Meat consumption, depressive symptomatology and cardiovascular disease incidence in apparently healthy men and women: highlights from the ATTICA cohort study (2002–2012). Matina Kouvari et al. Nutritional Neuroscience, Apr 11 2020. https://doi.org/10.1080/1028415X.2020.1750169
ABSTRACT
Objectives: To evaluate the association of meat consumption with prevalent depressive symptomatology and cardiovascular disease (CVD) incidence in apparently healthy individuals.
Methods: ATTICA study was conducted during 2001–2012 including n = 1514 men and n = 1528 women (aged >18 years old) from the greater Athens area, Greece. At baseline, depressive symptomatology through Zung Self-Rating Depression Scale (range 20–80) and meat consumption (total meat, red, white and processed meat) through validated semi-quantitative food frequency questionnaire were assessed. Follow-up (2011–2012) was achieved in n = 2020 participants (n = 317 cases); n = 845 participants with complete psychological metrics were used for the primary analysis.
Results: Ranking from 1st to 3rd total meat consumption (low to high) tertiles, participants assigned in 2nd tertile had the lowest depressive-symptomatology scoring (p<0.001). This trend was retained in multiadjusted logistic regression analysis; participants reporting moderate total and red meat consumption had ∼20% lower likelihood to be depressed (i.e. Zung scale<45) compared with their 1st tertile counterparts (Odds Ratio (OR)total meat 0.82, 95% Confidence Interval (95%CI) (0.60, 0.97) and ORred meat 0.79 95%CI (0.45, 0.96)). Non-linear associations were revealed; 2–3 serving/week total meat and 1–2 servings/week red meat presented the lowest odds of depressive symptomatology (all ps<0.05). These U-shape trends seemed to attenuate the aggravating effect of depressive symptomatology on CVD hard endpoints. All aforementioned associations were more evident in women (all ps for sex-related interaction<0.05).
Discussion: The present findings generate the hypothesis that moderate total meat consumption and notably, red meat may be more beneficial to prevent depressed mood and in turn hard CVD endpoints.
KEYWORDS: Meat, red meat, psychological health, depression, heart disease, gender, women, primary prevention
Bipartisan Alliance, a Society for the Study of the US Constitution, and of Human Nature, where Republicans and Democrats meet.
Sunday, April 12, 2020
Those who thought about donation decisions by either deliberating about the cost-effectiveness of charities we judged of less positive moral character than those deciding based on empathy
Montealegre, Andres, Lance Bush, David Moss, David Pizarro, and William Jimenez-Leal. 2020. “Does Maximizing Good Make People Look Bad?.” PsyArXiv. April 11. doi:10.31234/osf.io/2zbax
Abstract: People make inferences about others depending on the way they arrive at their moral decisions. Here, we examine evaluations of people who make moral decisions through deliberation compared to those who decide based on empathy. To do so, we turn to charitable donations. People often fail to prioritize the cost-effectiveness of charities when donating (Berman, Barasch, Levine, & Small, 2018). We argue that this pattern exists in part because donors who make charitable decisions by deliberating about the cost-effectiveness of charities are perceived as less moral and less desirable as social partners than those who decide based on empathizing with the recipients of the donation. Across six pre-registered studies using two different scenarios (N = 1,961), we presented participants with descriptions of people who thought about donation decisions by either deliberating about the cost-effectiveness of charities, or by deciding based on empathy. Reliably, participants judged “deliberators” to have less positive moral character and to be less desirable as social partners than “empathizers.” We found these results across different designs (between-subjects and within-subjects), when evaluating respondents of different genders (male and female), and for donations of different stakes (low and high). The negative reputational effects of deliberating were reduced if “deliberators” expressed empathy first. These results suggest that there may be disincentives for selecting charities based on their impact, since people are not socially rewarded for prioritizing charitable impact but are rewarded for signaling the right kinds of moral traits. We end by discussing implications and limitations of these findings.
Abstract: People make inferences about others depending on the way they arrive at their moral decisions. Here, we examine evaluations of people who make moral decisions through deliberation compared to those who decide based on empathy. To do so, we turn to charitable donations. People often fail to prioritize the cost-effectiveness of charities when donating (Berman, Barasch, Levine, & Small, 2018). We argue that this pattern exists in part because donors who make charitable decisions by deliberating about the cost-effectiveness of charities are perceived as less moral and less desirable as social partners than those who decide based on empathizing with the recipients of the donation. Across six pre-registered studies using two different scenarios (N = 1,961), we presented participants with descriptions of people who thought about donation decisions by either deliberating about the cost-effectiveness of charities, or by deciding based on empathy. Reliably, participants judged “deliberators” to have less positive moral character and to be less desirable as social partners than “empathizers.” We found these results across different designs (between-subjects and within-subjects), when evaluating respondents of different genders (male and female), and for donations of different stakes (low and high). The negative reputational effects of deliberating were reduced if “deliberators” expressed empathy first. These results suggest that there may be disincentives for selecting charities based on their impact, since people are not socially rewarded for prioritizing charitable impact but are rewarded for signaling the right kinds of moral traits. We end by discussing implications and limitations of these findings.