Masculinity, Meat, and Veg*nism: A Scoping Review.

Men historically consume more meat than women, show fewer intentions to reduce meat consumption, and are underrepresented among vegans and vegetarians. Eating meat strongly aligns with normative masculinities, decisively affirming that "real men" eat meat and subordinating men who choose to be veg*n (vegan or vegetarian). The emergence of meat alternatives and increasing environmental concerns may contest these long-standing masculine norms and hierarchies. The current scoping review addresses the research question what are the connections between masculinities and men's attitudes and behaviors toward meat consumption and veg*nism? Using keywords derived from two key concepts, "men" and "meat," 39 articles were selected and analyzed to inductively derive three thematic findings; (a) Meat as Masculine, (b) Veg*n Men as Othered, and (c) Veg*nism as Contemporary Masculinity. Meat as Masculine included how men's gendered identities, defenses, and physicalities were entwined with meat consumption. Veg*n Men as Othered explored the social and cultural challenges faced by men who adopt meatless diets, including perceptions of emasculation. Veg*nism as Contemporary Masculinity was claimed by men who eschewed meat in their diets and advocated for veg*nism as legitimate masculine capital through linkages to physical strength, rationality, self-determination, courage, and discipline. In light of the growing concern about the ecological impact of meat production and the adverse health outcomes associated with its excessive consumption, this review summarizes empirical connections between masculinities and the consumption of meat to consider directions for future men's health promotion research, policy, and practice.

Cannabis dosing and administration for sleep: a systematic review.

STUDY OBJECTIVES: As cannabis is increasingly used to treat sleep disorders, we performed a systematic review to examine the effects of cannabis on sleep and to guide cannabis prescribers in their recommendations to patients, specifically focusing on dosing. METHODS: We searched EMBASE, Medline, and Web of Science and identified 4550 studies for screening. Five hundred sixty-eight studies were selected for full-text review and 31 were included for analysis. Study results were considered positive based on improvements in sleep architecture or subjective sleep quality. Bias in randomized controlled trials was assessed using Cochrane Risk of Bias tool 2.0. RESULTS: Sleep improvements were seen in 7 out of 19 randomized studies and in 7 out of 12 uncontrolled trials. There were no significant differences between the effects of tetrahydrocannabinol and cannabidiol. Cannabis showed most promise at improving sleep in patients with pain-related disorders, as compared to those with neurologic, psychiatric, or sleep disorders, and showed no significant effects on healthy participants' sleep. While subjective improvements in sleep quality were often observed, diagnostic testing showed no improvements in sleep architecture. Adverse events included headaches, sedation, and dizziness, and occurred more frequently at higher doses, though no serious adverse events were observed. CONCLUSION: High-quality evidence to support cannabis use for sleep remains limited. Heterogeneity in cannabis types, doses, timing of administration, and sleep outcome measures limit the ability to make specific dosing recommendations.