upworthy

health

Science

Psychologists reveal the big reason why people are so unnecessarily offended by vegans

No, it's not because they are smug.

via Canva/Photos

A vegan and a man with a sausage and big piece of chicken.

There are few groups more openly reviled by many people in the developed world than vegans. One study found that out of societal groups, they were the second most reviled group, right after drug addicts. Vegans are often the target of derision, whether they are referred to as soy boys, vegaNazis, or people who “eat rabbit food.” But why do people have such a hard time with people just because they don’t eat the same things they do?

It seems somewhat petty and judgmental that people would be easily offended by someone because they don’t eat meat. Still, according to a new study by Food Quality and Preference, there’s something much deeper at stake. “The consumption of meat and meat substitutes is a highly charged social phenomenon,” Roosa-Maaria Malila, an author of the study, said in a statement. “According to our research, consumers who prefer plant-based alternatives are perceived as socially different—and not in a good way.”

spaghetti, vegans, vegetarians, woman eating, young woman, glass of waterA woman enjoying a plate of pasta.via Canva/Photos

Why do people hate vegans?

The team of researchers got to the bottom of why vegans are the target of so much hate after having 3,600 participants judge three shopping lists. All lists included pasta, bread, apple juice, carrots, and bananas, but the selection varied depending on whether animal- or plant-based protein products were included or excluded. One had meat products, another had a mix of meat and plant-based items, and the other list had only meat substitutes.

The researchers found that the shoppers who purchased meat substitutes, who were most likely vegan or vegetarian, aroused feelings of fear, envy, contempt, and anger. "In our research, we found that people even wanted to act aggressively towards vegetarians or exclude them from social circles,” Malila says. However, at the same time, vegans were admired and appreciated. They are seen as moral, environmentally friendly, and conscious.


What is the "meat paradox"?

Social psychologist Hank Rothgerber refers to this unique situation where people simultaneously envy vegans and also find them contemptible as the meat paradox. The “meat paradox” is the experience of cognitive dissonance, or the psychological tension caused by holding conflicting beliefs at the same time, or taking actions that directly contradict one’s values. Rothgerber believes that meat eaters are in the uncomfortable position of knowing that it’s wrong to hurt animals while also consuming them at the same time. This leads people to have feelings of contempt for vegans.

Rothgerber says that to cope with their conflicting emotions, some meat eaters feel the need to lash out at vegans.

“It’s human nature to lash out at anyone we perceive as a threat. And vegans threaten something we hold very dear: our moral sense of self,” Emily Moran Barwick writes for BiteSizeVegan. “We like to think of ourselves as good and decent people. We also believe that good and decent people don’t harm animals.”

strang man, strong vegan, vegetarian man, fruits, vegetables, dietary needsA muscular man with some baskets of vegetables.via Canva/Photos

According to Malila, people’s need to fit in also pushes them against adopting a vegan lifestyle or being supportive of their meat-free friends. "Food is quite a strong part of our social identity,” she says. “If and when vegetarian food evokes negative feelings, not many people want to risk being associated with it. Belonging to a group is an evolutionary motive. We need acceptance from our fellow human beings."

Ultimately, the research shows that veganophobia (fear of vegans) isn’t really about the vegans themselves, but misdirected anger that people are projecting onto them. Maybe it’s time for those who have contempt for vegans to stop judging what’s on their plate and think hard about what’s on their own.

From Your Site Articles
vegans
Education

One teacher's simple, disgusting experiment drives home the importance of hand washing

"Hand sanitizer is not an alternative to washing hands!"

Facebook/Jaralee Metcalf

Simple. Disgusting. Informative.

One of the biggest breakthroughs in preventing the spread of illnesses and infections in hospitals was embarrassingly simple: hand washing. In 1846, Hungarian physician Ignaz Semmelweis discovered that hand washing played a vital role in the spread of germs, and the practice soon became mandatory in hospitals. The simple act of scrubbing hands with soap and water literally saved lives.

Getting a kid to wash their hands, however, can be an uphill battle. While it's a common thing kids (don't) do, global perspective on the importance and effectiveness of hand washing has risen since the COVID-19 pandemic. According to a study published by the National Library of Medicine (NLM) in 2023, before the emergence of COVID-19, a survey found that only about 36% of people always washed their hands with soap, 48% sometimes used soap, and an unsettling 16% of respondents said they wash without soap. After COVID-19 emerged, however, more than 72% of respondents reported using soap every time they washed their hands. There's nothing like a pandemic (and perhaps the reality of FAFO) to strike fear into the hearts of those chronic under washers, but in 2019, one teacher did a simple experiment to show her students just how important hand washing is.

"We did a science project in class this last month as flu season was starting," teacher Dayna Robertson and classroom behavioral specialist Jaralee Metcalf wrote on Facebook. "We took fresh bread and touched it. We did one slice untouched. One with unwashed hands. One with hand sanitizer. One with washed hands with warm water and soap. Then we decided to rub a piece on all our classroom Chromebooks." Robertson later noted that they normally do make a point to sanitize the classroom Chromebooks, but didn't that day in the name of science.

science, experiment, dexter's lab, cartoon, kids, hygiene Dexters Laboratory What A Fine Day For Science GIFGiphy

The bread was put into plastic bags and the germs were left to fester. The bread that had been touched by unwashed hands and the bread that had touched the Chromebook had the most mold. The bread that had been touched by hands washed with soap and water remained (relatively) good enough to eat.

This experiment has been done before, but Robertson expanded on it by testing the effectiveness of hand sanitizer. The bread that had been touched by hands cleaned with sanitizer also had a fair amount of mold on it, although not as much as the bread touched by unwashed hands.

bread, mold, experiment, education, hand washing, cleanlinessThe bread doesn't lie. Facebook/Jaralee Metcalf

"As somebody who is sick and tired of being sick and tired of being sick and tired," Robertson wrote, "wash your hands! Remind your kids to wash their hands! And hand sanitizer is not an alternative to washing hands!! At all!" It's kind of making us retroactively gag over seeing port-a-potties with hand sanitizer set up in lieu of sinks.

The experiment was prompted by a different science lesson. "We had just finished a science lesson on how leaves break down during winter. The kids were kind of grossed out by the mold, so we decided to run our own version using germs and mold from our own environment," Robertson told Scary Mommy.

Weirdly, the classroom experiment received some criticism. "Lots of people actually DEFENDED not washing their hands!" Robertson told Scary Mommy. "That was shocking! It really was just a simple classroom experiment to teach about mold but we have all learned more about how easily we can spread the germs we can't see."

In the 2019 lens, this lesson being about mold seems simple enough. All of us here in 2025, though, blessed (or cursed) with the experience of the pandemic, know that washing your hands really is as life-saving as Semmelweis proved nearly two centuries ago. Research done in 2020 and published in PubMed showed that individuals who washed their hands consistently were more likely to have lower rates of COVID-19 infection. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in 2024, hand washing also reduces respiratory illness like colds and flu in the general population by 16-21%, and reduces the number of people with diarrheal illnesses by 23-40%.

And to be sure, how we wash our hands is incredibly important. A quick rinse without scrubbing won't do the trick. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), the proper technique for handwashing is to wet your hands, apply soap, and then run your soapy hands under the stream while rotating, rubbing, and scrubbing every inch of your hands for at least 20 seconds. Usually you can hit that mark by singing "Happy Birthday" twice. Then, rinse. When you're done, dry your hands with a clean towel. Check out this demonstration from the CDC:

- YouTubewww.youtube.com

The moral of the story is, please, please remember to always wash your hands. It really makes a difference.

This article originally appeared six years ago. It has been updated.

From Your Site Articles
hand washing experiment
Health

Doctor says adults should score 8 points or higher on this simple longevity test

People who fail are more likely to die in six years.

via Pexels
A woman sitting cross-legged on a yoga mat

Everyone wants to know how long they will live and there are many indicators that can show whether someone is thriving or on the decline. But scientists have yet to develop a magic formula to determine exactly how long someone should expect to live. Which, let's be real, is probably a good thing. Knowing exactly how much time you have left to enjoy your life could cause a lot of anxiety, to say the very least.

