Dataset Information

Are meat options preferred to comparable vegetarian options? An experimental study.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

Reducing meat consumption would have substantial benefits both in terms of health and environmental impact, but meat options may be more attractive to customers than meat-free options. This study tested this by presenting UK adults (n?=?540) with a series of pictures showing two meal options and asking them to select which they would prefer to eat right now. They completed this task for every possible pair from a pool of six comparator meat-based options and six target options (66 pairs). Participants all saw identical comparator options, and were randomised to see the same pictures of target options but with descriptions that suggested they were either meat-based or vegetarian.

Results

Selections were used to rank the options for each individual from 1 (most-selected) to 12 (least-selected). Vegetarian target options were ranked worse [by 1.23 places (95% CI: 1.02, 1.44)] than meat target options. Higher self-reported consumption of meat predicted worse mean rankings of target options when these were vegetarian, but not when target options were meat-based. This suggests meat options are preferred to equivalent vegetarian options and may be more likely to be selected. This has implications for interventions aiming to reduce meat consumption to make diets healthier and more sustainable.

SUBMITTER: Pechey R

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7836153 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Are meat options preferred to comparable vegetarian options? An experimental study.

Pechey Rachel R Hollands Gareth J GJ Marteau Theresa M TM

BMC research notes 20210126 1

<h4>Objective</h4>Reducing meat consumption would have substantial benefits both in terms of health and environmental impact, but meat options may be more attractive to customers than meat-free options. This study tested this by presenting UK adults (n = 540) with a series of pictures showing two meal options and asking them to select which they would prefer to eat right now. They completed this task for every possible pair from a pool of six comparator meat-based options and six target options ...[more]

PMID: 33499902

Similar Datasets

Project description:Dietary intake of adult vegetarians from large prospective studies has been well-characterized but is rarely reported in vegetarian adolescents. Our objective was to describe and compare the dietary intake of vegetarian adolescents with their non-vegetarian counterparts in a population known to espouse healthy living. Adolescents (n = 534) aged 12-18 years old from middle and high schools near major Adventist universities in Michigan and Southern California provided dietary, demographic, and anthropometric data. Dietary intake was measured with a validated 151-item self-administered web-based food frequency questionnaire; weight and height were measured during school visits. Vegetarian was defined as the combined intake of meat, meat derivatives, poultry, and fish of <1 serving per week. Descriptive statistics and ANCOVA were used to compare the intake of vegetarians and non-vegetarians. Vegetarians significantly ate more fruits, vegetables, and other plant-based foods, but significantly less foods of animal origin, sugar-sweetened beverages, and coffee/tea compared to non-vegetarians. Vegetarians had significantly higher intakes of carbohydrates and total protein but lower intakes of fats, animal protein, and zinc compared to their counterparts. A majority (75% or more) of both groups met the 2015 Dietary Guidelines' age-and-gender-specific recommendations for most nutrients but only 16-18% of vegetarians/non-vegetarians did not exceed the upper limit for sodium. More vegetarians (49%) than non-vegetarians (25%) had <10% of their caloric intake from SFA. More than 90% of both groups met dairy recommendations, but greater proportions of vegetarians met recommendations for vegetables, fruits, nuts/soy products, and legumes than non-vegetarians. Of the non-vegetarians, only 7% and 44% met the fish and meats/poultry/eggs recommendation, respectively, which none of the vegetarians met. Compared to the general US adolescent population, both diet groups ate more fruits, vegetables, dairy and protein foods, and also consumed more micronutrients but less macronutrients. Overall, vegetarian adolescents have a more favorable dietary intake profile than non-vegetarians, but both vegetarians and non-vegetarians in this study population have a more adequate diet than the general US adolescent population. The influence of the Adventist plant-based diet culture that is translated both at home and at school is evident in our findings.

