In a previous post of mine How to Convince those Dumb Deniers Part Eleventy Fifty-Seven I noted:
Much of what passes for Science® these days is the construction of some focus groups given various subjective A/B tests, then followed up by detailed statistical analysis of subjective surveys of the participants. Not just “Climate Communications”. I’ve seen the same thing in other soft subjects, such as “Design Science” for years.
Here’s another in the genre. I may make posting about these peer reviewed Science® “studies” a regular thing. There seems to be no lack of low hanging fruit.
On to today’s embarrassment for academia:
One of the more bizarre aspects of this paper is their term for vegetarians and vegans combined “veg*ans”, which feels either PC, avoiding spelling out a bad word, or religious, avoiding writing a sacred word, in its construction.
I guess their big contribution is they looked at meat eaters AND veg*ans.
Abstract
Eating meat is a prime example of cognitive conflict. Research on meat-related conflict has focused on people who eat meat (omnivores), and mostly neglected that people who avoid eating meat (vegetarians and vegans; veg*ans) can also experience conflict in the form of ambivalence. Here, we provide a conceptual model explaining how ambivalence comes to exist in omnivores and veg*ans, and how it is associated with dietary behavior. We hypothesize that ambivalence in omnivores arises when they become aware of the negative aspects of meat. Yet, even veg*ans, who predominantly hold negative attitudes towards meat, may experience ambivalence if past positive attitudes resurface. We investigated this model in a cross-sectional study (N = 1028) via the stages of change, which explain qualitative steps in people’s adoption and maintenance of new behaviors such as a veg*an diet. Our data show that meat consumption decreases linearly across the five stages of change. In line with our model, ambivalence increases from the pre-contemplation via the contemplation to the preparation stage among omnivores and decreases right after people become veg*ans (action stage) until they reach the maintenance stage. This inverted u-shaped trajectory was accompanied by a) an increase in negative evaluations of meat and b) a decrease in positive evaluations of meat from the pre-contemplation to the preparation stage. However, especially positive hedonic evaluations that render meat pleasurable partly persisted in the action stage and only dissolved in the maintenance stage. We thus argue that the observed pattern of felt ambivalence might explain why a growing number of people become open to eschewing meat and why veg*ans often eat meat and/or return to their omnivorous diets shortly after becoming veg*an.
Of course they assume all of the antiquated invalid assumptions and poor nutrition science about meat eating and production, mixed in with some truth, such as ethical considerations, and perhaps zoonotic diseases. But taking that part on is beyond the scope of this article.
Human food systems, and especially meat consumption, are responsible for some of humanity’s greatest challenges. In 2018, 69 billion chickens, 1.5 billion pigs, 656 million turkeys, 574 million sheep, 479 million goats, and 302 million cattle were slaughtered worldwide (Ritchie & Roser, 2019). To farm this number of animals, a vast amount of land and resources is necessary (Poore & Nemecek, 2018), making meat consumption a primary contributor to water and air pollution (Godfray et al., 2018, p. 361), climate change (Tilman & Clark, 2014), and biodiversity loss (Westhoek et al., 2011). Eating meat (especially processed red meat) is also linked to higher mortality rates, cardiovascular diseases, type 2 diabetes, and certain types of cancer (Afshin et al., 2019; Willett et al., 2019), and it has recently been linked to antibiotic resistance (Godfray et al., 2018, p. 361) and the spread of zoonotic diseases such as avian influenza (Espinosa et al., 2020). Thus, many people are increasingly aware of the downsides of eating meat concerning animal welfare, human health, and the environment (Godfray et al., 2018, p. 361; Joy, 2011; Siegrist et al., 2015; Willett et al., 2019).
Then they acknowledge some truth.
At the same time, many people think of meat as something positive because of its nutritional density, taste, or the cultural traditions associated with it (Leroy & Praet, 2015; Rosenfeld & Tomiyama, 2019). Indeed, meat is rich in protein, iron, and zinc. Some scholars have suggested that people learned the association between these nutrients and the taste of meat, which might have fueled people’s desire for meat’s umami taste (Griffioen-Roose et al., 2011; Morrison et al., 2012). Beyond that, meat also played a pivotal role in the evolution of human social activities, being part of many culinary rituals and traditions revolving around food up to today (Leroy & Praet, 2015). Thus, eating meat is an integral part of most societies across the world (Ruby, 2012).
