| Literature DB >> 31683520 |
Piotr Sorokowski1, Agnieszka Żelaźniewicz2, Judyta Nowak3, Agata Groyecka4, Magdalena Kaleta5, Weronika Lech6, Sylwia Samorek7, Katarzyna Stachowska8, Klaudia Bocian9, Aleksandra Pulcer10, Agnieszka Sorokowska11, Marta Kowal12, Katarzyna Pisanski13.
Abstract
Increased reproductive success is among the most commonly proposed adaptive functions of romantic love. Here, we tested if hormonal changes associated with falling in love may co-vary with hormonal profiles that predict increased fecundity in women. We compared blood serum levels of estradiol (E2, E2/T), luteinizing hormone (LH), follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH), prolactin (PRL), free testosterone (fT), and cortisol (CT), measured in the early follicular phase of the menstrual cycle in single women (N = 69) and in women at the beginning of a romantic heterosexual relationship who reported being in love with their partner (N = 47). Participants were healthy, regularly cycling women aged 24 to 33 who did not use hormonal contraception. We found that women in love had higher levels of gonadotropins (FSH, LH) and lower testosterone levels compared to single women who were not in love. These groups of women did not, however, differ in terms of estradiol, prolactin, or cortisol levels.Entities:
Keywords: fecundity; follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH); love; luteinizing hormone (LH); sex hormones; testosterone (T)
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31683520 PMCID: PMC6861983 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph16214224
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Comparison of estradiol (E2, and E2/T), free testosterone (fT), prolactin (PRL), gonadotropin (FSH, LH), and cortisol (CT) levels between single women (N = 69) and women in love (N = 47). Descriptive statistics (mean, standard deviation, and range) and pairwise comparisons are also given for control variables (age and BMI). Means, SDs, and ranges are given for non-transformed values.
| Single Women ( | Women in Love ( |
| ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
| Range |
|
| Range | |||
| E2 [pg/mL] | 37.88 | 36.26 | 8.6–167.4 | 39.55 | 36.12 | 8.4–151.0 | −0.41 | 0.68 |
| fT [pg/mL] | 1.21 | 0.73 | 0.3–3.5 | 0.92 | 0.59 | 0.3–3.1 | 2.52 | 0.01 |
| E2/T | 43.33 | 53.24 | 3.7–305.9 | 64.58 | 92.93 | 7.8–510.9 | −1.90 | 0.06 |
| PRL [ng/mL] | 11.29 | 5.41 | 3.5–34.4 | 11.24 | 5.20 | 2.2–27.8 | 0.24 | 0.25 |
| FSH [mi/mL] | 6.71 | 2.44 | 1.2–15.4 | 7.55 | 2.35 | 3.7–13.7 | −2.05 | 0.007 |
| LH [mu/mL] | 6.00 | 2.91 | 0.1–12.9 | 7.18 | 2.64 | 2.2–13.8 | −2.39 | <0.001 |
| CT [ng/mL] | 293.21 | 78.98 | 145.5–473.9 | 269.19 | 67.34 | 141.7–401.1 | 1.54 | 0.13 |
| Age [years] | 27.24 | 3.18 | 24–33 | 27.56 | 2.68 | 23–35 | 1.41 | 0.22 |
| BMI [kg/m2] | 22.68 | 3.18 | 15.8–32.0 | 21.95 | 2.68 | 18.1–28.7 | 1.29 | 0.20 |
Results of regression analyses examining the relationships between romantic relationship status (single vs in love) and hormone levels, controlling for age and BMI (N = 116).
| Dependent Variable | Predictors |
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Model 1: | ||||
| E2 | Love status 1 | 0.04 | 0.43 | 0.66 |
| Age | 0.03 | 0.36 | 0.72 | |
| BMI | −0.05 | −0.53 | 0.60 | |
| Model 2: | ||||
| FSH | Love status 1 | 0.17 | 1.81 | 0.07 |
| Age | 0.05 | 0.58 | 0.56 | |
| BMI | −0.14 | −1.51 | 0.13 | |
| Model 3: | ||||
| LH | Love status 1 | 0.20 | 2.15 | 0.03 |
| Age | 0.08 | 0.85 | 0.40 | |
| BMI | −0.13 | −1.37 | 0.17 | |
| Model 4: | ||||
| PRL | Love status1 | −0.04 | −0.45 | 0.65 |
| Age | 0.03 | 0.35 | 0.72 | |
| BMI | −0.15 | −1.60 | 0.11 | |
| Model 5: | ||||
| E2/T | Love status 1 | 0.18 | 1.90 | 0.06 |
| Age | 0.06 | 0.64 | 0.52 | |
| BMI | 0.06 | 0.62 | 0.54 | |
| Model 6: | ||||
| fT | Love status 1 | −0.24 | −2.68 | 0.008 |
| Age | −0.05 | −0.53 | 0.60 | |
| BMI | −0.16 | −1.75 | 0.08 | |
| Model 7: | ||||
| CT | Love status 1 | −0.15 | −1.63 | 0.10 |
| Age | −0.10 | −1.11 | 0.27 | |
| BMI | −0.14 | −1.49 | 0.14 | |
1 Coded as single = 0, in love = 1.