Project description:A new generation of plant-based meat alternatives-formulated to mimic the taste and nutritional composition of red meat-have attracted considerable consumer interest, research attention, and media coverage. This has raised questions of whether plant-based meat alternatives represent proper nutritional replacements to animal meat. The goal of our study was to use untargeted metabolomics to provide an in-depth comparison of the metabolite profiles a popular plant-based meat alternative (n = 18) and grass-fed ground beef (n = 18) matched for serving size (113 g) and fat content (14 g). Despite apparent similarities based on Nutrition Facts panels, our metabolomics analysis found that metabolite abundances between the plant-based meat alternative and grass-fed ground beef differed by 90% (171 out of 190 profiled metabolites; false discovery rate adjusted p < 0.05). Several metabolites were found either exclusively (22 metabolites) or in greater quantities in beef (51 metabolites) (all, p < 0.05). Nutrients such as docosahexaenoic acid (ω-3), niacinamide (vitamin B3), glucosamine, hydroxyproline and the anti-oxidants allantoin, anserine, cysteamine, spermine, and squalene were amongst those only found in beef. Several other metabolites were found exclusively (31 metabolites) or in greater quantities (67 metabolites) in the plant-based meat alternative (all, p < 0.05). Ascorbate (vitamin C), phytosterols, and several phenolic anti-oxidants such as loganin, sulfurol, syringic acid, tyrosol, and vanillic acid were amongst those only found in the plant-based meat alternative. Large differences in metabolites within various nutrient classes (e.g., amino acids, dipeptides, vitamins, phenols, tocopherols, and fatty acids) with physiological, anti-inflammatory, and/or immunomodulatory roles indicate that these products should not be viewed as truly nutritionally interchangeable, but could be viewed as complementary in terms of provided nutrients. The new information we provide is important for making informed decisions by consumers and health professionals. It cannot be determined from our data if either source is healthier to consume.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Convincing evidence suggests that the risk of colorectal cancer (CRC) is increased by the typical Western diet characterized by high consumption of red and processed meat. In addition, some epidemiological studies suggest a reduction in the risk of CRC associated with fish consumption. The role of the gut microbiome in this diet-associated risk is not well understood. METHODS/DESIGN:This is a randomized parallel open clinical trial comprising a total of 150 clinically healthy subjects randomly assigned to three groups: a meat-based diet of which 4 portions per week are red meat (1 portion = 150 g), 3 portions per week are processed meat (1 portion = 50 g), and 1 portion per week is poultry (1 portion = 150 g), for a total amount of 900 g per week of meat and derivatives; a meat-based diet supplemented with alpha-tocopherol; and a pesco-vegetarian diet excluding fresh and processed meat and poultry, but which includes 3 portions per week of fish for a total amount of 450 g per week. Each intervention will last 3 months. The three diets will be isocaloric and of three different sizes according to specific energy requirements. Anthropometric measurements, body composition, and blood and fecal samples will be obtained from each participant at the beginning and end of each intervention phase. The measure of the primary outcome will be the change from baseline in DNA damage induced by fecal water using the comet assay in a cellular model. Secondary outcome measures will be changes in the profile of fecal microbiomes, global fecal and urinary peroxidation markers, and neoplastic biomarkers. DISCUSSION:Although epidemiological data support the promoting role of meat and the possible protective role of fish in colon carcinogenesis, no study has directly compared dietary profiles characterized by the presence of these two food groups and the role of the gut microbiome in these diet-associated CRC risks. This study will test the effect of these dietary profiles on validated CRC risk biomarkers. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03416777. Registered on 3 May 2018.

Project description:BackgroundA shift toward more plant-based foods in diets is required to improve health and to reduce environmental impact. Little is known about food choice motives and associated characteristics of those individuals who have actually reduced their consumption of animal-based foods. The aim of this cross-sectional study was to identify change-inducing motives related to meat and legume consumptions among non-vegetarians. The association between change-inducing motives and individual characteristics was also studied.MethodsThis study included 25,393 non-vegetarian participants in the French NutriNet-Santé cohort (77.4% women, mean age 55.4 ± 13.9 y.). The motives related to the declared change in meat and legume consumptions (e.g., taste, environment, social pressure) were assessed by an online questionnaire in 2018. For each motive, respondents could be classified into three groups: no motive; motive, not change-inducing; change-inducing motive. Associations between change-inducing motives and individual characteristics were evaluated using multivariable polytomic logistic regressions. Characteristics of participants who rebalanced their meat and legume consumptions were also compared to those who reduced their meat but did not increase their legume consumption.ResultsMotives most strongly declared as having induced a change in meat or legume consumptions were health and nutrition (respectively 90.7 and 81.0% declared these motives as change-inducing for the meat reduction), physical environment (82.0% for meat reduction only) and taste preferences (77.7% for legume increase only). Other motives related to social influences, meat avoidance and meat dislike were reported by fewer individuals, but were declared as having induced changes in food consumption. Most motives that induced a meat reduction and a legume increase were more likely to be associated with specific individual characteristics, for example being a woman or highly educated for health motives.ConclusionsBesides the motives reported as important, some motives less frequently felt important were declared as having induced changes in meat or legume consumptions. Change-inducing motives were reported by specific subpopulations. Public campaigns on health and sustainability could usefully develop new tools to reach populations less willing to change.Trial registrationsThe study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03335644).

Dataset Information

Are meat options preferred to comparable vegetarian options? An experimental study.

Objective

Results

Publications

Are meat options preferred to comparable vegetarian options? An experimental study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets