Josh Hart offered a light-hearted response during his interview, but his words unveiled a significant strategic move.

In the latter part of the Knicks’ first-round playoff victory over the Hawks, Hart took on the task of defending CJ McCollum.

This defensive switch—assigning Hart, instead of Jalen Brunson, to McCollum—proved pivotal in neutralizing McCollum’s impact and ultimately shifting the series in the Knicks’ favor.

Looking ahead, the Knicks face another challenge with the 76ers’ formidable backcourt duo: Tyrese Maxey and VJ Edgecombe.

The question now is, what will be their strategy to keep these guards in check?

“Probably just asking Tyrese to slow down a little bit,” Hart said after practice Sunday. “That’d be nice. The style defensively is gonna be totally different. CJ, he doesn’t have that quick acceleration at his old age, so you can be a little bit more physical with him. He’s an Unc. Tyrese and Edgecombe, they’re on the young side. They’re quick, they’re explosive, so there’s definitely a different style of defense. Gonna tell them to slow down a little bit so I can get my hands on them and be physical. It’s a fun matchup.”

It’s not a given that Hart will match up with either Maxey or Edgecombe.

Mikal Bridges would be a more natural or straightforward option, but his struggles in the first round meant he was twice benched — for the majority of the second half in Games 4 and 5.

Dealing with the duo might mean more minutes for Miles McBride or Jose Alvarado off the bench.

Or maybe even Landry Shamet finds his way back into the rotation.

Hart, though, was a defensive force throughout the first round for the Knicks — primarily guarding Jalen Johnson at the beginning of the series and then McCollum at the end.

It’s likely he’ll at least see some time on Maxey or Edgecombe.

It’s those types of quick, athletic guards that gave the Knicks their biggest fits this year.

Maxey is one of the fastest players in the league, able to use his speed to beat defenders off the dribble and create space on the perimeter for 3-pointers.

Edgecombe, a finalist for Rookie of the Year, has a quick first step and is explosive near the rim.

The Knicks’ point-of-attack defense was a talking point all regular season.

It was a weakness for the first half, then after a schematic change, greatly improved by the end.

Maxey and Edgecombe will provide a major test.

Maxey averaged 30.0 points on 51.2 percent shooting from the field and 50.0 percent shooting from 3-point range in the four regular-season matchups — which the two teams split 2-2.

Edgecombe averaged 19.3 points on 52.5 percent shooting from the field and 33.3 percent shooting from deep.

“They’re athletic, quick, dynamic, explosive,” coach Mike Brown said on Sunday. “They can score from all three levels. They can play the pick-and-roll, they can get out and finish in transition. Maxey is the No. 1 guy in transition in the league. They pose a big problem for us with them on defense.”

It’s also very likely Edgecombe will get the responsibility of guarding Brunson on the other end.

He spent the second-most time guarding Brunson among all defenders across the league in the regular season.

Brunson had success — going 10-for-15 from the field and 4-for-6 from deep along with three assists and no turnovers with Edgecombe as his closest defender, per the league’s tracking stats.

But Edgecombe has emerged as a strong defender otherwise.

And Maxey, though he may not scare anyone, is active.

“They’re really good in passing lanes,” Brown said. “Great anticipation, long arms, quick, explosive, great at all those things, which equates to a lot of turnovers for teams. Their guards can give anybody a handful of problems on both ends of the floor.”

When both are clicking at the same time, it’s as dangerous a backcourt as there is in the league.

Slowing them down will be key.

For years, health professionals have cautioned against the consumption of potato chips, cookies, and sodas, warning that these snacks can lead to weight gain, contribute to heart disease, and potentially shorten lifespans.

Adding to the list of potential risks, a recent study suggests these popular treats might also impair cognitive functions and thinking abilities. The research, conducted in Australia, scrutinized the diets of 2,200 middle-aged individuals to determine the impact of their eating habits on cognitive health.

