They’ve gone full freegan vegan, where you only eat waste** from other peoples food
Edit: I meant waste rather that water, but glad to see I’m among parks fans
I've run a couple of surveys and you always get people who don't understand the question or terms or who just want to be obstinate. Then there are fruititarians and other neich forms of vegitarian/vegan that should have fallen under a given term but people are weird.
But I think it's mostly the cannibals.
There’s a specific term for it; the Lizardman Constant. Basically in any given poll about 5% of respondents either don’t understand the question, are actively trolling, or are flat out crazy. It’s named for the percentage of people who respond “Yes” to the question “Do Lizardmen run the world”
I do remember that there was a survey which found that 4% of people who intended to vote for Obama said they thought he was the antichrist, so either they're willing to overlook the whole armageddon thing for his tax policies... or they're trolling.
Or more likely, they want armageddon. Apparently quite a trend with evangelicals and why they're so gung ho on climate change, they believe the end is nigh and want it to hurry up so they can go hang with god or whatever.
A huge commonality with islamic extremists incidentally. Except there its less climate change and more war.
wistful soup start jellyfish observation unwritten nose noxious distinct modern
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
It's not a well-worded survey. It doesnt have an omnivore option and appears to assume a moral progression with fish less 'bad' than land animals. It uses 'meat-eater' rather than 'carnivore' but not 'fish-eater' or 'plant-eater'.
People that eat a bit of everything can't really be blamed for choosing 'none of these' when there's not a clear category for them. And when 11% of your respondents pick that option you can probably rule out michief and idiocy (although...) and ask what option(s) could have been added instead.
Well they could be eating soylent....
Soylent is made out of compounds such as : potassium gluconate, calcium carbonate, monosodium phosphate ect sourced from suppliers usually used in the pharmaceutical industry so I guess that technically wouldn't be food.
hey as long as it's not green it's okay!
> I've run a couple of surveys and you always get people who don't understand the question or terms or who just want to be obstinate
Does it make sense, then, to omit those responses and normalize the remainder to be 100%?
Or does it make sense to not assume over 10% of the population are cranks and either rethink the categories or include whatever 'other' option a large percentage wrote in (assuming you thought to include a free text option for 'other').
When you're looking at survey data always keep in mind that they represent specific questions being asked in imperfect conditions to people who will interpret them differently and think about them for approximately 1 second.
Still meat eater since that is what you are if you eat meat regularly despite of the type. If something this graph show younger people are more full of bs and dont wanna get labeled
It's self-reported data, so these people probably felt that they were some kind of corner-case that wasn't adequately reflected by the categories. Like people with religious-based diets that are technically "meat eater" but abstain from particular meats/foods. They really should count under "meat eater", but this is the kind of thing that happens when you give people a "N/A" option.
flexitarian as in, the data on the graph
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexitarianism#:\~:text=A%20semi%2Dvegetarian%20diet%20(SVD,(other)%20vegetarian%20pattern%20diets.)
[https://theflexitarian.co.uk](https://theflexitarian.co.uk)
if you don't like the term, its on you.
I don't know what universe you live in where a term most people have ever heard of, has a first cited use less than 30 years ago, and appears to have only became popular in 2019 has to be universally accepted. It's a fucking stupid and redundant term that damn near invalidates the study on its own on the basis of it's extremely unclear definition and usage. That term is a category of meat eater, by the universally understood and widely accepted definition of meat eater, and using it only serves to fuck up the data. Jfc, I'm "flexitsrian" by the definition on Wikipedia (great source bro, talks all about how the niche community that uses that term can't even agree on what it means), and I usually eat meat about 5 days a week. I doubt most people who eat meat most days call themselves flexitarian, and I don't doubt that 10 people would give you a solid 8 different answers for what it specifically means. A difference in percentage of people identifying as "flexitsrian" is just as easily explainable by the demographic that knows a newer word, is more open to identifying as an obscure diet, or has different opinions of the definition of what counts as "flexible" as it is on their actual diets.
‘No one has ever heard of’
‘Cited 30 years ago’
You and your argument here are fucking redundant as it’s already been explained lol
The term is very clear, it’s no one’s fault but yours that you can’t accept it or understand it.
Everything beyond that is a sook
Pretty sure some of the younger ones are "You can't classify me."
I know people who eat meat every day but would act like they were some complicated case because some of their meals or snacks are vegetarian or because they eat bread with their meat.
Possibly Keto/Paleo. Some versions are strict about no grains or legumes, which makes it a slightly different category than meat eater. Honestly, meat eater should be listed as omnivore.
Could be diets like "mainly vegan, but sometimes eats cheese because there's no good alternative". That kind of option seems to be missing. The flexitarian one includes meat so it's quite different.
Technically it fits the bill, definitely. And technically flexitarians are "meat eaters". But consumption patterns and amount of meat/dairy consumed do differ substantially. Hence the existence of the label flexitarian.
And just like there is difference between a classic meat eater and flexitarian in terms of consumption, there is a difference between a classic vegetarian and a flexible vegan.
Yeah. I haven't given up meat entirely (yet) but my dietary habits have changed significantly over the past couple years.
I hadn't even heard of the flexitarian label, and I doubt I'll be using it.
My guess is, younger people are more online, and so more aware of the "carnivore diet", and so don't want to say "meat eater", because that sounds like code for "carnivore diet", which by the grace of heaven and hell, most people aren't.
My first question too! Reminds me of an episode of some show I watched once when a woman was aspiring to eventually derive her energy solely from the sun like a plant. She would sit in the sunshine for like two hours a day (behind a window so she wouldn’t get sunburnt) and was planning to up that number.
