I question the accuracy of media reporting sometimes. Case in point: \nthe recent news story about whether eating red meat is OK for you or \nnot. Here’s an article I saw about it – the top story returned to me by \nGoogle News:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
ScienceAlert.com – Here’s The Real Truth About That Confusing Red Meat Study<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n From the story:<\/p>\n\n\n\n “These findings have led to many guidelines recommending people eat a bit less red meat to improve their health.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n Let’s look at one of those “many guidelines” – this one from the U.S. government. Their recommendation for a healthy diet: twenty six ounces\/ounce-equivalents PER WEEK, combined, of meat\/poultry\/eggs. That means: less than four ounces A DAY. Of meat, poultry, or eggs on a 2000 calorie a day diet. Not something as extravagant as four ounces of each. No. Four ounces a day, TOTAL, combined, breakfast, lunch, and dinner.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Appendix 3. USDA Food Patterns: Healthy U.S.-Style Eating Pattern<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n Is THAT “a bit less” than what you eat now?<\/p>\n\n\n\n But wait. It goes on. <\/p>\n\n\n\n \n “A controversial new study has proven that actually there’s no evidence\n that eating red meat is bad for us, and that we can go ahead and gorge \non steak and burgers once again.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n Um. No. I don’t think the new study gives the green light to “gorging on steak and burgers.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n \n But I’m supposed to take this story seriously? When it starts to break \ndown the instant you take a hard look at its foundations?<\/p>\n\n\n\n By the way, the actual recommendation from the study itself was this:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \n “The panel suggests that adults continue current unprocessed red meat \nconsumption (weak recommendation, low-certainty evidence). Similarly, \nthe panel suggests adults continue current processed meat consumption \n(weak recommendation, low-certainty evidence).”<\/p>\n\n\n\n You’ll note the absence of the word “gorging” in the actual study.<\/p>\n\n\n\n