| Literature DB >> 29490640 |
Katherine M Appleton1, Alanna J McGrath2, Michelle C McKinley2, Claire R Draffin2, Lesley L Hamill2, Ian S Young2, Jayne V Woodside2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: An effect of increased fruit and vegetable (FV) consumption on facial attractiveness has been proposed and recommended as a strategy to promote FV intakes, but no studies to date demonstrate a causal link between FV consumption and perceived attractiveness. This study investigated perceptions of attractiveness before and after the supervised consumption of 2, 5 or 8 FV portions/day for 4 weeks in 30 low FV consumers. Potential mechanisms for change via skin colour and perceived skin healthiness were also investigated.Entities:
Keywords: Effect sizes; Facial attractiveness; Fruit and vegetables; Public health; Skin colour
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29490640 PMCID: PMC5831823 DOI: 10.1186/s12889-018-5202-6
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Public Health ISSN: 1471-2458 Impact factor: 3.295
Mean (standard deviation (sd)) light-dark (L*), red-green (a*) and yellow-blue (b*) values for 5 spot checks on the foreheads of all facial images (n = 30)
| FV group | Gender | L* | a* | b* | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Before | After | Before | After | Before | After | ||
| 2 FV portions/day | Male ( | 61.5 (2.3) | 62.5 (3.9) | 10.9 (1.6) | 10.7 (3.6) | 21.3 (3.9) | 22.5 (3.1) |
| Females ( | 66.9 (4.3) | 68.1 (4.0) | 8.2 (3.5) | 8.3 (2.3) | 19.7 (0.6) | 19.6 (1.1) | |
| 5 FV portions/day | Male ( | 62.7 (3.8) | 62.2 (3.3) | 9.1 (2.1) | 8.5 (4.0) | 21.0 (4.4) | 23.0 (3.9) |
| Females ( | 67.1 (3.7) | 67.3 (5.2) | 9.3 (3.5) | 8.8 (2.3) | 18.1 (3.4) | 20.9 (3.8) | |
| 8 FV portions/day | Male ( | 62.7 (5.5) | 61.6 (4.9) | 11.7 (6.7) | 13.2 (7.7) | 22.3 (4.1) | 24.5 (6.0) |
| Females ( | 64.3 (4.1) | 62.1 (3.9) | 9.6 (2.0) | 9.5 (2.3) | 19.0 (1.9) | 20.3 (3.3) | |
Mean (standard deviation (sd)) and range rating (mm) of each facial attribute for male (N = 15) and female (N = 15) facial images from all raters (N = 73)
| 2 portions/day | 5 portions/day | 8 portions/day | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Before | After | Before | After | Before | After | |||||||
| Mean (sd) | Range | Mean (sd) | Range | Mean (sd) | Range | Mean (sd) | Range | Mean (sd) | Range | Mean (sd) | Range | |
| Male faces | ||||||||||||
| Attractiveness | 33 (21) | 0–84 | 33 (21) | 0–81 | 31 (20) | 0–91 | 32 (20) | 0–90 | 38 (19) | 2–91 | 35 (20) | 0–87 |
| Skin yellowness | 35 (26) | 0–100 | 39 (26) | 0–100 | 38 (24) | 0–94 | 38 (24) | 0–100 | 41 (26) | 0–100 | 42 (26) | 0–100 |
| Skin redness | 34 (22) | 0–89 | 36 (24) | 0–97 | 37 (22) | 0–100 | 38 (23) | 0–100 | 33 (26) | 0–100 | 38 (26) | 0–100 |
| Skin healthiness | 52 (22) | 0–96 | 49 (22) | 0–95 | 47 (20) | 0–97 | 49 (22) | 0–100 | 58 (18) | 4–100 | 53 (20) | 2–100 |
| Skin clarity | 57 (20) | 0–96 | 55 (21) | 0–100 | 51 (24) | 0–100 | 50 (24) | 0–100 | 63 (18) | 1–100 | 59 (20) | 2–99 |
| Facial symmetry | 51 (21) | 1–96 | 49 (23) | 0–94 | 50 (21) | 0–94 | 51 (21) | 0–94 | 48 (22) | 0–98 | 49 (21) | 0–97 |
| Female faces | ||||||||||||
| Attractiveness | 38 (22) | 0–93 | 36 (21) | 0–90 | 37 (22) | 0–95 | 34 (22) | 0–87 | 33 (19) | 0–92 | 34 (19) | 1–92 |
| Skin yellowness | 34 (24) | 0–91 | 35 (24) | 0–93 | 31 (22) | 0–90 | 36 (25) | 0–97 | 36 (25) | 0–98 | 41 (24) | 0–95 |
| Skin redness | 37 (23) | 0–100 | 39 (23) | 0–100 | 44 (25) | 0–95 | 40 (24) | 0–89 | 34 (24) | 0–96 | 34 (23) | 0–89 |
| Skin healthiness | 54 (21) | 0–100 | 50 (21) | 0–100 | 53 (21) | 5–100 | 51 (21) | 0–100 | 50 (19) | 0–100 | 50 (19) | 0–100 |
| Skin clarity | 50 (26) | 0–100 | 46 (27) | 0–100 | 40 (28) | 0–95 | 42 (27) | 0–99 | 48 (23) | 0–100 | 44 (21) | 1–97 |