People are bombarded with a lot of information both true and false. People also make observations about their own lives, health, and well-being after various choices which leads us to:
Due to the potential negative associations of meat, it is unsurprising that omnivores experience ambivalence in a variety of situations where their predominant positive attitude is opposed by negative associations (Berndsen & van der Pligt, 2004; Buttlar et al., 2023). This refers to situations where they realize meat’s downsides referring to animal welfare, health, or environmental issues, but omnivores may also experience ambivalence due to social ramifications of eating (such as discussions with veg*ans) and negative sensory experiences (such as biting into cartilage). In fact, 94.3% of omnivores in a German student sample report knowing about associations that oppose their predominant attitude (Buttlar et al., 2023); and 66.8% of omnivores in a representative German sample indicated they experience at least some conflict (Pauer et al., 2022).
Due to potential positive associations, there are also many situations in which veg*ans experience meat-related ambivalence. In contrast to omnivores, however, their ambivalence stems mostly from positive associations because they predominantly hold negative attitudes toward meat (Barr & Chapman, 2002; Buttlar et al., 2023; Buttlar & Walther, 2018). This especially occurs in situations where veg*ans consider meat’s benefits for health, acknowledge the social function of eating meat, or crave the taste of meat; thus, 70.8% of veg*an German students also report to be aware of such positive associations when being asked about their conflicts (Buttlar et al., 2023).
As felt ambivalence is discomforting, people try to resolve it (van Harreveld, van der Pligt, & de Liver, 2009). As a consequence, omnivores eat less meat and veg*ans eat more meat if they experience ambivalence (Buttlar et al., 2023). This suggests that ambivalence weakens the associations between attitude and behavior due to the presence of associations that conflict with people’s predominant attitudes (Armitage & Conner, 2000; Conner et al., 2021). It is not only the attitude-behavior link, however, that leads to these effects. In fact, both dietary groups seek information to resolve their conflict (Buttlar et al., 2023)—presumably because they anticipate that information-seeking reduces ambivalence-induced discomfort (Pauer et al., 2022). This and other processes might explain how the effects of ambivalence as a meta-cognitive conflict go beyond the effects of attitudes toward dietary behavior in omnivores and veg*ans (Buttlar et al., 2023; Pauer et al., 2023).
Now comes the Sciencey® part.
In the present research, we outline and test a conceptual model that draws on the PAST model (“past attitudes are still there”; Petty et al., 2006). The PAST model assumes that people experience ambivalence when their attitudes change. People change their attitudes if they acquire information inconsistent with their prior attitudes. Per definition, this in itself may result in ambivalence before an attitude is ultimately changed (van Harreveld et al., 2015). Regarding meat consumption, omnivores might, for instance, become aware of the negative aspects of eating meat, pertaining, for example, to animal welfare, environmental, or health issues (Berndsen & van der Pligt, 2004).
Crucially, the PAST model outlines further that ambivalence may remain even when people realize that their prior attitude is obsolete and become veg*ans. This is because past attitudes do not entirely cease after attitudes have changed. Instead, people need to tag past attitudes as wrong to repress them. Support for this notion comes from qualitative studies on meat-related conflicts. For instance, one participant in the study by Buttlar et al. (2023) stated: “Sometimes I feel a conflict towards meat when it is prepared and smells good, but I would not eat it. In these moments, I think it is wrong what I feel”. (cf. Table 1; Buttlar et al., 2023). According to the PAST model, people experience ambivalence more often when people just change their attitudes because they are more likely to fail to retrieve this tag; in comparison, people who have maintained their attitudes for a while have rejected the past attitude more often and thus more automatically retrieve the false tag (Petty et al., 2006).
