They're not reporting scientific research at all. They are reporting a chat with a scientist "Neuroscientist Shane O’Mara believes that plenty of regular walking unlocks the cognitive powers of the brain".
In short newspapers like the Guardian and broadcasters like the BBC need to be less lazy and more inquisitive to provide balance and more powerful messages.
Had a reread, the article does seem deficient on the issue of climate change and the impact of agricultural and dietary practices thereon.
In fairness though it is a lifestyle piece plugging his book. Which I shall now go off and look further into, maybe read.
When it comes to science I'd like journalists to provide less "balance" and more science. The harm done by the anti-vaccine movement has been immense, yet the science was clear cut. Or climate change, again clear cut science on the key issues, yet again, and again, we had to listen to Nigel Lawson as "balance".
99.9% of scientists say "x" but not everyone agrees so it gets presented as 50:50 for way too long seems to be how it goes. Then when you look into it. Oooh, tobacco companies funding research muddying the waters about cancer. Oil companies funding think tanks denying climate change. The list goes on and on.
"What do we want?". "Evidence based policy".
"When do we want it?". "After peer review".