However, a doctor recently featured on the "Today" show says a straightforward test can reveal the likelihood that someone aged 51 to 80 will die in the near future. NBC News medical contributor Dr. Natalie Azar was on the "Today" show on March 8 and demonstrated how to perform the simple “sit to stand test” (aka sit-rising test or SRT) that can help determine the longevity of someone between 51 to 80.

The test is pretty simple. Go from standing to sitting cross-legged, and then go back to standing without using any parts of your body besides your legs and core to help you get up and down. The test measures multiple longevity factors, including heart health, balance, agility, core and leg strength and flexibility.


- YouTubewww.youtube.com

You begin the test with a score of 10 and subtract points on your way up and down for doing the following:

Hand used for support: -1 point

Knee used for support: -1 point

Forearm used for support: -1 point

One hand on knee or thigh: -1 point

Side of leg used for support: -1 point


A 2012 study published by the European Society of Cardiology found a correlation between the SRT score and how long people live.

The study was conducted on 2002 people, 68% of whom were men, who performed the SRT test and were followed by researchers in the coming years. The study found that “Musculoskeletal fitness, as assessed by SRT, was a significant predictor of mortality in 51–80-year-old subjects.”

Those who scored in the lowest range, 0 to 3, had up to a 6 times greater chance of dying than those in the highest scores (8 to 10). About 40% of those in the 0 to 3 range died within 11 years of the study.

aging, seniors, senior fitness, senior citizens, older adults, longevity, health, death, dyingNo matter what age you are, adding regular exercise to your life will reap a ton of benefits.Canva Photos

Azar distilled the study on "Today," saying: "The study found that the lower the score, you were seven times more likely to die in the next six years.”

"Eight points or higher is what you want," Azar said. "As we get older, we spend time talking cardiovascular health and aerobic fitness, but balance, flexibility and agility are also really important," she stressed. A score of eight or nine means you're allowed to roll forward onto your knees and then rise, which a lot of people will find more comfortable. If you can rise that way, you're still in a pretty good spot health wise.

One should note that the people who scored lowest on the test were the oldest, giving them a naturally elevated risk of death.

Dr. Greg Hartley, Board Certified Geriatric Clinical Specialist and associate professor at the University of Miami, told the Atlanta Journal-Constitution that we should take the study with a grain of salt. “Frailty, strength, muscle mass, physical performance—those things are all correlated to mortality, but I would caution everybody that correlation doesn’t mean causation,” he said.

And of course, the test doesn't take into account injuries or disabilities that may make doing the test impossible. But one of the study's authors says that the study is a call to take our mobility seriously.

“The more active we are the better we can accommodate stressors, the more likely we are to handle something bad that happens down the road,” Dr. Claudio Gil Araujo, told USA Today.

What should you do if you can't manage a good score on the SRT? First of all, don't panic! It's never too late to improve your overall health, fitness, and strength, so regular exercise is a great thing to incorporate if you're not already doing it.


seniors, longevity, physical fitness, exercise, health, agingEven low-impact exercise like yoga can increase your mobility and flexibility and, thus, your SRT scoreCanva Photos

A couple of specific skills that will help are boosting your ankle flexibility, hip mobility, and core strength. Trainers recommend incorporating squats, lunges, and planks into your regular routine. Just using your own bodyweight is plenty to get started, though if you're up for incorporating any added loads, the strength training will do wonders for your bone density, as well.

But remember that the SRT is just a measure of strength and mobility, which could correlate to an older person's likelihood of suffering from a fatal fall. It doesn't do anything to measure your cardiovascular help (vitally important especially in older people), for example. And it may not even be the most reliable longevity test out there. It has been criticized for it's extremely unnatural range of motion, for starters — rising by pushing up on the sides of our ankles with our knees pointed outward is certainly not representative of a real-life situation. Some doctors insist that your comfortable walking speed is a better indicator of health and longevity, while others say grip strength is the key measurement.

