Health related values and preferences regarding meat intake : a cross-sectional mixed-methods study

Background. In addition to social and environmental determinants, people's values and preferences determine daily food choices. This study evaluated adults' values and preferences regarding unprocessed red meat (URM) and processed meat (PM) and their willingness to change their consumption in the face of possible undesirable health consequences. Methods. A crosssectional mixed-methods study including a quantitative assessment through an online survey, a qualitative inquiry through semi-structured interviews, and a follow-up assessment through a telephone survey. We performed descriptive statistics, logistic regressions, and thematic analysis. Results. Of 304 participants, over 75% were unwilling to stop their consumption of either URM or PM, and of those unwilling to stop, over 80% were also unwilling to reduce. Men were less likely to stop meat intake than women (odds ratios < 0.4). From the semi-structured interviews, we identified three main themes: the social and/or family context of meat consumption, healthand non-health-related concerns about meat, and uncertainty of the evidence. At three months, 63% of participants reported no changes in meat intake. Conclusions. When informed about the cancer incidence and mortality risks of meat consumption, most respondents would not reduce their intake. Public health and clinical nutrition guidelines should ensure that their recommendations are consistent with population values and preferences

Values and preferences related to cancer risk among red and processed meat eaters : a pilot cross-sectional study with semi-structured interviews

Introduction: Over the last decade, the possible impact of meat intake on overall cancer incidence and mortality has received considerable attention, and authorities have recommended decreasing consumption; however, the benefits of reducing meat consumption are small and uncertain. As such, individual decisions to reduce consumption are value- and preference-sensitive. Consequently, we undertook a pilot cross-sectional study to explore people’s values and preferences towards meat consumption in the face of cancer risk. Methods and analysis: The mixed-method pilot study included a quantitative questionnaire followed by qualitative evaluation to explore the dietary habits of 32 meat eaters, their reasons for eating meat, and willingness to change their meat consumption when faced with a potential risk reduction of cancer over a lifetime based on a systematic review and dose–response meta-analysis. We recruited a convenience sample of participants from two Canadian provinces: Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island. This project was approved by the Research Ethics Board for Health Sciences research at Dalhousie University, Canada. Results: The average weekly consumption of red meat was 3.4 servings and the average weekly consumption of processed meat was 3 servings. The determinants that influenced meat intake were similar for both red and processed meat. Taste, cost, and family preferences were the three most commonly cited factors impacting red meat intake. Taste, cost, and (lack of) cooking time were the three most commonly cited factors impacting processed meat intake. None of the participants were willing to eliminate red or processed meat from their diet. About half of participants were willing to potentially reduce their meat consumption, with one third definitely willing to reduce their consumption. Strengths and limitations: This study is the first that we are aware of to share data with participants on the association of red meat and processed meat consumption and the risk of cancer mortality and cancer incidence, including the certainty of evidence for the risk reduction. The limitations of this study include its small sample size and its limited geographic sampling. Conclusions: When presented explicit information about the small uncertain cancer risk associated with red and processed meat consumption, study participants were unwilling to eliminate meat, while about one-third were willing to reduce their meat intake

Values and preferences related to cancer risk among red and processed meat eaters : A pilot cross-sectional study with semi-structured interviews

Introduction: Over the last decade, the possible impact of meat intake on overall cancer incidence and mortality has received considerable attention, and authorities have recommended decreasing consumption; however, the benefits of reducing meat consumption are small and uncertain. As such, individual decisions to reduce consumption are value- and preference-sensitive. Consequently, we undertook a pilot cross-sectional study to explore people's values and preferences towards meat consumption in the face of cancer risk. Methods and analysis: The mixed-method pilot study included a quantitative questionnaire followed by qualitative evaluation to explore the dietary habits of 32 meat eaters, their reasons for eating meat, and willingness to change their meat consumption when faced with a potential risk reduction of cancer over a lifetime based on a systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis. We recruited a convenience sample of participants from two Canadian provinces: Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island. This project was approved by the Research Ethics Board for Health Sciences research at Dalhousie University, Canada. Results: The average weekly consumption of red meat was 3.4 servings and the average weekly consumption of processed meat was 3 servings. The determinants that influenced meat intake were similar for both red and processed meat. Taste, cost, and family preferences were the three most commonly cited factors impacting red meat intake. Taste, cost, and (lack of) cooking time were the three most commonly cited factors impacting processed meat intake. None of the participants were willing to eliminate red or processed meat from their diet. About half of participants were willing to potentially reduce their meat consumption, with one third definitely willing to reduce their consumption. Strengths and limitations: This study is the first that we are aware of to share data with participants on the association of red meat and processed meat consumption and the risk of cancer mortality and cancer incidence, including the certainty of evidence for the risk reduction. The limitations of this study include its small sample size and its limited geographic sampling. Conclusions: When presented explicit information about the small uncertain cancer risk associated with red and processed meat consumption, study participants were unwilling to eliminate meat, while about one-third were willing to reduce their meat intake

