This week, a host of outlets published a buffet of stories that seemed to say red meat was now officially healthy. There was rejoicing throughout the land—as well as, presumably, a big run on steaks. But the backlash was fast and furious. The New York Times ran a series of stories about why this was not exactly so.

 The study was flawed for a variety of reasons, a bit wonky to go into (methodology, sample size etc). So what’s my take? It’s not uncommon for entities to seek attention by telling people what they want to hear, even if its not exactly true.

There’s a name for that, but I’ll let The Hidden Brain go into that. First, consider the source. The study wasn’t from a good, not great journal and its authors were from good, not great institutions. If this was a large, well-controlled study (the wonky stuff), published in JAMA or the New England Journal of Medicine, that would have been something. But it wasn’t, so it isn’t-much. The research’s claims are also not very specific—they don’t recommend portions or frequencies of meat and they don’t comment much on a host of earlier literature that disputes their claims. So, the real takeaway is that some meat, sometime, might be OK.

Not exactly revolutionary stuff. My own dabbling with on-again, off-again vegetarianism and veganism have come up with some data—albeit of a small sample size. The less meat I ate, the better my cholesterol and blood sugar numbers. A year after my veganism lapsed, my numbers shot up. Despite the “news” I am thinking of, not eliminating meat from my diet (unless my numbers climb), but reducing its frequency and portions in my diet.