The study specifically examined the participants’ intake of ultra-processed foods. Although there’s no universally accepted definition for ultra-processed foods, they are generally characterized by having more than five ingredients or including at least one component not commonly found in a standard kitchen.

Diets were checked for consumption of ultra-processed foods. 

There is no universal definition of ultra-processed foods but they are widely thought to be those with more than five ingredients or foods that contain at least one ingredient not found in a typical kitchen.

Overall, they found that those who ate more ultra-processed foods had a worse ability to focus and poorer cognitive health.

For every 10 percent increase in ultra-processed foods in a participant’s diet – equivalent to one ‘standard’ packet of potato chips a day – the researchers said they had lower attention spans and a higher score of dementia risk factors.

That shift was recorded regardless of what else the participants ate, and whether they followed an otherwise healthy diet.  

For every 10 percent increase in ultra-processed foods – one ‘standard’ packet of potato chips a day -participants had lower attention spans and a higher score of dementia risk factors (stock image) 

Dr Barbara Cardoso, a nutritional biochemist at Monash University who led the research, said: ‘To put our findings in perspective, a 10 percent increase in ultra-processed foods is roughly equivalent to adding a standard packet of chips to your daily diet.

‘For every 10 percent increase in ultra-processed food a person consumed, we saw a distinct and measurable drop in a person’s ability to focus. In clinical terms, this translated to consistently lower scores on standardized cognitive tests measuring visual attention and processing speed.’

The study did not elaborate on why the foods harm brain health, but the researchers said processing may remove vital nutrients and add dangerous chemicals that can damage the brain. 

The researchers noted that the foods may contain acrylamide, a compound that forms in starchy foods during high-temperature cooking such as frying or roasting, that can damage neurons or blood vessels.

Previous research has also shown ultra-processed foods may contain phthalates or bisphenols, chemicals that can enter the food during processing, which can also be potentially harmful.

In the paper, they warned the chemicals could cause cerebrovascular lesions – or tiny areas of damaged brain tissue caused by an insufficient blood supply due to damage to a blood vessel. 

The scientists said that these small areas of damage may harm brain function, potentially leading to problems with focus and attention span – and raising the risk of suffering from dementia.

Ultra-processed foods are also linked to a higher risk of being obese or having high blood pressure or diabetes, which can also raise the risk of dementia – which currently affects 7 million Americans.

The study was observational and could not prove that ultra-processed foods were causing dementia.  

Today, about 53 percent of all calories consumed by adults in the US come from ultra-processed foods. Among children, nearly 62 percent of calories consumed come from these foods.

In the study, published in Alzheimer’s and Dementia, participants got about 41 percent of their calories from processed food, which was about average for Australia.

The most common sources were dairy-based desserts and drinks, soft drinks, fruit juices and other sugar-sweetened beverages. 

Others included packaged salty snacks and potato products, processed meat and ready meals.

Participants were interviewed between 2016 and 2023 about their diet and then asked to complete cognitive tests. 

Most were female, and they were 56 years old on average, but ranged in age from 40 to 70 years old. All lived in Australia. 

Researchers only interviewed the participants once, and then used an analysis to establish the impact of eating more ultra-processed foods over time. 

Cardoso added: ‘Food ultra-processing often destroys the natural structure of food and introduces potentially harmful substances like artificial additives or processing chemicals.

‘These additives suggest the link between diet and cognitive function extends beyond just missing out on foods known as healthy, pointing to mechanisms linked to the degree of food processing itself.’

The researchers did not find a link between ultra-processed food consumption and memory loss. They said this may be because areas of the brain linked to attention span and focus are more vulnerable to environmental stressors.

Ultra-processed foods became ubiquitous in the US in the 1980s, around the same time that rates of obesity and chronic diseases started to rise.

But they are a very broad category of foods that is poorly defined. There is no official definition in the US.

While many studies have warned about their health risks, some experts have pushed back on warnings over them, saying that just because something is ultra-processed it does not necessarily mean that it is bad for you.