2. Method
The sample consisted of 1028 participants recruited via Prolific (prolific.co). It included 514 omnivores (333 females, 171 males, 10 non-binary, Mage = 34.45, age range = 18–72) and 514 vegetarians (414 females, 86 males, 14 non-binary, Mage = 33.09, age range = 18–71). Participants completed a variety of questionnaires regarding psychological constructs related to meat consumption. This sample size was chosen to accommodate the requirements for network analyses for the development of the MAQ (see Buttlar et al., 2023).
Stages of Change. We adapted the methodology from Armitage and Arden (2007) and Klöckner (2017) to assess the stages of change. Participants were asked to select one of the following statements that most applied to them: “I currently do not eat a meat-free diet and I am not thinking about it.” (Pre-Contemplation); “I currently do not eat a meat-free diet but I think about it.” (Contemplation); “I currently intend to eat a meat-free diet but do not do so right now.” (Preparation); “I currently eat a meat-free diet but I have only begun to do so.” (Action); “I currently eat a meat-free diet and I have maintained it for a while.” (Maintenance). This way, we collected data from 222 participants in the Pre-Contemplation stage, 203 participants in the Contemplation stage, 64 participants in the Preparation stage, 20 participants in the Action stage, and 519 participants in the Maintenance stage.
Meat Ambivalence Questionnaire (MAQ). The MAQ comprises 25 items assessing ambivalence in five domains in omnivores and veg*ans (Buttlar et al., 2023). These domains entail ambivalence triggered by associations regarding animal welfare, sociability, sustainability, health, and sensory aspects of eating meat. This allowed us to assess the meat-related ambivalence rather generally via the Big MAQ (which comprises all 25 items), the Mini MAQ (which comprises five general items, i.e., one from each domain), and for all five sub-scales. Internal consistencies for the Big MAQ and its subscales were good to great for vegetarians and omnivores (all ω = 0.83; except for the socially-based subscale in vegetarians: ω = 0.78; for a detailed overview, see Buttlar et al., 2023; Study 2).
General Positive and Negative Associations. We assessed participants’ positive and negative associations towards meat with two separate items. Positive and negative evaluations are strongly related unless they are assessed by split semantic differential scales (Kaplan, 1972). These items were worded “Considering only the positive[/negative] aspects of meat consumption, while ignoring the negative[/positive] aspects, how positive[/negative] are your thoughts and/or feelings regarding meat consumption?”. Participants responded on separate 7-point scales by moving a slider from 1 (not at all positive[/negative]) to 7 (extremely positive[negative]).
Specific Positive and Negative Associations. We assessed the Motivations to Eat Meat Inventory (Hopwood et al., 2021) to measure the most common positive associations by which people explain their motivation to eat meat. These explanations include that meat consumption is necessary, normal, natural, and nice (tasty). We also assessed the Vegetarian Eating Motives Inventory (Hopwood et al., 2020) to measure the most common negative associations towards meat by which people explain why they eschew meat. These include health, environmental, and animal welfare motivations reasons.
Meat Consumption. To assess meat consumption, we used three items presented in randomized order asking for different kinds of meat (“On average, how often do you eat red meat [poultry/seafood] including side dishes and snacks? Please select one option and enter a number. (If you do not consume any red meat [poultry/seafood], select “year” and enter 0)”; (adapted from Pauer et al., 2022). Participants could then either indicate the average frequency per day, week, month, or year with which they consumed each type of meat. Independent of the type of answer, we calculated the number of servings of meat that people eat each type of meat per year. Then, we computed the sum of the total meat consumption per year across all categories.
Additional Measures. The above-mentioned variables refer to the measures needed to test our hypotheses, but the data set comprises additional variables. These variables included job status, education, political orientation, dietary centrality, dietary social support, speciesism, moral emotions (disgust, anger, guilt), moralization, information seeking, and interest in signing a petition for more plant-based food in cafeterias. It also contained a three-item measure of general felt ambivalence towards meat that did not yield good reliability in veg*ans (Buttlar et al., 2023). A detailed overview of all assessed variables can be found on the OSF (https://osf.io/5qgd4/).