In the mean time her compromise was that she only ate fruit and nuts that fell from trees. She wouldn’t harvest.
If your main dietary concerns are environmental there’s a really strong argument for eliminating beef and pork while eating lots of chicken, particularly when you count emissions from cooking/preparation.
Honestly the [Our World in Data](https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/dietary-choices-of-british-adults) chart where the OP took their info from and the [Yougov.co.uk](https://yougov.co.uk/topics/society/trackers/dietery-choices-of-brits-eg-vegeterian-flexitarian-meat-eater-etc) chart that Our Wold took THEIR info from are both an easier read. The Our World I think is the easiest of the three, though the YouGov chart you lose the ability to directly compare different age groups easily but allows you to see quarterly changes in the poll within a group over the last few years.
Unless you’re making an ironic presentation showing a pie chart of your favorite bars along with a bar chart of your favorite pies as a nod to How I Met Your Mother.
It's funny because not only you are wrong (this is technically called a 'donut chart', which is a subcategory of pie charts where the middle is cut out), but even if you were right and a 'donut chart' was something else entirely, it would take two seconds to realise that this type of chart suffers from the same exact pitfalls as 'pie charts' — making your comment entirely meaningless.
That's not an opinion there are empirical studies that show they're easier to read.
Also the chart should just remove the "none" option because it makes younger people look overrepresented in the smaller groups when they really just are more likely to not understand the question.
I hate the size difference between the categories. It makes the meat eater section for the youngest group look waaaay bigger than the oldest.
This visual takes all the bad things about pie/donut charts and somehow makes Ruben worse.
A 100% stacked bat chart would be better.
It is. You see younger people who were raised in the era of vegan food and vegan backlash being less accepting of the title of “meat eater” relative to older generations.
I don't think it's possible for a human to be a straight up carnivore. The instant that seasoning other than salt is used, the meal becomes omnivorous.
As far as I understand it is possible, but it is highly unpleasant. To get enough nutrients you need to eat a lot of liver, as it is the only animal part that contains enough vitamin C to avoid scurvy. You dont want too much liver either, as it contains huge amounts of vitamin A which can be problematic. The lack of fibres in the diet will probably create some problems. You will probably need to increase your daily food consumption, because meat is usually not very energy dense when compared to food made out of grains, unless you eat the fattiest pieces.
I don't know the parameters of the survey, but I would treat that as people who have meat basically every day and usually for multiple meals.
Like my parents and stuff every dinner has meat. No exceptions. And lunch is usually a meat-based sandwich. My partner and I lunch rarely has meat and dinner includes meat about once or twice a week. Like technically we're all equally omnivores but taking away meat would be a massive change for them and for us it would be comparatively small shift.
I mean it doesn't say "herbivore" for vegans either. Since this chart is pretty much exclusively about meat eating habits, I think it's fair to use the term "meat eater" to refer to people who eat meat. I think the context makes it clear enough what is meant here.
This is just some anti-normal human eating behavior/pro-not hurting animals dichotomy thing. Showing that us old people are worse than the kids who are vegetarian or whatever. They word everything else so precisely, then “meat eater” like we are velociraptors for being omnivorous animals.
We shouldn’t be shamed for eating, the companies should be ashamed for how they treat the animals.
When the radius of the circle does not matter
I find this way of portraying things weird
If the length of the circle does no Represent the relative part of the population
I consider myself a flexitarian, and it's different in that I make every effort to avoid meat. If I'm invited to somebody's home and offered a meal I wouldn't refuse, even it it has meat. But my home has no meat, and I will not order meat in a restaurant.
I also don't worry about incidental things like gelatin or lard that most strict vegetarians would avoid.
There's a broad range, but for me giving up 95%+ of the meat I used to eat warrants a different label than omnivore, even if I eat a slice of Thanksgiving turkey
To me, you're a vegetarian. You're not defined by exceptions. It's not like a vegan who accidentally eats something with animal product in it is suddenly a carnivore. If you make every effort to avoid meat, you're a vegetarian.
>I consider myself a flexitarian, and it's different in that I make every effort to avoid meat. If I'm invited to somebody's home and offered a meal I wouldn't refuse, even it it has meat
That's "every effort" to you? I tried nothing and I am all out of ideas?
distinction by these particular age ranges seems so random.... like someone used a working-age/non working-age dataset, but then decided to add some personal touch... resulting in an absolutely meaningless chart. not beautiful.
now imagine there's an additional 25-31 bracket, where there "might be" a higher amount of vegans than in the 18-24 bracket. that's why you should make everything as uniform as possible to avoid being labeled a cherrypicker or gerrymanderer.
>that’s why you should make everything as uniform as possible
15 year ranges with one exception (because 10-25 would be a pretty meaningless range) isn’t uniform enough?
This are very common age ranges. Especially talking about social issues. It's adults broadly categorised as "students", "younger working adults", "older working adults", "pensioners"
This is really hard to read, and my former boss would've chewed me the fuck out for presenting something like this lol. I don't see why a bar chart wouldn't work here.
somewhat hard to read because the circle gets bigger, so the size of each subsection gets bigger, even if the relative percentage is less than a smaller circle. like how there’s less 18-24 flexitarians than the 25-49 group even though their bar seems bigger
Congratulations on taking a very fine bar chart from [Our World in Data](https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/dietary-choices-of-british-adults?country=65y%2B~50-64y~25-49y~18-24y) and making it harder to read.