This article originally appeared two years ago.

From Your Site Articles
longevity
Internet

The Yanny vs. Laurel debate is back and what you hear could reveal the 'age' of your ears

What you hear might depend on your age.

Photo by Anna Keibalo on Unsplash

What did you hear?

In 2015, many of us had our minds blown by the "Dress" debate. It started with a post and became an Internet sensation. Was the color of this random dress posted on social media black and blue, or white and gold? Arguments erupted. Scientists got involved. We looked at each other with suspicion. And for some, it was never truly resolved.

Fast forward three years, and the internet exploded again, this time with an auditory feud. A video started making the rounds with a simple recording of a word said over and over. Some heard "Laurel." Some heard "Yanny." None of it seemed to make sense. Two people could be sitting in the same room with the same speakers and hear two entirely different words.

- YouTubewww.youtube.com

Just as theorists came forward to explain the dress phenomenon, Reddit threads and YouTube channels exploded with explanations. Some thought it was the treble/bass settings that influenced what people heard in the recording. But that didn’t explain how people could listen from the same device and still hear different words.

Brad Story, a professor of Speech, Language, and Hearing at the University of Arizona, did a little digging. In the 2018 CNN article, "Yanny or Laurel: What Science Has to Say," writer Amanda Jackson notes that, "Story ran an acoustic analysis on the viral recording of the computerized voice. He also recorded himself saying 'Yanny' and 'Laurel' for comparison."

She shares that Story reported, "When I analyzed the recording of Laurel, that third resonance is very high for the L. It drops for the R and then rises again for the L. The interesting thing about the word 'Yanny' is that the second frequency that our vocal tract produces follows almost the same path, in terms of what it looks like spectrographically, as 'Laurel.'"

He also noted that if you alter the pitch of the recording, you might hear the other word. "Most likely, the original recording was ‘Laurel,’" Jackson adds. "If you heard 'Laurel,' you are the winner and have earned bragging rights for this round of the Internet debate."

yammy, laurel, gif, auditory understanding, man, mind blownDetroit Tigers GIFGiphy

But there's more to it. On the AsapSCIENCE YouTube channel, they reveal a few reasons for the divide. One is simply the power of suggestion. When the words are written on the screen, the mind might hear whichever word it sees first.

They also illustrate Professor Story's actual sound waves when saying the words "Laurel" and "Yanny," and explain that even though the waves are similar, what you hear might depend on your age. "The sounds of 'Yanny' play at a higher frequency than 'Laurel,' so if you're hearing 'Yanny,' you might have younger ears."

The video goes on to say that a Twitter (now X) user "posted audio of the pitch both brought down and up. When you listen to it brought down 30 percent, you will hear 'Yanny.' But when you listen to it brought up 30 percent, you'll likely hear 'Laurel.'"

- YouTubewww.youtube.com

On a blog post for the hearing aid company Miracle-Ear, they back up the theory. "The real mystery of Yanny vs. Laurel lies with sound frequency. The sound waves that allow us to hear 'Yanny' are at a higher frequency, whereas the sound waves that allow us to hear 'Laurel' are at a lower frequency. As we age, it’s common for us to start losing our ability to hear higher frequency sounds. It wouldn’t be surprising if someone younger hears 'Yanny' while someone older, listening through the same device, hears 'Laurel.'"

It’s all coming around again after the hosts from the Just The Nobodys Podcast revisited it on Instagram. One plays the sounds for the other, who hears "Yanny." He then exclaims, "Okay, since Yanny is a higher frequency, it requires younger and healthier ears to be able to hear it. But for older people, who don't have healthy ears, they're actually hearing Laurel."

The comment section was fired up as many of them argued with the premise.

"I'm 12, and I hear Laurel," said one.

Another claims they don't hear either: "I hear Yammy."

Amazingly, some hear both within two seconds:: "The first time I heard Laurel. The second, I heard Yanny."

And then, of course, there was this comment: "It's blue and black."

I guess we'll never truly know for sure.

From Your Site Articles
yanny laurel
Trending Stories