's not because I never like anything from MDPI or because the quality of articles is necessarily bad but because I'd certainly downvote "Vaccinatiopn In Immunosuppressed Patients With Established Skin Warts and Non-Melanoma Skin Cancer: A Single-Institutional Cohort Study". It still shows me quite a few. ArXiv papers rank better overall but that's because I only subscribe to CS on arXiv. --- It's actually a high priority for YOShInOn to have some process to track down links from articles like this that link to scientific articles because sometimes the original article is a better link than the recap and sometimes the other way around.
- InsomniacL 3y ago
  There's lots of claims on the websites article beyond that made in the study. There's lots of negative press about the journal it's published in. > Open-access journal editors resign after alleged pressure to publish mediocre papers > Nutrients editors quit en masse from MDPI journal > https://www.science.org/content/article/open-access-editors-resign-after-alleged-pressure-publish-mediocre-papers https://www.science.org/content/article/open-access-editors-... Further, the paper is published by employees of Abbot Nutrition who financially benefit from the conclusions of the paper. "Conflicts of Interest - The authors S.R.H. and M.W. are employed by Abbott Nutrition. " That's not to say it's right or wrong, but i didn't know any of the above until i googled to respond to your comment.
amanj41 3y ago
First two started strong and all downhill from there
gadders 3y ago
I mean the first one is definitely true (or is an additional reason, especially as people age). I think when people say "red meat is bad for you" they need to define red meat. Burgers and sausages - probably not great. Steak, chops etc - probably OK.
- hammock 3y ago
  Why do you believe a steak is better than a burger? Isn't burger ground steak?
  - bratwurst3000 3y ago
    Ideally yes but in reality it is low quality meat that is fortified and highly processed.
    - hammock 3y ago
      What do you mean fortified?
      - lm28469 3y ago
        They very often add vitamins and minerals to low quality products to make up for bad nutritional values
        Kirby64 3y ago
        What bad nutritional values? It's beef. Are you implying that some fancy high end ground beef has materially different contents of vitamins and minerals compared to cheap ground beef at a store? I'd like to see sources on that.
        lm28469 3y ago
        100% beef fat also is beef. 100% beef patties made form 50% meat and 50% additives also is beef You see where I'm going ? Lot of patties are made from absolute dog shit meat parts, skin, fat, scraps, byproducts, &c.
hammock 3y ago
What websites do you think are more reputable? >Strengthening bone, not muscle, is the reason to lift weights Resistance training is well known to increase bone density and that's one of (not the only) reason it's often suggested for older folks >Red meat is not a health risk. New study slams years of shoddy research Just a clickbait news article about a new study and supports an emerging, shifting consensus on red meat. No issue ? >What you eat can reprogram your genes Epigenetics. It's not wrong
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- ben_w 3y ago
  > > What you eat can reprogram your genes > Epigenetics. It's not wrong Calling epigenics "reprogramming" makes it seem like the right combination of vitamins and heart-shaped herbs can turn you into a were-panther. Your genes can be reprogrammed, but the relationship between epigenics and actual reprogramming is more like the relationship between Chrome and iOS — in that, in the few occasions when it's possible for the former to mess with be later, this is widely regarded as catastrophically bad.
40yearoldman 3y ago
Confronted with different ideas about what is health and your response is to question the reputation of the site? Why do t you just read the article and make your own decisions based off the information provided. The most reputable sites get stuff wrong all the time, so even the least reputable can probably get some things right sometimes. The requirement for infromation to be valued based on who said it vs what is being said will be the downfall of society.
- lolinder 3y ago
  > Confronted with different ideas about what is health and your response is to question the reputation of the site? This should be your first instinct any time you read anything online. Most websites are garbage, pushing sensational "new" ideas to get clicks. If you don't immediately think critically about what you're reading (and part of that is considering reputation), you'll either fall for confirmation bias or you'll be tossed about with each new thing that trends in TikTok.
  - 40yearoldman 3y ago
    Haha. No. The source of the information never matters. The content is all that matters. Alas the population has been trained not to think for them self but be told what ideas are good or bad based off who said them. This idiotic thinking runs rapid through out the world causing havoc.
    - InsomniacL 3y ago
      I don't have the knowledge, equipment, skill or time to verify the content of every piece of information I come across so I rely on reputable sources who i trust to verify it for me. Is this infallible? no. Is it more reliable than me making a judgement based on nothing but my own biases? yes.
      - qwerasdf5 3y ago
        Which reputable sources do you use?
lolinder 3y ago
The authors of the paper are employed by Abbott Nutrition, who make the Ensure high-protein meal replacement shake.
- downrightmike 3y ago
  Well, there it is.
bretpiatt 3y ago
- "Strengthening bone, not muscle, is the reason to lift weights" There's a ton of information out there about this, from my understanding it is really important as you age, especially for females, and then for males as testosterone levels drop. WebMD overview about it: https://www.webmd.com/osteoporosis/features/weight-training https://www.webmd.com/osteoporosis/features/weight-training

bannedbybros 3y ago

[dead]

crazygringo 3y ago

The website itself doesn't really matter, the paper is linked directly: https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/15/4/838 https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/15/4/838 Is "Nutrients" a reputable journal? Do the authors have a good track record? I have no idea, but would love if someone more knowledgeable here can comment.