While some foods may be considered ultra-processed because of their ingredient count, some actually have lower levels of fats and salts – which may help lower the risk of heart conditions, and higher protein levels, which have been linked to better overall health.

Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F Kennedy Jr has urged Americans to eat fewer ultra-processed foods and in a new food pyramid released by the FDA in January, health officials urged Americans to ‘significantly limit’ their consumption of the foods to boost their health.

In a tragic case that has garnered significant attention, an Iowa woman passed away following what was supposed to be a routine hernia surgery. Laura Belt, aged 46, succumbed to complications arising from a bowel perforation that led to sepsis. Her family claims that hospital staff dismissed her severe post-operative symptoms as “normal,” which they assert contributed to her untimely death.

The incident took place at Decatur County Hospital, where Belt was recovering from her surgery. According to the Iowa Capital Dispatch, her family has filed a lawsuit against Dr. Edwin Vincent Wehling and two registered nurses, Brandi Oesch and Tammy Roberts, accusing them of medical malpractice. The lawsuit also implicates Decatur County Hospital as a defendant, alleging negligence in their duty of care.

In a parallel development, the Iowa Board of Medicine has filed charges against Dr. Wehling, citing “professional incompetency” and conduct that is “harmful and detrimental to the public.” These serious charges underline the gravity of the situation and the potential lapses in medical care that Belt received.

A hearing to address the disciplinary charges against Dr. Wehling is slated for September, where further light may be shed on the circumstances surrounding this tragic death. The case serves as a sobering reminder of the critical importance of vigilant post-operative care and the need for medical professionals to heed patient concerns with due seriousness.

A board hearing on the disciplinary charges is scheduled for September.

Wehling operated on Belt, while Oesch and Roberts handled her recovery, after she came in for a hernia repair surgery at Decatur County Hospital, according to the lawsuit, Iowa Capital Dispatch reported.

After the surgery, Belt allegedly told staff she felt “very uncomfortable” and “very anxious and tearful” as she suffered from “constant drainage” of “significant amounts of feculent, brown liquid” pouring out of her incision site.

Belt also allegedly had not had a bowel movement since the surgery, according to the outlet.

Belt was discharged from the hospital a week after the hernia operation. The incision site was still leaking more than a week after she was discharged, according to the complaint.

The woman texted images of the brown liquid to Roberts.

The brown liquid was determined to be stool, and the nurses assured her that this was nothing abnormal, according to the complaint.

“Consulted with Brandi, she states all is normal … Brandi stated incision will drain like this for at least a month,” Roberts texted Belt on May 9, 2024.

The day after the exchange with Roberts, Belt’s family says she had a video call with Oesch and showed her the brown fluid still pouring from the wound, but she was allegedly not told to seek emergency medical care.

On May 11, 2024, Belt was taken by ambulance to the Wayne County Hospital’s Emergency Department, where she was told her incision site was showing signs of dead, necrotic tissue along with “constant drainage” of stool, and she was diagnosed as being in septic shock in connection with an infection stemming from hernia repair, according to the lawsuit.

Two days later, Oesch allegedly added a back-charted entry into Belt’s electronic medical record at Decatur County Hospital, affirming she had the video call with Belt and indicated that the woman was crying and that fluid had poured out of her wound onto the bathroom floor during the call.

“This nurse advised I would call Dr. Wehling and advise. This nurse notified Dr. Wehling and he requested (the antibiotic) Bactrim to be started,” Oesch wrote, according to the complaint.

The lawsuit claims no Bactrim prescription was ever ordered.

Belt died on May 15, 2024, and Wehling, Oesch and Roberts have all denied any wrongdoing.

Wehling has claimed that the cause of Belt’s injuries and complications “may have been a pre-existing medical condition and/or a subsequently occurring medical condition for which (he) is not responsible,” according to Iowa Capital Dispatch.

A trial has been scheduled for Aug. 23.