Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32403419›Full record

ArticleNutrients2020

Gender Differences in Fat-Rich Meat Choice: Influence of Personality and Attitudes.

Sara Spinelli, Caterina Dinnella, Federica Tesini, Alessandra Bendini, Ada Braghieri, Cristina Proserpio, Luisa Torri, Nicoletta A Miele, Eugenio Aprea, Agata Mazzaglia and 2 more

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Nutrients, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.9field-weighted citation impact, top 10% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

21 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 41 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors at 8 institutions in 1 country.

Sara SpinelliDepartment of Agricultural, Food, Environment and Forestry (DAGRI), University of Florence, 50144 Florence, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-5175-6276
Caterina DinnellaDepartment of Agricultural, Food, Environment and Forestry (DAGRI), University of Florence, 50144 Florence, Italy.
Federica TesiniAlma Mater Studiorum, University of Bologna, 40126 Bologna, Italy.
Alessandra BendiniAlma Mater Studiorum, University of Bologna, 40126 Bologna, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-6515-5519
Ada BraghieriSchool of Agricultural, Forest, Food, and Environmental Sciences, University of Basilicata, Via dell'Ateneo Lucano 10, 85100 Potenza, Itay.ORCID 0000-0001-9824-0579
Cristina ProserpioDepartment of Food, Environmental and Nutritional Sciences (DeFENS), University of Milan, 20133 Milan, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-1793-9113
Luisa TorriSensory and Consumer Science, University of Gastronomic Sciences, Piazza Vittorio Emanuele II, 9, 12042 Pollenzo, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-4522-6452
Nicoletta A MieleDepartment of Agricultural Sciences, University of Naples Federico II, 80055, Portici, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-9018-408X
Eugenio ApreaCenter Agriculture Food Environment, University of Trento/Fondazione Edmund Mach, Via E. Mach 1, 38010 San Michele All'adige, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-3648-0459
Agata MazzagliaDipartimento di Agricoltura, Alimentazione e Ambiente (Di3A), University of Catania, Via Santa Sofia 100, 95123 Catania, Italy.
Tullia Gallina ToschiAlma Mater Studiorum, University of Bologna, 40126 Bologna, Italy.ORCID 0000-0001-7241-2280
Erminio MonteleoneDepartment of Agricultural, Food, Environment and Forestry (DAGRI), University of Florence, 50144 Florence, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-9149-969X
University of Bologna · ITUniversity of Florence · ITFederico II University Hospital · ITFondazione Edmund Mach · ITUniversity of Basilicata · ITUniversity of Catania · ITUniversity of Gastronomic Sciences · ITUniversity of Milan · IT

Funding

Horizon 2020 666008Ministero dell'Istruzione, dell'Università e della Ricerca (MIUR) 20158YJW3W
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The innate liking of fats may be due to one or more orosensory, post-ingestive, and metabolic signals; however, individuals differ in their preference for fat in meat. One of the variables that mainly impacts eating behaviors and thus should be carefully analyzed is sex/gender, and while sex (female/male, in a binary approximation) refers only to biological characteristics, gender (woman/man, in a binary approximation) refers to cultural attitudes and behavior. This study aimed at exploring the role of gender, age, taste responsiveness (measured as sensitivity to the bitterness of 6-n-propylthiouracil (PROP)), personality traits, attitudes, and liking of and familiarity with meat on the choice of fat-rich meat products in 1208 women and men aged 18-66. Both a between- and a within-gender approach were adopted. Results showed that gender had a major impact on liking of and familiarity with meat and choice for fat-rich meat compared to age. A lower liking meat in general was found in women, independently of fat content. Women also reported a lower familiarity than men with fatty meat and cold meat and a lower choice of fat-rich meat. Genders differed in the influence of personality and attitudes about fat-rich meat choice. In both genders, the choice of meat higher in fat was associated with liking cold and fatty meat and with age and negatively with liking low-fat meat. Women were in general more interested in health than men, and this may explain the main difference in the choice of fat-rich meat between genders. However, when we look at each gender separately, general health interest was significantly correlated with a lower choice of fat-rich meat only in men. In addition, in men food neophobia was negatively correlated with choice of fat-rich meat. In women, the emotional dimension was found to play an important role, with sensitivity to disgust that was negatively associated with fat-rich meat choice and emotional eating that was positively associated with it. Thanks to the large sample and the gender-sensitive approach adopted, this study showed that different factors affect choice of fat-rich meat by gender, in addition to liking of and familiarity with fat-rich and cold meat and age. This suggests that strategies personalized by gender to reinforce or activate barriers to this type of consumption may be more effective at reducing fat intake, promoting the consumption of meat lower in fat.

Indexed as

Attitude to HealthDietary FatsMeatPersonalitySex FactorsAdultAge FactorsFeeding BehaviorFemaleFood PreferencesHumansMaleMiddle AgedPropylthiouracilPsychological TestsTasteDietary FatsPropylthiouracilfat preferencegendermeatpersonality traitsPROP

Identifiers

PMID32403419
PMCPMC7285107
OpenAlexW3021663916

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.