curiousgibbon 3y ago
In my field, which is not science, MDPI seems to publish many, many bad journals. They're embedded in the for-profit publishing corner of the science-industrial complex and I would consider the very real possibility this paper is part total garbage part evil moneymaking scheme.
zeroonetwothree 3y ago
It’s consistent with other research I’ve seen that suggests higher protein intake is beneficial.
- lolinder 3y ago
  That doesn't answer OP's question. Is that other research published in reputable journals by people without a conflict of interest, or is it also funded by a protein shake company and published in a controversial journal? We've long passed the point where we can trust papers written in the field of nutrition without looking extremely critically at their funding and research methods.
PaulHoule 3y ago
MDPI is controversial, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MDPI https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MDPI and also https://www.mdpi.com/about/announcements/5482 https://www.mdpi.com/about/announcements/5482 https://retractionwatch.com/2023/05/08/article-that-assessed-mdpi-journals-as-predatory-retracted-and-replaced/ https://retractionwatch.com/2023/05/08/article-that-assessed... I know YOShInOn ingests a lot of articles from MDPI journals, more than any other source. The report I have at my fingertips now is "bottom scoring" articles by my preference and MDPI papers feature prominently in that but that's not because I never like anything from MDPI or because the quality of articles is necessarily bad but because I'd certainly downvote "Vaccinatiopn In Immunosuppressed Patients With Established Skin Warts and Non-Melanoma Skin Cancer: A Single-Institutional Cohort Study". It still shows me quite a few. ArXiv papers rank better overall but that's because I only subscribe to CS on arXiv. --- It's actually a high priority for YOShInOn to have some process to track down links from articles like this that link to scientific articles because sometimes the original article is a better link than the recap and sometimes the other way around.
InsomniacL 3y ago
There's lots of claims on the websites article beyond that made in the study. There's lots of negative press about the journal it's published in. > Open-access journal editors resign after alleged pressure to publish mediocre papers > Nutrients editors quit en masse from MDPI journal > https://www.science.org/content/article/open-access-editors-resign-after-alleged-pressure-publish-mediocre-papers https://www.science.org/content/article/open-access-editors-... Further, the paper is published by employees of Abbot Nutrition who financially benefit from the conclusions of the paper. "Conflicts of Interest - The authors S.R.H. and M.W. are employed by Abbott Nutrition. " That's not to say it's right or wrong, but i didn't know any of the above until i googled to respond to your comment.

amanj41 3y ago

First two started strong and all downhill from there

gadders 3y ago

I mean the first one is definitely true (or is an additional reason, especially as people age). I think when people say "red meat is bad for you" they need to define red meat. Burgers and sausages - probably not great. Steak, chops etc - probably OK.

hammock 3y ago
Why do you believe a steak is better than a burger? Isn't burger ground steak?
- bratwurst3000 3y ago
  Ideally yes but in reality it is low quality meat that is fortified and highly processed.
  - hammock 3y ago
    What do you mean fortified?
    - lm28469 3y ago
      They very often add vitamins and minerals to low quality products to make up for bad nutritional values
      - Kirby64 3y ago
        What bad nutritional values? It's beef. Are you implying that some fancy high end ground beef has materially different contents of vitamins and minerals compared to cheap ground beef at a store? I'd like to see sources on that.
        lm28469 3y ago
        100% beef fat also is beef. 100% beef patties made form 50% meat and 50% additives also is beef You see where I'm going ? Lot of patties are made from absolute dog shit meat parts, skin, fat, scraps, byproducts, &c.

hammock 3y ago

What websites do you think are more reputable? >Strengthening bone, not muscle, is the reason to lift weights Resistance training is well known to increase bone density and that's one of (not the only) reason it's often suggested for older folks >Red meat is not a health risk. New study slams years of shoddy research Just a clickbait news article about a new study and supports an emerging, shifting consensus on red meat. No issue ? >What you eat can reprogram your genes Epigenetics. It's not wrong

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
ben_w 3y ago
> > What you eat can reprogram your genes > Epigenetics. It's not wrong Calling epigenics "reprogramming" makes it seem like the right combination of vitamins and heart-shaped herbs can turn you into a were-panther. Your genes can be reprogrammed, but the relationship between epigenics and actual reprogramming is more like the relationship between Chrome and iOS — in that, in the few occasions when it's possible for the former to mess with be later, this is widely regarded as catastrophically bad.

40yearoldman 3y ago

Confronted with different ideas about what is health and your response is to question the reputation of the site? Why do t you just read the article and make your own decisions based off the information provided. The most reputable sites get stuff wrong all the time, so even the least reputable can probably get some things right sometimes. The requirement for infromation to be valued based on who said it vs what is being said will be the downfall of society.

lolinder 3y ago
> Confronted with different ideas about what is health and your response is to question the reputation of the site? This should be your first instinct any time you read anything online. Most websites are garbage, pushing sensational "new" ideas to get clicks. If you don't immediately think critically about what you're reading (and part of that is considering reputation), you'll either fall for confirmation bias or you'll be tossed about with each new thing that trends in TikTok.
- 40yearoldman 3y ago
  Haha. No. The source of the information never matters. The content is all that matters. Alas the population has been trained not to think for them self but be told what ideas are good or bad based off who said them. This idiotic thinking runs rapid through out the world causing havoc.
  - InsomniacL 3y ago
    I don't have the knowledge, equipment, skill or time to verify the content of every piece of information I come across so I rely on reputable sources who i trust to verify it for me. Is this infallible? no. Is it more reliable than me making a judgement based on nothing but my own biases? yes.
    - qwerasdf5 3y ago
      Which reputable sources do you use?

lolinder 3y ago

The authors of the paper are employed by Abbott Nutrition, who make the Ensure high-protein meal replacement shake.

downrightmike 3y ago
Well, there it is.

bretpiatt 3y ago

- "Strengthening bone, not muscle, is the reason to lift weights" There's a ton of information out there about this, from my understanding it is really important as you age, especially for females, and then for males as testosterone levels drop. WebMD overview about it: https://www.webmd.com/osteoporosis/features/weight-training https://www.webmd.com/osteoporosis/features/weight-training