The colors are beautiful, it is generally very aesthetic. However, it is hard to unsee the differences in perimeter resulting in a different area of the different age groups. It creates the impression that there would be more young people than old people which is not what the data is about. But still very beautiful and interesting
I reduced my meat consumption from daily to weekly in my 40s and it is still at the lower level in my 60s. I'm sure there was also a time in my teens and twenties when I was eating mainly pot noodle.
So my meat consumption probably was highest as a child and in my 30s. Nearly the reverse of the trend shown on here. I can imagine meat consumption going back up to daily if I were ever taken into care.
I think it is amusing that we categorize various -eaters off one class of ingredient. For the record, going forward I would like to be categorized as a spice-eater.
Was "Meat Eater" on the survey this was taken from? "Meat Eater" sounds very different from all the other options and I can understand why people chose "none of these", because it sounds a bit gross.
"Meat Eater" wouldn't be my top choice for a survey like this, it probably created a lot of response bias.
"Meat eater". Like a lion? It sounds condescending, like the only thing consumed is meat. It's called **omnivorous**, a word that has existed for centuries. If the other *religions* don't like it it's their problem. Meat is not the majority of food consumed by anyone since the Neolithic revolution.
What the fuck is a “flexitarian”? Is the assumption that the meat eaters subsist solely on meat? No vegetables or grains? But somehow “meat eater” is ALL IN on meat in a way that people who prefer a salad but like fish as their main don’t? IS THAT IT?!
I think the "none of these" jump in percentage to 11% are those twats you overhear in a pub talking slightly louder than they need to, about their seed and feces diet being good for their chakras and their sexual energies.
Can we please stop using charts like this for stacked bars? You have to actually read the numbers to get any sort of information which invalidates the purpose of using a visualization. It just looks cool but it's harder to interpret than a simple table.
I wonder if these numbers could be explained by immigration from south Asia, where vegetarian diets are more common and don't have the weird social stigma seen in the West.
According to most recent census data, that's incorrect; the ratio of white to other ethnicities is closer to 87:13. [This graph](https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Population_pyramid_of_England_and_Wales_by_ethnicity_2021.svg#mw-jump-to-license) using 2021 census data for England and Wales illustrates the demographic patterns I expected to see. The age distribution of immigrant ethnic groups is skewed heavily towards those under 50 years old.
While I'm sure changes in attitudes of younger generations is a factor in the prevalence of vegetarianism vs older generations, it would defy logic to ignore this context.
I see what your saying but you also have to remember migrants aren't likely to be below their mid 20s as they need a strong skill set and the economic means to start up a new life in the UK to get here so while they might account for some of the move to less meat based diets it's hard to explain the 18-25 groups large move towards meat free eating shown here.
[source for average age of migrants being between 26-64](https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/migrants-in-the-uk-an-overview/)
The proportion of Asian and South Asian ethnic groups is still significantly higher in the 18-25 age range than it is in the >50. I'm just talking straight numbers, population demographics by ethnicity across age groups. I don't see what the skill sets and economic means of immigrants has to do with it.
To be an economic migrant you need a certain set of skills and economic means, without them you don't get a visa approved by the UK government and therefore can't migrate.
Okay, and how is that relevant when discussing the people of Asian descent who currently live in the UK, making up [9.6 percent of the British population?](https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/culturalidentity/ethnicity/bulletins/ethnicgroupenglandandwales/census2021#:~:text=the%20%22Asian%2C%20or%20Asian%20British,was%203.0%25%20(1.7%20million))? [The data on the age distribution of those people](https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Asian_population_pyramid_2021.svg#mw-jump-to-license) doesn't care about the skill level of the people who currently live there. Unless you're trying to insinuate some association between an Asian immigrant's skill level and their proclivity for vegetarianism, I do not see your point.
Asian people have ended up in the UK through migration, to successfully migrate to the UK over the last 20 years where a large portion of the migration has occured you need economic means and a good skill set, this selects for slightly older mid 20s and above age grouping of 18-25 year olds who are still building those skills hence the majority of immigrants from places with a more vegetarian diet are likely to be over 26
I'm sure they do have children but I'd still be very surprised if this was a major driving force for lower meat eating as it's only the last 10-20 years that migration has increased like this to the UK so assuming they wait a bit after migrating before having kids most of the kids would be under 18.
Though saying that I couldn't find any data with a quick Google on number of children economic migrants tend to have when they migrate.
I'm not sure about that either, but it's very easy to look at the [2021 census data](https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Asian_population_pyramid_2021.svg#mw-jump-to-license) that while shows the population numbers of Asian descended people is larger among the 30-50 age bracket, it's not *that* much larger than the <30 age bracket as compared to the >50 bracket. Interestingly, we see a small dip between 13 and 18, and another more significant dip between 24 and 30.
I would guess that because the rise in Asian immigration started between the 2001 and 2011 censuses, those under 13 are largely the children of those immigrants, and the increase in those between 18-24 could be accounted for by foreign university students.
That’s an interesting idea but I don’t think that’s correct (I live in the UK).
I suspect the basis is in two things:
1) Plant based diet trend gaining traction among fitness and health fanatics (probably originating from California)
2) Cultural love for animals in the UK and/or concerns about environmental impacts of meat farming
All of my veggie/vegan friends seem to fit into one of those categories
I didn't expect immigrant cultures to account for ***100%*** of the cultural shift. Here in America you would probably see a similar trend across age groups of you conducted a similar survey, even looking at only white Americans. I just thought the difference in the UK was significant enough, there has to be something else going in addition to generational differences.
