Go the Whole Nine Yards? How Extent of Meat Restriction Impacts Individual Dietary Experience

Abstract

Highlights• A third of American adults self-identify as reducing their meat consumption.• One percent of the American adult population identifies as a vegetarian.• A vegetarian diet had the strongest lived dietary experiences.• The degree and type of meat restriction impacts lived dietary experiences. AbstractThere are a variety of approaches to addressing meat overconsumption including forms of meat restriction that vary by the degree of reductions and the type of meat reduced. This study examines three such diets-a vegetarian diet, a reducedmeat diet, and a chicken-free diet-with a focus on the differences in the lived dietary experiences of their adherents. These lived experiences are operationalized using a variety of measures: satisfaction with food-related life, social ties, convenience, social/personal life, health, cost, motivation, identity, perception of prevalence rates, length of diet adherence, and the theory of planned behavior (intentions, attitudes, perceived behavioral control, and subjective norms). The data comes from an online survey of a cross-sectional, census-balanced sample of more than 30,0000 U.S. residents aged 18+ years sourced from Nielsen's Harris Panel. The results showed meat reducers to be a larger group than previously suspected, with a third of American adults self-identifying as reducing their meat consumption, compared to one percent each who identify as a vegetarian or chicken avoider. The findings also demonstrated that a vegetarian diet had the strongest lived dietary experiences among American adults who are currently eating one of the meat-restricted diets. This research speaks to how the degree and type of meat restriction can impact an individual's lived experience with their diet.

Autonomous motivation, goal-facilitating behaviours, and dietary goal progress in individuals transitioning to a veg*n diet: A longitudinal study

“…Objective goal progress was calculated as a difference between the goal diet at the initial time point and the actual diet at the given time point, both assessed using a Food Frequency Questionnaire, a type of structured recall instrument often used in epidemiology research (e.g., Fred Hutch Cancer Center, 2022 ; National Cancer Institute, 2022 ) and more recently in psychology (e.g., Asher and Peters, 2020 ; Sparkman et al, 2021 ). At baseline, before all participants had started working towards their goal, objective goal progress was calculated as a difference between their goal diet and their actual diet at the same time point.…”

Meat reduction, vegetarianism, or chicken avoidance: US omnivores’ impressions of three meat-restricted diets

“…includes beef, pork, turkey, fish, shellfish, and/or other meats. For an additional discussion of why a chicken-free diet was included in this study, see Asher and Peters (2020) as well as Asher (2017).…”

“…This paper serves as a companion piece to Asher and Peters (2020), which examined the differences in lived dietary experiences for current adherents of the three meat-restricted diets. Data for both papers were fielded as part of a larger study; for more on the methods, see Asher (2017).…”

“…A variety of measures were used to examine omnivores' perceptions of the three meat-restricted diets, which are detailed in Table 1 and have been described in detail in Asher and Peters (2020) as well as Asher (2017).…”

Forty-five years of research on vegetarianism and veganism: A systematic and comprehensive literature review of quantitative studies

“…Meat production contributes to animal suffering [ 1 ], environmental problems (loss of biodiversity, climate change, or water pollution) [ 2 ], and public health problems (zoonotic diseases such as COVID-19 and chronic non-communicable diseases such as type II diabetes) [ 3 ]. Consequently, there is an increasing interest in a dietary transition to reduce or exclude animal products [ [4] , [5] , [6] , [7] ].…”