What do they do with these subjective, qualitative surveys? The apply:
MATH
Table 1. Regression coefficients from SEMs predicting the MAQ scales by stages of dietary change.
| MAQ scale | Stages of change 2 vs 1 | Stages of change 3 vs 2 | Stages of change 4 vs 3 | Stages of change 5 vs 4 | Polynomial Contrasts (ps < .05) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| β | p | β | p | β | p | β | p | Empty Cell | |
| Mini MAQ | .47 [.41; .53] | <.001 | .05 [-.02; .11] | .153 | −.10 [-.17; −.04] | .003 | −.55 [-.75; −.35] | <.001 | quadratic, linear, cubic |
| Big MAQ | .46 [.41; .52] | <.001 | .05 [-.02; .11] | .152 | −.077 [-.14; −.01] | .018 | −.638 [-.83; −.45] | <.001 | quadratic, linear |
| Animal | .36 [.30; .41] | <.001 | .004 [-.05; .06] | .901 | −.06 [-.12; .01] | .070 | −.47 [-.68; −.27] | <.001 | quadratic, linear |
| Socially | .41 [.34; .48] | <.001 | .08 [.005; .15] | .034 | −.08 [-.16; .002] | .054 | −.519 [-.78; −.26] | <.001 | quadratic, linear |
| Sustainability | .44 [.38; .49] | <.001 | −.001 [-.06; .06] | .963 | −.05 [-.12; .02] | .156 | −.63 [-.70; −.56] | <.001 | quadratic, linear |
| Health | .37 [.31; .44] | <.001 | .04 [-.03; .11] | .291 | −.07 [-.14; −.001] | .044 | −.49 [-.69; −.29] | <.001 | quadratic, linear |
| Sensory | .39 [.32; .46] | <.001 | .10 [.02; .17] | .015 | −.08 [-.16; −.002] | .041 | −.60 [-.83; −.37] | <.001 | quadratic, linear |
Note. Beta values denote changes in the factor scores of the respective MAQ scale. Significant trends for manifest polynomial contrast analyses are reported in the last column in the order of magnitude of the estimate (i.e., stronger trends are reported first). All SEMs reached adequate model fit indices (CFI >0.95; RMSEA <0.06; SRMR <0.08; see also Appendix E for details).
The real motivation for this study, to figure out how to GET PEOPLE TO STOP EATING MEAT, becomes clear in this chart below. Where progress is denoted by moving from Omnivore to Veg*an.
Clearly revealing the authors’ clear view that positive beliefs about meat eating are inherently false.
Utter confounding with female attitudes, as both groups are a considerably majority female group. As women as a group tend to be more inclined to avoid conflict, agreeing superficially with the researchers for the period of the study is a likely alternative explanation of the outcomes.
The question was eating, not cooking… 😀 ?
Both groups were also self selected, so I would suspect a strong vegan bias, given how evangelical (in the sense of preachy, not conservative Protestant) vegans are.
Hey Veg*ans…we’re not conflicted … AT ALL
We eat (Me-eat) Meat
We like Meat
Meat smells great when cooking it and tastes great after cooking
You may want us to be conflicted
You may try to convince us we’re conflicted
But YOU are delusional if you believe we’re conflicted
I’m a member of peta (people eating tasty animals).
I love animals, they’re delicious.
After harvesting a deer or turkey during hunting season, I thank God for providing such a delicious form of sustenance. I wonder where the supposed conflict is.
But think of the poor plants. Who’ll fight for their feelings, their rights to exist?
No, no – you’ve got it all wrong. Veg*ans don’t have the energy for conflict – it’s all they can do to drag themselves from one place to another.
My thoughts exactly. I hope Briggs weighs in on the stats. By the way, the the agreeableness and the ‘nurturing/caring’ general traits of women was a powerful positive force in our survival as a species, but I’m afraid these traits don’t serve optimally in
political or high level business functions so well. There are exceptions (Golda Mier, Indira Gandi, Margaret Thatcher …) but they appear to have left these ‘skills’ outside the office.
Those that use these communal traits in office are at home with nanny state lefty politics. Just have to look at the quilting bee of lefty governors, federal department heads, mayors …
To think that people actually make a living out if this rubbish. Gggrrrrhhhh!