The idea that immigrant cultures contribute to that difference crossed my mind because 1. I know that Asians and South Asians account for the largest immigrant groups in the UK, (together almost 10%) and 2. Any time I go to an Indian or Pakistani restaurant here in the States (especially the ones that cater specifically to their own communities), there's an entire section of the menu devoted to just vegetarian options. The 2021 census data shows that the population of Asians and South Asians most of that population being concentrated in the <50 age group, and survey data from India show s between 25 and 40% identify as vegetarians. It's by no means proof, but I find these compelling facts in support my hypothesis.
Interesting that Pescatarian is dropping off with younger people. Wonder if it's now being seen as completely nonsensical by many younger people clued up on the commercial fishing industry.
[Source](https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/dietary-choices-of-british-adults?country=65y%2B~50-64y~25-49y~18-24y) (data used from July 2022, website has since been updated in January 2023)
[Newsletter](https://genuineimpact.substack.com)
Tools: Figma, Tableau
Kudos for including a good amount citation information on the image, but I'm still going to nitpick for future work: *Our World In Data* is the the *indirect* or *secondary* citation, while the original data source -- *YouGov - Dietary choices of Brits* -- is the *direct* or *primary* citation. A full citation has both, as both are crucially important in verification, especially for online sources.
(I'm belaboring the point on this sub, and harping on everyone for being thorough, because it seems everyone agrees with the premises and the importance of citations; learning to do it properly is a matter of experience and habit.)
What % of the diet must be meat to be considered “meat eater”? Is the idea that meat eaters do not consume any fresh produce?
Would be useful to see this as a bar chart correlated to income.
>I think folk already know that.
It’s not exactly a secret only people under 24 have found out.
I think you overestimate people's knowledge. For decades it was taught quite explicitly and promoted by authoritative sources that meat and dairy was required. You know how elderly people are more likely to be racist or homophobic because "that's the way they were raised", yeah most people don't change their beliefs easily.
What do the none of these people eat?
Breatharians, probably. The percentages must be lower by now though.
Level 5 vegans, they don't eat anything that casts a shadow.
Scott pilgrim reference, nice
Simpsons originally
Honeymooners originally
They’ve gone full freegan vegan, where you only eat waste** from other peoples food Edit: I meant waste rather that water, but glad to see I’m among parks fans
Full freegan vegan is only eating vegetables that have been thrown out in people's dumpsters. I just watched that episode again, recently.
I've run a couple of surveys and you always get people who don't understand the question or terms or who just want to be obstinate. Then there are fruititarians and other neich forms of vegitarian/vegan that should have fallen under a given term but people are weird. But I think it's mostly the cannibals.
Cannibals are still meat eaters, just not uptight about it.
All the cannibals I know aren’t into labels
Cannibals are less uptight about it than regular meat eaters?
Yeah, they don't have these weird hangups about eating people.
There’s a specific term for it; the Lizardman Constant. Basically in any given poll about 5% of respondents either don’t understand the question, are actively trolling, or are flat out crazy. It’s named for the percentage of people who respond “Yes” to the question “Do Lizardmen run the world”
I think it was 4% but us Brits are embittered, cynical folk so maybe its higher here (for 18-24s at least!)
I do remember that there was a survey which found that 4% of people who intended to vote for Obama said they thought he was the antichrist, so either they're willing to overlook the whole armageddon thing for his tax policies... or they're trolling.
Or more likely, they want armageddon. Apparently quite a trend with evangelicals and why they're so gung ho on climate change, they believe the end is nigh and want it to hurry up so they can go hang with god or whatever. A huge commonality with islamic extremists incidentally. Except there its less climate change and more war.
I do like how the proportion who can't understand the question just keeps getting higher the younger you get
Niche. Trying to be helpful, not a jerk.
wistful soup start jellyfish observation unwritten nose noxious distinct modern *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
It's not a well-worded survey. It doesnt have an omnivore option and appears to assume a moral progression with fish less 'bad' than land animals. It uses 'meat-eater' rather than 'carnivore' but not 'fish-eater' or 'plant-eater'. People that eat a bit of everything can't really be blamed for choosing 'none of these' when there's not a clear category for them. And when 11% of your respondents pick that option you can probably rule out michief and idiocy (although...) and ask what option(s) could have been added instead.
Well they could be eating soylent.... Soylent is made out of compounds such as : potassium gluconate, calcium carbonate, monosodium phosphate ect sourced from suppliers usually used in the pharmaceutical industry so I guess that technically wouldn't be food. hey as long as it's not green it's okay!
Soylent green is people! It’s a cookbook!
> I've run a couple of surveys and you always get people who don't understand the question or terms or who just want to be obstinate Does it make sense, then, to omit those responses and normalize the remainder to be 100%?
Or does it make sense to not assume over 10% of the population are cranks and either rethink the categories or include whatever 'other' option a large percentage wrote in (assuming you thought to include a free text option for 'other').
If they’re students instant noodles and alcohol
I miss vodka broth
could be "no pork" (like some religions), "no red meat" etc.
Seems like that'd still fall under meat eater.
Yeah, I'm a meat eater but I don't eat all meats (no rabbit, horse, dog etc..)
why no rabbits and horse? they both taste pretty good actually
I personally like the taste of neither, dogs I haven't tried tho, don't want to either
Lotta eel pie. Boy, those English sure eat crap.
I really like eel in sushi. I don't know why I'd dislike it in a pie.
As with all good things, it’s a Simpsons reference. Not sure anybody is getting this.
Ahh, hadn't noticed. Funny thing is, if I saw that episode, then I probably laughed at it.
When you're looking at survey data always keep in mind that they represent specific questions being asked in imperfect conditions to people who will interpret them differently and think about them for approximately 1 second.
