Low-effort repost of your specious use of a study with nebulous conclusions for this conversation; I’ll quote the user above:
that category contains “soft drinks, sweet or savoury packaged snacks, confectionery; packaged breads and buns; reconstituted meat products and pre-prepared frozen or shelf-stable dishes.” This gives you no information on Impossible burgers’ impact on cardiovascular disease, it only gives you a trend among people who eat all of the above. I would suspect the reality is Impossible meat contributes to CVD slightly more than straight-up vegetables and significantly less than red meat.
5wim@slrpnk.net 5 months ago
Oh honey, your stealth edit shows that you don’t understand. I’ll explain it to you: the study you keep linking doesn’t differentiate between those foods in that “range of ultra-processed foods (UPF),” so that means data coming from “sugar-sweetened beverages, snacks, confectionery” is getting all mixed in with the data of the “‘plant-sourced’ sausages, nuggets, and burgers,” which unfortunately renders the conclusions of the study rather meaningless when we’re talking about the CVD outcomes of just one of the data sets.
SatansMaggotyCumFart@lemmy.world 5 months ago
What is a stealth edit?
I fixed some formatting issues. Does that make the study I linked invalid?
5wim@slrpnk.net 5 months ago
I just told you why the study you linked is invalid for this conversation. Do you want me to quote the comment you just replied to so you can reread it?
SatansMaggotyCumFart@lemmy.world 5 months ago
Im not going to continue providing you with valid studies so you can keep trying to disprove them to promote your agenda.
Isn’t that sealioning?