Nice to see that environmental psychology now uses models and numbers 🙂
How would I estimate the sustainability of Biden’s border?
SEE Biden Visits Border To Cut Ribbon For Official Border Grand Opening
https://babylonbee.com/news/biden-arrives-at-border-to-cut-ribbon-for-official-border-grand-opening
Enjoy. You and I probably paid for it.
I have no mixed feelings eating meat, I have good feelings.
As I have eating fruits and vegetables.
Same here, and I suspect no mixed feelngs for most people I know.
Phillip,
I suspect most of the people you know – like most of those I know – are aged [well?] over 30.
[I didn’t wade through the OP’s writings or copyings, but as the subjects of the propaganda were self-selected, I’d guess that a lot were under 25.]
The younger generations seem much more in tune with their feelings than my generation.
I am a little unclear whether that will help them if Farmers are stopped from growing food, if armies are prevented from defending us, if seafarers are prevented from safely carrying goods to our shores.
But they will have helped to – IIRC – ‘Save the Planet’ TM …
Right?
Auto
Whether it’s vegetable or animal, some things have to die so that I carry on living. I’m fine with that.
Interesting graphic… None of these creatures would have lived at all, if not destined for your dinner plate.
https://www.visualcapitalist.com/cp/mapped-global-livestock-distribution-and-density/
And one day you too will be food for worms.
True, also many of the vegetables we eat today would not exist in that form if they weren’t destined to be dinner. Just because of our dietary habits we’ve genetically engineered many animals and plants.
Brussels sprouts and boiled cabbage excepted.
“”Eating meat is a prime example of cognitive conflict””
Which wine to go with
Ooh yeah, tricky.
Or… will I get the rib eye, or a nice piece of rump or porterhouse.
Or perhaps some cheaper mince and do a spag-bol.
Conflict everywhere. !
End the conflict
Save a tree
Eat a Veg*an
Beef are Vegan !
Some are reporting that a more carnivore diet has improved their health. Many modern diseases appear to be linked to excessive carbohydrate consumption.
Apparently, if you want to lose weight, carnivore diet is the way to go.
YUP or with the addition of the low carb densely nutritious green leafy stuff…
Pet rabbits live, on average, a little more than 10 years.
House cats frequently live 20+ years. {The record is 38 years.}
Rabbits, like so many other strict herbivores, must work hard to get the nutrients they need from the vegetation they eat. Cows and other ruminants do this by having a multi-chambered stomach and they regurgitate their “cud” and continue to chew it to glean out more nutrients. Rabbits, OTOH, are recyclers – often times, their food gets a second complete trip thru their digestive systems….
It is very difficult to know which plants can cause issues. Phytates on grains comes to mind… which cause chelation and lack of mineral absorption and kidney stones… unless adequate citrates can make the minerals bio available. Also lectins that insult the endothelial lining of the gut causing leaky gut leading to autoimmune disease. It’s all so confusing.
Worst of all are so-called vegetable oils… which are generally seed oils that are omega 6 oil polyunsaturated oils that are not stable – in contrast to stable oils otherwise called saturated and monounsaturated that are very stable.
Thinking about the membranes of every cell, you do not want them to be unstable since they become leaky and lead to the need for repair which necessarily leads to inflammation. Then taking anti-inflammatory drugs leads to lack of healing so the leaking continues on…
Eat meat that was grown in diverse conditions, not corn fed… Although corn fed does taste really good 🙂
Economically, a very large part of the population, perhaps a large majority, have no choice about the source.
I eat mostly non grass fed, but choose it when I can…
Chimpanzee’s, which share 98% of common DNA with humans, never live past 40 years in the wild. It’s a totally natural existence.
Chimpanzee’s have also evolved to eat a very different diet than humans. They have a different gut and intestine setup as their diet, although omniverous, contains a much higher proportion of fruit than ours ever did. They appear to have evolved their system to deal with fruit and fruit acids much more efficiently where our ancestors evolved more to deal with nuts and non-acidic plants. We evolved in different ecosystems so went separate ways dictated by the available food supply.