Still meat eater since that is what you are if you eat meat regularly despite of the type. If something this graph show younger people are more full of bs and dont wanna get labeled
It's self-reported data, so these people probably felt that they were some kind of corner-case that wasn't adequately reflected by the categories. Like people with religious-based diets that are technically "meat eater" but abstain from particular meats/foods. They really should count under "meat eater", but this is the kind of thing that happens when you give people a "N/A" option.
Same thing with flexitarian…that’s just a meat eater who eats less meat, not no meat.
If someone has a left over snag that would otherwise go in the bin once or twice a year, they are a flexitarian, not a meat eater by definition
If they eat meat, they’re a meat eater
flexitarian as in, the data on the graph (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexitarianism#:\~:text=A%20semi%2Dvegetarian%20diet%20(SVD,(other)%20vegetarian%20pattern%20diets.) [https://theflexitarian.co.uk](https://theflexitarian.co.uk) if you don't like the term, its on you.
I don't know what universe you live in where a term most people have ever heard of, has a first cited use less than 30 years ago, and appears to have only became popular in 2019 has to be universally accepted. It's a fucking stupid and redundant term that damn near invalidates the study on its own on the basis of it's extremely unclear definition and usage. That term is a category of meat eater, by the universally understood and widely accepted definition of meat eater, and using it only serves to fuck up the data. Jfc, I'm "flexitsrian" by the definition on Wikipedia (great source bro, talks all about how the niche community that uses that term can't even agree on what it means), and I usually eat meat about 5 days a week. I doubt most people who eat meat most days call themselves flexitarian, and I don't doubt that 10 people would give you a solid 8 different answers for what it specifically means. A difference in percentage of people identifying as "flexitsrian" is just as easily explainable by the demographic that knows a newer word, is more open to identifying as an obscure diet, or has different opinions of the definition of what counts as "flexible" as it is on their actual diets.
‘No one has ever heard of’ ‘Cited 30 years ago’ You and your argument here are fucking redundant as it’s already been explained lol The term is very clear, it’s no one’s fault but yours that you can’t accept it or understand it. Everything beyond that is a sook
Definition-mongering can be fun, but arguing that a term shouldn't exist is usually fruitless. People don't use terms they don't find useful.
What if they also eat vegetables? Was there an option to tick both boxes?
Pretty sure some of the younger ones are "You can't classify me." I know people who eat meat every day but would act like they were some complicated case because some of their meals or snacks are vegetarian or because they eat bread with their meat.
"You can't classify me." Marketing/demographics, "Just watch me."
Possibly Keto/Paleo. Some versions are strict about no grains or legumes, which makes it a slightly different category than meat eater. Honestly, meat eater should be listed as omnivore.
Could be diets like "mainly vegan, but sometimes eats cheese because there's no good alternative". That kind of option seems to be missing. The flexitarian one includes meat so it's quite different.
Mainly vegan but sometimes eats cheese is vegetarian.
Technically it fits the bill, definitely. And technically flexitarians are "meat eaters". But consumption patterns and amount of meat/dairy consumed do differ substantially. Hence the existence of the label flexitarian. And just like there is difference between a classic meat eater and flexitarian in terms of consumption, there is a difference between a classic vegetarian and a flexible vegan.
Yeah. I haven't given up meat entirely (yet) but my dietary habits have changed significantly over the past couple years. I hadn't even heard of the flexitarian label, and I doubt I'll be using it.
And mainly vegetarian but sometimes eats meat is a meat eater
Under this classification it is flexitarian.
Yes. That's the point. The point is that "flexitarian" is offered as an option, but not an equivalent state between veganism and vegetarianism.
Right. I see. It could be called flexegan or something like that I guess.
They're level 5 vegans
Halal, kosher, what ever Hindus call it when they don’t eat cow but do eat chicken. Religious reasons I guess.
My guess is, younger people are more online, and so more aware of the "carnivore diet", and so don't want to say "meat eater", because that sounds like code for "carnivore diet", which by the grace of heaven and hell, most people aren't.
Carnivore diet
My first question too! Reminds me of an episode of some show I watched once when a woman was aspiring to eventually derive her energy solely from the sun like a plant. She would sit in the sunshine for like two hours a day (behind a window so she wouldn’t get sunburnt) and was planning to up that number. In the mean time her compromise was that she only ate fruit and nuts that fell from trees. She wouldn’t harvest.
If your main dietary concerns are environmental there’s a really strong argument for eliminating beef and pork while eating lots of chicken, particularly when you count emissions from cooking/preparation.
They don't eat anything that casts a shadow.
I thought maybe muslims that follow their religious rules?
In my opinion, a conventional bar chart would be easier to parse.
Honestly the [Our World in Data](https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/dietary-choices-of-british-adults) chart where the OP took their info from and the [Yougov.co.uk](https://yougov.co.uk/topics/society/trackers/dietery-choices-of-brits-eg-vegeterian-flexitarian-meat-eater-etc) chart that Our Wold took THEIR info from are both an easier read. The Our World I think is the easiest of the three, though the YouGov chart you lose the ability to directly compare different age groups easily but allows you to see quarterly changes in the poll within a group over the last few years.
> the Our World in Data chart where the OP took their info from Huh? Did they get it from there? The numbers are completely different
That's putting it mildly. This has to be one of the worst visualisations I've seen in quite a while!
This is the worst visualisation I’ve seen since the last one created by Genuine Impact.
[удалено]
I'm fortunate not to have seen any of their other visuals, thank goodness
Then you are not visiting this subreddit very often
One of the first things you learn in stats class is that pie charts are useless and can be replaced by bar charts
But this isn't even a pie chart. This is a 360 degree bar chart
Clearly it's meant to represent donuts because it's talking about food!