Depletion of Endothelial or Smooth Muscle Cell-Specific Angiotensin II Type 1a Receptors Does Not Influence Aortic Aneurysms or Atherosclerosis in LDL Receptor Deficient Mice

<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Whole body genetic deletion of AT1a receptors in mice uniformly reduces hypercholesterolemia and angiotensin II-(AngII) induced atherosclerosis and abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs). However, the role of AT1a receptor stimulation of principal cell types resident in the arterial wall remains undefined. Therefore, the aim of this study was to determine whether deletion of AT1a receptors in either endothelial cells or smooth muscle cells influences the development of atherosclerosis and AAAs.</p> <h3>Methodology/Principal Findings</h3><p>AT1a receptor floxed mice were developed in an LDL receptor −/− background. To generate endothelial or smooth muscle cell specific deficiency, AT1a receptor floxed mice were bred with mice expressing Cre under the control of either Tie2 or SM22, respectively. Groups of males and females were fed a saturated fat-enriched diet for 3 months to determine effects on atherosclerosis. Deletion of AT1a receptors in either endothelial or smooth muscle cells had no discernible effect on the size of atherosclerotic lesions. We also determined the effect of cell-specific AT1a receptor deficiency on atherosclerosis and AAAs using male mice fed a saturated fat-enriched diet and infused with AngII (1,000 ng/kg/min). Again, deletion of AT1a receptors in either endothelial or smooth muscle cells had no discernible effects on either AngII-induced atherosclerotic lesions or AAAs.</p> <h3>Conclusions</h3><p>Although previous studies have demonstrated whole body AT1a receptor deficiency diminishes atherosclerosis and AAAs, depletion of AT1a receptors in either endothelial or smooth muscle cells did not affect either of these vascular pathologies.</p> </div

Endothelial depletion of AT1a receptors had no effects on AngII-induced abdominal aortic dilation measured <i>in vivo</i> by ultrasonography or <i>ex vivo</i>.

<p>A. Measurements of lumen diameters of suprarenal aortas by high frequent ultrasound on day 0 and day 28 of AngII infusion. B. Measurements of maximal external diameter of suprarenal aortas on <i>ex vivo</i> tissues acquired at termination. Individual measurements are represented from littermates that were either non-transgenic (circles) or Tie2-Cre +/0 (inverted triangles) infused with saline (left) or AngII (right). Diamond symbols are group means and bars are standard error of means (0/0 =  non-transgenic littermates and +/0 =  Tie2-Cre hemizygous transgenic). * denotes <i>P</i><0.05 when comparing saline versus AngII-infused mice.</p

Body weight, serum cholesterol concentration, and systolic blood pressure of LDL receptor −/− mice with deletion of AT1a receptors in endothelial (Tie2-Cre +/0) or smooth muscle cells (SM22-Cre +/0).

<p>Body weight and serum cholesterol concentration were measured at experimental termination. Systolic blood pressure (SBP) was measured daily for at least 3 consecutive days during the final week of AngII infusion.</p>*<p>denotes <i>P</i><0.05 compared to saline within genotype (0/0 =  no Cre; +/0 =  hemizygous Cre).</p

Smooth muscle cell depletion of AT1a receptors had no effects on AngII-induced atherosclerosis.

<p>Individual measurements are represented from littermates that were either non-transgenic (circles) or SM22-Cre +/0 (inverted triangles) infused with saline (left) or AngII (right). Diamond symbols are group means and bars are standard error of means (0/0 =  non-transgenic littermate and +/0 =  SM22-Cre hemizygous transgenic). * denotes <i>P</i><0.05 comparing saline versus AngII-infused mice.</p

Endothelial depletion of AT1a receptors had no effects on AngII-induced atherosclerosis.

<p>Individual measurements are represented from littermates that were either non-transgenic (circles) or Tie2-Cre +/0 (inverted triangles) infused with saline (left) or AngII (right). Diamond symbols are group means and bars are standard error of means (0/0 =  non-transgenic littermate and +/0 =  Tie2-Cre hemizygous transgenic). * denotes <i>P</i><0.05 comparing saline versus AngII infused mice.</p