| Facial symmetry | 57 (20) | 5–95 | 56 (20) | 4–95 | 51 (20) | 0–94 | 51 (22) | 1–99 | 54 (21) | 2–94 | 52 (19) | 2–94 |
Standardized coefficients for all regression models investigating ratings of all facial attributes before and after 2 vs 5 vs 8 portions/day FV consumption over the past 4 weeks in all facial images*
| FV consumption – attractiveness1 | ||||||
| β | 95% CI |
| ||||
| FV consumption | 0.06 | −0.15, 0.26 | 0.57 | |||
| FV consumption – Mediating variables2 | Mediating variables – Attractiveness3 | |||||
| β | 95% CI |
| β | 95% CI |
| |
| Skin yellowness |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Skin yellowness squared |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Skin redness | − 0.02 | − 0.28, 0.24 | 0.86 | 0.03 | − 0.01, 0.08 | 0.12 |
| Skin redness squared | 8.08 | −14.6, 30.8 | 0.48 | < 0.01 | - < 0.01, < 0.01 | 0.36 |
| Skin healthiness | 0.17 | −0.04, 0.39 | 0.13 |
|
|
|
| Skin healthiness squared | 3.7 | 18.9, 26.3 | 0.74 |
|
|
|
| Skin clarity | 0.02 | −0.26, 0.30 | 0.90 |
|
|
|
| Skin clarity squared | −17.8 | −45.9, 10.3 | 0.21 |
|
|
|
| Facial symmetry | −0.08 | −0.34, 0.18 | 0.52 |
|
|
|
| Facial symmetry squared | −18.4 | −45.1, 8.3 | 0.17 |
|
|
|
| FV consumption – attractiveness including mediators4 | ||||||
| β | 95% CI |
| ||||
| FV consumption | −0.01 | − 0.22, 0.20 | 0.92 | |||
| Skin yellowness |
|
|
| |||
| Skin yellowness squared |
|
|
| |||
| Baseline attractiveness |
|
|
| |||
*Facial images were gained in Belfast, UK, 2011. Ratings of facial attributes were gained in Bournemouth, UK, 2013–2015
Significant relationships (p < 0.05) are emboldened
1Primary models - ratings of perceived attractiveness were predicted using FV consumption over the past 4 weeks, when controlling for face ID and baseline ratings of attractiveness. Overall model performance R2=0.47, F(3,72) = 310.37, p < 0.01
2Secondary models - ratings of skin yellowness, skin redness, skin healthiness, skin clarity and facial symmetry were predicted using FV consumption over the past 4 weeks (when controlling for face ID and baseline variables)
3Secondary models - ratings of attractiveness were predicted using ratings of skin yellowness, skin redness, skin healthiness, skin clarity and facial symmetry (when controlling for face ID and baseline variables);
4Final models - ratings of perceived attractiveness were predicted using FV consumption over the past 4 weeks, when controlling for face ID, baseline ratings of attractiveness and significant mediators. Overall model performance R2=0.48, F(5,72) = 278.82, p < 0.01
Standardized coefficients for all regression models investigating ratings of all facial attributes before and after 2 vs 5 vs 8 portions/day FV consumption over the past 4 weeks in male facial images*
| FV consumption – attractiveness1 | ||||||
| β | 95% CI |
| ||||
| FV consumption | −0.17 | −0.45, 0.11 | 0.24 | |||
| FV consumption – Mediating variables2 | Mediating variables – Attractiveness3 | |||||
| β | 95% CI |
| β | 95% CI |
| |
| Skin yellowness | 0.32 | −0.12, 0.76 | 0.15 |
|
|
|
| Skin yellowness squared | 23.5 | −22.1, 69.2 | 0.31 | < 0.01 | - < 0.01, < 0.01 | 0.19 |
| Skin redness | 0.35 | −0.03, 0.73 | 0.07 | 0.01 | −0.03, 0.06 | 0.60 |
| Skin redness squared |
|
|
| < 0.01 | - < 0.01, < 0.01 | 0.98 |
| Skin healthiness | −0.03 | −0.35, 0.29 | 0.84 |
|
|
|
| Skin healthiness squared | −12.6 | −42.1, 16.9 | 0.40 |
|
|
|
| Skin clarity | −0.02 | −0.41, 0.36 | 0.91 |
|
|
|
| Skin clarity squared | 2.06 | −36.3, 40.4 | 0.92 |
|
|
|
| Facial symmetry | 0.29 | −0.09, 0.68 | 0.14 |
|
|
|
| Facial symmetry squared | 18.8 | −22.1, 59.7 | 0.36 |
|
|
|
| FV consumption – attractiveness including no mediators4 | ||||||
| β | 95% CI |
| ||||