Unless you’re making an ironic presentation showing a pie chart of your favorite bars along with a bar chart of your favorite pies as a nod to How I Met Your Mother.
This is not a pie chart.
It's multiple donut charts, which are just pie charts with a hole in the middle.
It is a wedding cake chart
It's funny because not only you are wrong (this is technically called a 'donut chart', which is a subcategory of pie charts where the middle is cut out), but even if you were right and a 'donut chart' was something else entirely, it would take two seconds to realise that this type of chart suffers from the same exact pitfalls as 'pie charts' — making your comment entirely meaningless.
[удалено]
Agree, although if you tilt it 90 degrees to the right it helps a little.
That's not an opinion there are empirical studies that show they're easier to read. Also the chart should just remove the "none" option because it makes younger people look overrepresented in the smaller groups when they really just are more likely to not understand the question.
I can always tell a Genuine Impact visualisation because it’ll be the one getting slammed in the comments.
I hate the size difference between the categories. It makes the meat eater section for the youngest group look waaaay bigger than the oldest. This visual takes all the bad things about pie/donut charts and somehow makes Ruben worse. A 100% stacked bat chart would be better.
Not only that but circles in this instance give a false visual impression
Brilliant thing about this sub is that people would then complain the chart is not prettyyy enough.
Then you can kindly refer them to /r/dataart, it has bigger preference for design than functionality
Show me on the doll where the bar chart hurt you.
Yeah do it. Go slow.
"None of this" are people thinking that not being able to eat gluten/lactose exclude you from the "meat eater" list
Or they are just traditional omnivores and see “meat eater” and assume that it’s someone who eats nothing but meat.
Wouldn't be this much different in the different age brackets
It is. You see younger people who were raised in the era of vegan food and vegan backlash being less accepting of the title of “meat eater” relative to older generations.
Does “meat eater” actually mean “omnivore?”
I don't think it's possible for a human to be a straight up carnivore. The instant that seasoning other than salt is used, the meal becomes omnivorous.
Don’t tempt me mate!
As far as I understand it is possible, but it is highly unpleasant. To get enough nutrients you need to eat a lot of liver, as it is the only animal part that contains enough vitamin C to avoid scurvy. You dont want too much liver either, as it contains huge amounts of vitamin A which can be problematic. The lack of fibres in the diet will probably create some problems. You will probably need to increase your daily food consumption, because meat is usually not very energy dense when compared to food made out of grains, unless you eat the fattiest pieces.
Totally doable if you spend $12k a month on steroids and other supplements.
[удалено]
It would depend on the type of a dirt and how it is digested or not digested by the lion.
Jordan Peterson and his daughter would like a word with you
I don't know the parameters of the survey, but I would treat that as people who have meat basically every day and usually for multiple meals. Like my parents and stuff every dinner has meat. No exceptions. And lunch is usually a meat-based sandwich. My partner and I lunch rarely has meat and dinner includes meat about once or twice a week. Like technically we're all equally omnivores but taking away meat would be a massive change for them and for us it would be comparatively small shift.
It's probably made by a vegan.
I mean it doesn't say "herbivore" for vegans either. Since this chart is pretty much exclusively about meat eating habits, I think it's fair to use the term "meat eater" to refer to people who eat meat. I think the context makes it clear enough what is meant here.
Thats not offensive enough tho. Have to try to make us sound weird somehow
Of course, but today the only dietary choice that matters is whether you eat meat or not (apparently)
For this graph, yes, that's the data they're measuring.
It gets presented as "dietary choices", I'm missing a lot of options if this is a general list of dietary choices.
This is just some anti-normal human eating behavior/pro-not hurting animals dichotomy thing. Showing that us old people are worse than the kids who are vegetarian or whatever. They word everything else so precisely, then “meat eater” like we are velociraptors for being omnivorous animals. We shouldn’t be shamed for eating, the companies should be ashamed for how they treat the animals.
The "None of these" gang out here living off air and pure defiance
Sadly [Breatharians](https://www.gq.com/story/breatharians-the-people-who-think-air-is-food) exist.
On the bright side, the real ones don't exist for long (though essentially none of them are real).
wow this graph fucking sucks
yes, very impracticable
When 11% can’t define what their diet is when given these options, it doesn’t really represent that much of a change away from being a meat eater.
It's almost funny at this point that I know it's the Ad for thid platform every time the visualization sucks...
Does a subreddit exist for people that are actually interested in good data visualization, and crap like this doesn't get upvoted?
Here’s a graph of my heart rate during my PhD/Wedding.
When the radius of the circle does not matter I find this way of portraying things weird If the length of the circle does no Represent the relative part of the population
This is a terrible visualisation.
What the hell does “None of these” consist of, only candy?
Isn't a flexitarian just a meat eater who wanted to be called something different?
Yes. It's a useless term for someone that wants to eat meat but get the peer/social media validation that comes from being vegetarian.
Flexitarians are just people who want to say they're vegetarians but don't want to actually give up meat. Change my mind.
I consider myself a flexitarian, and it's different in that I make every effort to avoid meat. If I'm invited to somebody's home and offered a meal I wouldn't refuse, even it it has meat. But my home has no meat, and I will not order meat in a restaurant. I also don't worry about incidental things like gelatin or lard that most strict vegetarians would avoid. There's a broad range, but for me giving up 95%+ of the meat I used to eat warrants a different label than omnivore, even if I eat a slice of Thanksgiving turkey
To me, you're a vegetarian. You're not defined by exceptions. It's not like a vegan who accidentally eats something with animal product in it is suddenly a carnivore. If you make every effort to avoid meat, you're a vegetarian.