Another example of the many reasons why university funding should be cut in half.
That’s a rather generous provision. Cut it right back until the screaming stops.
I’ve eaten meat – and lots of it – for 70 years now. It forms not far short of 50% of my diet by weight, and it works for me. (It meets my needs!) Since I am an atheist as far as the green religion is concerned, I don’t feel “ambivalent” about eating meat or any of my other habits.
I eat a little less than that, maybe just under a quarter or so. But the most important thing is that this is always a personal choice and should always remain so. Imposing some faddish food regime by force will cause untold suffering and hardships.
As in so many other parts of life.
As I get older (77 now) I find myself eating less and less meat–mainly because I really dislike cooking for myself, and I don’t go out to eat nearly as often as in days gone by. It has nothing to do with any thing other than choice –I did follow the “caveman diet”about 15 – 20 years ago when my weight started ballooning, and lost about 40 pounds. and have managed to keep it stable at 170 since then. I do look forward to my weekly provisions run to town, though. a good old greasy cheese burger, or a beef fajita quesadilla is still important at times.
How people feel about it doesn’t enter into the picture. Humans evolved with a mixed diet. Eating all meat or all vegetables can be just plain unhealthy as both foods provide nutrients that the other doesn’t or at least are very limited in some nutrients.
Before I get voted down, we have a trucker who is on a meat diet and while he feels great, he couldn’t get health insurance because his cholesterol was off the scale. Vegetarian diets are difficult to get balanced protein and B vitamins. Yes, we often consume far too much sugar and the wrong fats but you don’t need to go to extremes to get a proper diet. Bring on a good beef stew.
Agree wholeheartedly. One of my favourite meals is the humble tomato sandwich – either with a little sea salt and cracked black pepper or a nice mayonnaise. But I enjoy eating meat just as much – a nice roast chicken or a slow cooked joint of lamb is amazing.
I LOVE tomato sandwiches, as long as the tomatoes are homegrown! Of course, I like to add bacon and avocado to make it a lot healthier! I call it a BLAT, but the lettuce is optional.
Oh I know, you simply can’t beat the taste of tomatoes you’ve grown yourself.
I lost 100 lbs on a meat diet and my blood cholesterol was too low to read using the quick tester for the entire time I was on that diet. All I ate was meat mostly steak or pork tenderloins and basically a garden salad. Bacon and eggs for breakfast.
Salad can be pretty diverse for example potato salad. I kind of toss what ever I have laying around in them and call them a salad. That said, I know you can lose weight on a meat diet. The conversion of fat and protein to glucose isn’t efficient so you need about 50% more meat calories just to break even. Our ancestors lived off meat in the winter when they had it and body fat when they didn’t. Our body can survive if meat is all we have but they also had a relatively short life span.
That is why I stated garden salad, it’s mostly lettuce no potatoes, no bread, lots of bacon bits 😊 I was cycling everywhere. With no handy carbs to burn when starting a ride I would have no energy for the first mile or so but then the furnace would get going and the energy come but when stopping it would take about 20 minutes for the furnace to die down again and I would sweat like crazy. It was a weird feeling.
There are other things that affect cholesterol. Genetics and alcohol are the first two that come to mind.
We’ve been brainwashed to equate cholesterol with heart disease. Cholesterol is vital to the body, heart disease is caused by inflammation, largely a result of the modern industrial diet…cheap carbs, sugar and seed oils, none of which are natural human food.
My cholesterol is high but the good is high while the bad is very low. The ratio between the two determines if you are at risk for a widow maker. Eliminating hydrogenated fats that come in pie crust, peanut butter that doesn’t separate and a number of other products will help. Peanut oil, olive oil and even butter are better choices over manufactured fats. While I keep a can of Crisco around the house, I use it to keep bread from sticking to the pan. One small can will last me for years.
There have been, and probably still are to a small extent, human populations that have almost no access to plant food, and others that have chosen to ignore plant food. By the evidence available, what is good or bad in the details is probably genetic. Celiac disease and lactose intolerance are just two small examples. Inuit peoples who existed mainly on a diet of animal fats and Maasai who lived mainly on whole milk are two others.
