↓ Skip to main content

Restriction of meat, fish, and poultry in omnivores improves mood: A pilot randomized controlled trial

Overview of attention for article published in Nutrition Journal, February 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#24 of 1,532)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (94th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
19 news outlets
blogs
7 blogs
twitter
162 X users
facebook
75 Facebook pages
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page
googleplus
104 Google+ users
reddit
1 Redditor
video
11 YouTube creators

Citations

dimensions_citation
82 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
273 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Restriction of meat, fish, and poultry in omnivores improves mood: A pilot randomized controlled trial
Published in
Nutrition Journal, February 2012
DOI 10.1186/1475-2891-11-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Bonnie L Beezhold, Carol S Johnston

Abstract

Omnivorous diets are high in arachidonic acid (AA) compared to vegetarian diets. Research shows that high intakes of AA promote changes in brain that can disturb mood. Omnivores who eat fish regularly increase their intakes of eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA), fats that oppose the negative effects of AA in vivo. In a recent cross-sectional study, omnivores reported significantly worse mood than vegetarians despite higher intakes of EPA and DHA. This study investigated the impact of restricting meat, fish, and poultry on mood.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 162 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 273 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Finland 2 <1%
Kenya 1 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Unknown 267 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 58 21%
Student > Master 47 17%
Researcher 24 9%
Student > Postgraduate 21 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 21 8%
Other 46 17%
Unknown 56 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 58 21%
Nursing and Health Professions 37 14%
Psychology 31 11%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 28 10%
Neuroscience 10 4%
Other 45 16%
Unknown 64 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 459. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 03 May 2024.
All research outputs
#61,078
of 25,845,895 outputs
Outputs from Nutrition Journal
#24
of 1,532 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#241
of 260,358 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nutrition Journal
#1
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,845,895 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,532 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 40.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 260,358 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.