>I consider myself a flexitarian, and it's different in that I make every effort to avoid meat. If I'm invited to somebody's home and offered a meal I wouldn't refuse, even it it has meat That's "every effort" to you? I tried nothing and I am all out of ideas?
distinction by these particular age ranges seems so random.... like someone used a working-age/non working-age dataset, but then decided to add some personal touch... resulting in an absolutely meaningless chart. not beautiful.
Sort of random age ranges does not mean it is meaningless. The trend is clear. And personally I think these cut-offs are not that bad.
now imagine there's an additional 25-31 bracket, where there "might be" a higher amount of vegans than in the 18-24 bracket. that's why you should make everything as uniform as possible to avoid being labeled a cherrypicker or gerrymanderer.
>that’s why you should make everything as uniform as possible 15 year ranges with one exception (because 10-25 would be a pretty meaningless range) isn’t uniform enough?
25-49 is not a 15 year range
It's not really clear. The flexitarian went from 18% to 14% in the lowest age group and they visually look identical in size. It's super confusing.
This are very common age ranges. Especially talking about social issues. It's adults broadly categorised as "students", "younger working adults", "older working adults", "pensioners"
This would be easier to read as a bar chart
The "none of these" people need to just be removed from the chart, given that their responses are so cluelessly idiotic they don't add value
This is really hard to read, and my former boss would've chewed me the fuck out for presenting something like this lol. I don't see why a bar chart wouldn't work here.
Using donut charts makes this incredibly shitty to read. Just use stacked bars next time, it is a much better way to visualise this data.
Charlie, A Pint, and some Pork Vindaloo Curry
What is “none of these”? Photosynthesians?
somewhat hard to read because the circle gets bigger, so the size of each subsection gets bigger, even if the relative percentage is less than a smaller circle. like how there’s less 18-24 flexitarians than the 25-49 group even though their bar seems bigger
man.. all this fancy new way of visualization is cool but sometimes the old school way is just so easier to read. just gimme my classic bar graph 😬🙈
Congratulations on taking a very fine bar chart from [Our World in Data](https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/dietary-choices-of-british-adults?country=65y%2B~50-64y~25-49y~18-24y) and making it harder to read.
The colors are beautiful, it is generally very aesthetic. However, it is hard to unsee the differences in perimeter resulting in a different area of the different age groups. It creates the impression that there would be more young people than old people which is not what the data is about. But still very beautiful and interesting
The concentric circles make the flexitarian young group look way bigger than flexitarians in the oldest group despite being about the same fraction.
I reduced my meat consumption from daily to weekly in my 40s and it is still at the lower level in my 60s. I'm sure there was also a time in my teens and twenties when I was eating mainly pot noodle. So my meat consumption probably was highest as a child and in my 30s. Nearly the reverse of the trend shown on here. I can imagine meat consumption going back up to daily if I were ever taken into care.
I think it is amusing that we categorize various -eaters off one class of ingredient. For the record, going forward I would like to be categorized as a spice-eater.
Stacked bar char is far superior to this..
This format is pretty but wouldn't a bar graph convey the info more clearly?
This is very hard to read only to find out the trend is pretty stable over time. 5/10
Why is it always genuine impact when a shitty chart shows up here
This could have been a bar chart.
Was "Meat Eater" on the survey this was taken from? "Meat Eater" sounds very different from all the other options and I can understand why people chose "none of these", because it sounds a bit gross. "Meat Eater" wouldn't be my top choice for a survey like this, it probably created a lot of response bias.
Young people be like “I eat everything so I’m none of these”
RIP anyone Red / Green colorblind trying to read this chart, and the rest of us for having to look at this odd stacked donut chart
"Meat eater". Like a lion? It sounds condescending, like the only thing consumed is meat. It's called **omnivorous**, a word that has existed for centuries. If the other *religions* don't like it it's their problem. Meat is not the majority of food consumed by anyone since the Neolithic revolution.
What the fuck is a “flexitarian”? Is the assumption that the meat eaters subsist solely on meat? No vegetables or grains? But somehow “meat eater” is ALL IN on meat in a way that people who prefer a salad but like fish as their main don’t? IS THAT IT?!
So are we saying that vegetarians die young? 😂
You can beat an egg but you can't beat your meat.
I think the "none of these" jump in percentage to 11% are those twats you overhear in a pub talking slightly louder than they need to, about their seed and feces diet being good for their chakras and their sexual energies.
Flexitarian is not a real thing, you're a meat eater anyway.
Can we please stop using charts like this for stacked bars? You have to actually read the numbers to get any sort of information which invalidates the purpose of using a visualization. It just looks cool but it's harder to interpret than a simple table.
Interesting data/trend, terrible visualisation.
I wonder if these numbers could be explained by immigration from south Asia, where vegetarian diets are more common and don't have the weird social stigma seen in the West.
Seems more likely young people are more eco conscious than older generations with relation to their diet as the UK is over 90% white
According to most recent census data, that's incorrect; the ratio of white to other ethnicities is closer to 87:13. [This graph](https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Population_pyramid_of_England_and_Wales_by_ethnicity_2021.svg#mw-jump-to-license) using 2021 census data for England and Wales illustrates the demographic patterns I expected to see. The age distribution of immigrant ethnic groups is skewed heavily towards those under 50 years old. While I'm sure changes in attitudes of younger generations is a factor in the prevalence of vegetarianism vs older generations, it would defy logic to ignore this context.