Even in harsh climates there are root vegetables and berries that can be harvested to fill the need for plants. As for Celiac, that is a wheat problem which can easily be eliminated from the diet. My mother is lactose intolerant but that doesn’t mean she can’t have milk. It only means she has to be careful about how much. She will make a pint last two or three week and sometimes throws some of it out.
Our diets normally take advantage of what is available and others may not see what is clearly there. Europe thinks of corn as cattle feed. Soybeans are a recent addition to our diet. Most of the time starvation is the result of being a picky eater. That was true of the French revolution where the common people wanted wheat and wouldn’t touch potatoes because they were ugly.
Celiac and lactose intolerance have a strong tendency to run in families, as do various other problems. That strongly suggests genetics are involved; different populations have evolved to exist under different conditions. The fact that, with enough knowledge and technology, some conditions can be overcome doesn’t change the genetic aspect in any way.
I have not studied any Inuit peoples myself, only read about some studies. Those said that plants of any kind played a very small to zero part of their diets. The Maasai would seem to have more choices but that doesn’t mean they made other choices. Studies of both populations found essentially zero incident of “degenerative” diseases so common among most of the world’s people in those who adhered to their traditional diets and all of those conditions aplenty among those who adopted the now common western diet.
That does not mean that adopting those ancient diets would be healthy for other population groups. Only properly done research, very difficult to do when it depends on controlling people’s day to day life, could give much insight to that question.
Veganism is a political/religious ideology. And it’s stupid.
Isn’t veganism Latin for lazy/failed hunter?
Not to mention self-destructive.
I find the vegans total lack of compassion for the feelings of plant life abhorrent. Why are my ethical concerns never addressed? Salad bars are genocide.
The above is no less insane than the article I just read.
Their ethics are based on studies as rigorous as “The Secret Life of Plants”
Who knew dinner was so complicated?
They don’t even know if they are male or female….so….
The image at the top shows a steak on what appears to be a hardwood (Hickory?) floor. It is clean, but still …
I caught my cat chewing on a mouse. The look he gave me was “You should feed me green peas and carrots – then I wouldn’t be doing this.”
That’s a cutting board, probably oak. Absolute requirement if you don’t want to sharpen your knife after every cut. I use plastic because I can put them in the dishwasher but to each his or her own.
The grain looks like hickory, but could be a close relation like pecan. Most butcher blocks are made of some kind of maple; oak is too soft for cutting boards and the cross-grained structure of oak which makes it structurally strong would probably make it absorb liquids like blood and meat drippings.
The wood is normally sealed with something like mineral oil. A good butcher block needs to be regularly serviced to keep moisture from damaging it.
As for the type of wood, I am in Arizona so most of what we see is pine. Oak is somewhat exotic here however I hear about all the wonderful woods that grow in other parts of the country. We can get other types of wood if we have special project but you don’t find it laying around your home improvement store.
You can see the table that the chopping board is on to either corner. Why on earth did you think it might be on the floor?
Because I (a) have a floor that looks like that, and (b) my wood cutting boards do not have groves like that, unless there is a permitter grove to trap fresh blood, and (c) most people will not be eating a freshly grilled steak from a chopping board.
Ooh you’ve got to try a good steak off a wooden trencher it really is great.
The board has been around for a while and the wood warped causing the joints to separate. The wood wasn’t regularly treated with a wood preservative. Your correct that the board shouldn’t be used any more for food but it makes a good phot shot.
I have one that looks something like that and I put the crock pot on it to make sure it doesn’t damage the counter.
I don’t think the wood warped, the joints look like epoxy, not a good scheme for a chopping block.
There is a tool called an edge planer that in a single pass can get the edges near perfectly straight. Any shop that puts very many boards together has one. The problem is over time moisture or the lack of it causes stress on the board resulting in failure. You could use some really well seasoned wood or seal the wood to solve the problem but they take short cuts and given time, the joints will fail.
Remember that wood is a living substance even after it’s turned into lumber so you need to allow for that when you work with it.
The chopping block is relevant to diet how?
Interesting comments on the “board”.