| FV consumption | −0.17 | − 0.45, 0.11 | 0.24 | |||
| Baseline attractiveness |
|
|
| |||
*Facial images were gained in Belfast, UK, 2011. Ratings of facial attributes were gained in Bournemouth, UK, 2013–2015
Significant relationships (p < 0.05) are emboldened
1Primary models - ratings of perceived attractiveness were predicted using FV consumption over the past 4 weeks, when controlling for face ID and baseline ratings of attractiveness. Overall model performance R2=0.48, F(3,72) = 210.96, p < 0.01
2Secondary models - ratings of skin yellowness, skin redness, skin healthiness, skin clarity and facial symmetry were predicted using FV consumption over the past 4 weeks (when controlling for face ID and baseline variables)
3Secondary models - ratings of attractiveness were predicted using ratings of skin yellowness, skin redness, skin healthiness, skin clarity and facial symmetry (when controlling for face ID and baseline variables);
4Final models - ratings of perceived attractiveness were predicted using FV consumption over the past 4 weeks, when controlling for face ID, baseline ratings of attractiveness and significant mediators. Overall model performance R2=0.48, F(3,72) = 210.96, p < 0.01
Standardized coefficients for all regression models investigating ratings of all facial attributes before and after 2 vs 5 vs 8 portions/day FV consumption over the past 4 weeks in female facial images *
| FV consumption – attractiveness1 | ||||||
| β | 95% CI |
| ||||
| FV consumption | 0.15 | −0.20, 0.49 | 0.39 | |||
| FV consumption – Mediating variables2 | Mediating variables – Attractiveness3 | |||||
| β | 95% CI |
| β | 95% CI |
| |
| Skin yellowness |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Skin yellowness squared |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Skin redness |
|
|
| 0.05 | − 0.01, 0.11 | 0.08 |
| Skin redness squared |
|
|
| < 0.01 | - < 0.01, < 0.01 | 0.21 |
| Skin healthiness | 0.23 | −0.16, 0.61 | 0.25 |
|
|
|
| Skin healthiness squared | 0.53 | −37.0, 38.1 | 0.98 |
|
|
|
| Skin clarity | 0.09 | −0.36, 0.53 | 0.69 |
|
|
|
| Skin clarity squared | −39.4 | −84.7, 5.68 | 0.09 |
|
|
|
| Facial symmetry |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Facial symmetry squared |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| FV consumption – attractiveness including mediators4 | ||||||
| β | 95% CI | |||||
| FV consumption | 0.16 | −0.20, 0.52 | 0.38 | |||
| Skin yellowness |
|
|
| |||
| Skin yellowness squared |
|
|
| |||
| Facial symmetry | 0.18 | −0.01, 0.38 | 0.06 | |||
| Facial symmetry squared | - < 0.01 | - < 0.01, < 0.01 | 0.98 | |||
| Baseline attractiveness |
|
|
| |||
*Facial images were gained in Belfast, UK, 2011. Ratings of facial attributes were gained in Bournemouth, UK, 2013
Significant relationships (p < 0.05) are emboldened.
1Primary models - ratings of perceived attractiveness were predicted using FV consumption over the past 4 weeks, when controlling for face ID and baseline ratings of attractiveness. Overall model performance R2=0.46, F(3,72) = 226.52, p < 0.01
2Secondary models - ratings of skin yellowness, skin redness, skin healthiness, skin clarity and facial symmetry were predicted using FV consumption over the past 4 weeks (when controlling for face ID and baseline variables)
3Secondary models - ratings of attractiveness were predicted using ratings of skin yellowness, skin redness, skin healthiness, skin clarity and facial symmetry (when controlling for face ID and baseline variables);
4Final models - ratings of perceived attractiveness were predicted using FV consumption over the past 4 weeks, when controlling for face ID, baseline ratings of attractiveness and significant mediators. Overall model performance R2=0.50, F(7,72) = 168.04, p < 0.01