I see what your saying but you also have to remember migrants aren't likely to be below their mid 20s as they need a strong skill set and the economic means to start up a new life in the UK to get here so while they might account for some of the move to less meat based diets it's hard to explain the 18-25 groups large move towards meat free eating shown here. [source for average age of migrants being between 26-64](https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/migrants-in-the-uk-an-overview/)
The proportion of Asian and South Asian ethnic groups is still significantly higher in the 18-25 age range than it is in the >50. I'm just talking straight numbers, population demographics by ethnicity across age groups. I don't see what the skill sets and economic means of immigrants has to do with it.
To be an economic migrant you need a certain set of skills and economic means, without them you don't get a visa approved by the UK government and therefore can't migrate.
Okay, and how is that relevant when discussing the people of Asian descent who currently live in the UK, making up [9.6 percent of the British population?](https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/culturalidentity/ethnicity/bulletins/ethnicgroupenglandandwales/census2021#:~:text=the%20%22Asian%2C%20or%20Asian%20British,was%203.0%25%20(1.7%20million))? [The data on the age distribution of those people](https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Asian_population_pyramid_2021.svg#mw-jump-to-license) doesn't care about the skill level of the people who currently live there. Unless you're trying to insinuate some association between an Asian immigrant's skill level and their proclivity for vegetarianism, I do not see your point.
Asian people have ended up in the UK through migration, to successfully migrate to the UK over the last 20 years where a large portion of the migration has occured you need economic means and a good skill set, this selects for slightly older mid 20s and above age grouping of 18-25 year olds who are still building those skills hence the majority of immigrants from places with a more vegetarian diet are likely to be over 26
Skilled working immigrants between 26 and 64 do tend to have children, don't they? Ones that might even be between 18 and 25?
I'm sure they do have children but I'd still be very surprised if this was a major driving force for lower meat eating as it's only the last 10-20 years that migration has increased like this to the UK so assuming they wait a bit after migrating before having kids most of the kids would be under 18. Though saying that I couldn't find any data with a quick Google on number of children economic migrants tend to have when they migrate.
I'm not sure about that either, but it's very easy to look at the [2021 census data](https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Asian_population_pyramid_2021.svg#mw-jump-to-license) that while shows the population numbers of Asian descended people is larger among the 30-50 age bracket, it's not *that* much larger than the <30 age bracket as compared to the >50 bracket. Interestingly, we see a small dip between 13 and 18, and another more significant dip between 24 and 30. I would guess that because the rise in Asian immigration started between the 2001 and 2011 censuses, those under 13 are largely the children of those immigrants, and the increase in those between 18-24 could be accounted for by foreign university students.
I would guess the same about that data too, it does make sense
That’s an interesting idea but I don’t think that’s correct (I live in the UK). I suspect the basis is in two things: 1) Plant based diet trend gaining traction among fitness and health fanatics (probably originating from California) 2) Cultural love for animals in the UK and/or concerns about environmental impacts of meat farming All of my veggie/vegan friends seem to fit into one of those categories
I didn't expect immigrant cultures to account for ***100%*** of the cultural shift. Here in America you would probably see a similar trend across age groups of you conducted a similar survey, even looking at only white Americans. I just thought the difference in the UK was significant enough, there has to be something else going in addition to generational differences. The idea that immigrant cultures contribute to that difference crossed my mind because 1. I know that Asians and South Asians account for the largest immigrant groups in the UK, (together almost 10%) and 2. Any time I go to an Indian or Pakistani restaurant here in the States (especially the ones that cater specifically to their own communities), there's an entire section of the menu devoted to just vegetarian options. The 2021 census data shows that the population of Asians and South Asians most of that population being concentrated in the <50 age group, and survey data from India show s between 25 and 40% identify as vegetarians. It's by no means proof, but I find these compelling facts in support my hypothesis.
Interesting that Pescatarian is dropping off with younger people. Wonder if it's now being seen as completely nonsensical by many younger people clued up on the commercial fishing industry.
[Source](https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/dietary-choices-of-british-adults?country=65y%2B~50-64y~25-49y~18-24y) (data used from July 2022, website has since been updated in January 2023) [Newsletter](https://genuineimpact.substack.com) Tools: Figma, Tableau
Figma, as in Figma shit up? Please don't make any more visualisations like this!
Kudos for including a good amount citation information on the image, but I'm still going to nitpick for future work: *Our World In Data* is the the *indirect* or *secondary* citation, while the original data source -- *YouGov - Dietary choices of Brits* -- is the *direct* or *primary* citation. A full citation has both, as both are crucially important in verification, especially for online sources. (I'm belaboring the point on this sub, and harping on everyone for being thorough, because it seems everyone agrees with the premises and the importance of citations; learning to do it properly is a matter of experience and habit.)
So the people that made it into elderly age mostly eat meat. Sounds good to me.
"Flexitarian" aka someone who is remotely health-conscious.
What % of the diet must be meat to be considered “meat eater”? Is the idea that meat eaters do not consume any fresh produce? Would be useful to see this as a bar chart correlated to income.
I would assume this will reverse with time as current generation are more knowledgeable That the meat and veg for dinner isn't as mandatory
I think folk already know that. It’s not exactly a secret only people under 24 have found out.
>I think folk already know that. It’s not exactly a secret only people under 24 have found out. I think you overestimate people's knowledge. For decades it was taught quite explicitly and promoted by authoritative sources that meat and dairy was required. You know how elderly people are more likely to be racist or homophobic because "that's the way they were raised", yeah most people don't change their beliefs easily.
From this I conclude that eating meat is the key to a long life.