Images on the internet do not show anything like my Hickory Froor
when I search for wood trancher. Search for wood cutting boards and see
some nice work, but not groves. Some require much work to create;
See: end-grain and edge-grain boards
I’ve seen grooves on many wood cutting boards.
Rubbish
There is a auto repair shop where I drive by and they have a large sign with lettering which changes frequently. The latest was “BACON GREASE IS AN ESSENTIAL OIL”.
Definitely true:))
Another they had not long ago. “WANT TO GET BACK ON YOUR FEET? MISS A COUPLE OF CAR PAYMENTS”.
Weird Journal. I didn’t know until now that the environment had a psyche.
Claims to be the premier journal in the field. Possible because the only one.
Only costs $4020 to get an article published. Based on this article, I think they should charge more. Two reasons: desperate researchers, and amusement value.
Vegetartans and vegans may eat what they want, as far as they don’t try to indoctrinate others. Off course vice versa.
Off course, anything goes. Apparently.
“because they predominantly hold negative attitudes toward meat”
Where did they find these people? I don’t know any “omnivore” like this.
Very carefully constructed questions?
reading between the lines while using special glasses
I’m going to by a roasted chicken for dinner. I have no ambivalence about it.
Vegans do not live any longer. They only look older.
Why is living longer everyone’s ultimate goal?
Because it’s better than the alternative.
As a hardcore outdoorsman for many years I prided myself feeding the family on wildgame
I harvested. Elk, deer, waterfowl & fish were my top choices. About 20% of the elk tags
sold in MT are successful in bagging an elk. About 2% are successful every year. I
was a 2%’er for many years. You have to be physically fit, it is a lifestyle. Table fare
fit for a king Smoked duck is to die for..I’ve seen vegans taste it and go off the wagon..
My wife tended the garden and orchard and is an outstanding cook. She
also trail hiked and bagged peaks on weekends with me..I’m a blessed man.
Sounds pretty idyllic, Mr. Ed! I agree wholeheartedly about smoked duck, and I highly recommend elk/green chile enchiladas with lots of guacamole and sour cream on the side!
Humans have been hunter gatherers for 20 or 30 times longer than we have been eating large amounts of grains. The effects of ultra-processed foods (UPFs) are clearly visible in the sickness and obesity levels wherever their consumption is widespread! Most people would break out in health if they followed your lifestyle, but where’s the money in that!?
When they peel my cold dead fingers of of my cheeseburger.
Should read: “When they peel my cold dead fingers off of my cheeseburger.”
Sorry.
Anthony: How about a more forgiving edit function? Sometimes you get interrupted.
Cogitus interruptus? 😉
I don’t seem to have the edit function other than my own.
If it wasn’t for “spell check”, I’d REALLY sound like an idioiot!
Rather than having to differentiate among vegetarians, vegans, and veg*ans perhaps we should just categorize them collectively as “carniphobes”.
Lots of rubbish in this supposed study. Let’s start here:
“Human food systems, and especially meat consumption, are responsible for some of humanity’s greatest challenges. In 2018, 69 billion chickens, 1.5 billion pigs, 656 million turkeys, 574 million sheep, 479 million goats, and 302 million cattle were slaughtered worldwide (Ritchie & Roser, 2019). To farm this number of animals, a vast amount of land and resources is necessary”
What they blissfully ignore is that herding uses land that cannot be used for the raising of crops. Removing this land from food production by enforcing veganism will do nothing more than create a large rise in the price of all grain crops and result in a large global food shortage and starvation. So the question is: how many people in the poorest parts of the world do thes socialists want to kill off?
Question 2: do these idiots imagine that avoiding what is claimed to be the worst aspects of AWG is worth killing off a huge proportion of the world’s poor by malnutrition and starvation?
Given these two considerations alone, their entire study can be written off as irrelevant nonsense produced by some academics with too much time on their hands and incapable of doing anything useful.
I used to believe veganism is for losers but now I think veganism is for sad losers.
Sad, depressed, anxious and very stressed losers.
Much science is no longer positive. Social activism results in normative science with research geared toward bias confirmation.