Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2024 Mar 6;19(3):e0298984. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0298984

Chronic and immediate refined carbohydrate consumption and facial attractiveness

Amandine Visine 1, Valérie Durand 1, Léonard Guillou 1,¤, Michel Raymond 1,#, Claire Berticat 1,*,#
Editor: Shen Liu2
PMCID: PMC10917283  PMID: 38446775

Abstract

The Western diet has undergone a massive switch since the second half of the 20th century, with the massive increase of the consumption of refined carbohydrate associated with many adverse health effects. The physiological mechanisms linked to this consumption, such as hyperglycaemia and hyperinsulinemia, may impact non medical traits such as facial attractiveness. To explore this issue, the relationship between facial attractiveness and immediate and chronic refined carbohydrate consumption estimated by glycemic load was studied for 104 French subjects. Facial attractiveness was assessed by opposite sex raters using pictures taken two hours after a controlled breakfast. Chronic consumption was assessed considering three high glycemic risk meals: breakfast, afternoon snacking and between-meal snacking. Immediate consumption of a high glycemic breakfast decreased facial attractiveness for men and women while controlling for several control variables, including energy intake. Chronic refined carbohydrate consumption had different effects on attractiveness depending on the meal and/or the sex. Chronic refined carbohydrate consumption, estimated by the glycemic load, during the three studied meals reduced attractiveness, while a high energy intake increased it. Nevertheless, the effect was reversed for men concerning the afternoon snack, for which a high energy intake reduced attractiveness and a high glycemic load increased it. These effects were maintained when potential confounders for facial attractiveness were controlled such as age, age departure from actual age, masculinity/femininity (perceived and measured), BMI, physical activity, parental home ownership, smoking, couple status, hormonal contraceptive use (for women), and facial hairiness (for men). Results were possibly mediated by an increase in age appearance for women and a decrease in perceived masculinity for men. The physiological differences between the three meals studied and the interpretation of the results from an adaptive/maladaptive point of view in relation to our new dietary environment are discussed.

Introduction

In Western populations, the diet has dramatically changed since the second half of the 20th century. It has been supplemented with highly processed refined food, in particular refined carbohydrates (primary sucrose, fiber depleted gelatinous starches and high sugar corn syrup [1]. The mismatch between how human physiology has evolved and Western industrialized lifestyles is seen as a contributing factor to the current epidemic of numerous medical problems. For example, it has been shown that this massive dietary change was involved in obesity, insulin resistance, type II diabetes, cardiovascular diseases, Alzheimer’s disease, hypertension or myopia [25]. Persistent hyperglycemia/hyperinsulinemia, and insulin resistance due to the overconsumption of refined carbohydrates are among the well recognized physiological mechanisms involved in these diseases [1, 6, 7].

The consequences of a diet high in refined carbohydrates on non-medical traits have been little studied to date, and it is conceivable that they materialise in secondary sexual traits such as male or female facial characteristics [8]. Indeed, among other things, hyperinsulinemia modulates growth factors and sex hormones, interfering with morphology and secondary sex characteristics [9]. This occurs because hyperinsulinemia stimulates androgen synthesis by the ovaries or testes, increasing the quantity of free (and thus active) androgens in the blood which are the precursors of male and female sex hormones such as testosterone and estrogen [1012]. As a consequence, for example, hyperinsulinemia has been linked to diseases associated with significant perturbation of sex hormone levels, such as polycystic ovary syndrome and premature menarche [13, 14]. Thus, considering that femininity and masculinity influence attractiveness [15], refined carbohydrate consumption via hyperinsulinemia could interact with attractiveness. Attractiveness is an important trait that affects a variety of key social outcomes such as mate choice and social exchange decisions. In the field of evolutionary biology, attractiveness (or preference) refers to an individual’s tendency to be drawn to specific traits or characteristics in potential mating or social exchange partners. For example, people who are physically attractive (as opposed to unattractive) are more likely to be rated higher as romantic partners [16], students by teachers [17], and even as political candidates [18].

It has been recently proposed that refined carbohydrate consumption, particularly during between-meal snacks, might be correlated with an increase in facial attractiveness of both male and female individuals [8]. However, in this pilot study, subjects were sampled at various times of the day, thus at various times since their last meal, and the content of this last meal was not considered. However, immediate consumption of some food or drinks has detectable effects on physiology and behavior. For example, immediate alcohol consumption may influence facial attractiveness [19], and breakfast or snacks may have an immediate effect on behavioral components and cognition according to their glycemic load or energy intake [20, 21]. Additionally, several confounding variables were not controlled for, such as physical activity (which might indirectly influence attractiveness and diet). Also, energy intake was not considered in the statistical model. Thus, it is unclear from this preliminary study how refined carbohydrate consumption might influence attractiveness.

Different daily meals have different nutrient content and therefore do not produce the same glycemic response. In fact, carbohydrates are rarely eaten alone, and their digestion (degradation and absorption) can be affected by other macronutrients. Meals high in refined carbohydrates and low in fat, protein, and fiber result in a higher glycemic response [22, 23]. The sequence of dietary intake of macronutrients also alters glycemic and insulin responses [23]. Thus, meals described as high in refined carbohydrates and low in food content, such as breakfast, afternoon snacks, and between-meal snacks, may increase glycemic risk [20, 24, 25].

Here, we investigated whether refined carbohydrate intake affects facial attractiveness in healthy young women and men, accounting for several confounding variables and experimentally controlling for immediate carbohydrate intake. The present study is a replicate of this previous work [8] designed to overcome its weaknesses. Estimates of refined carbohydrate intake were based on the total glycemic load (representing blood glucose and insulin responses) of three meals with higher glycemic risk (breakfast, afternoon snack, and between-meal snack). The quantities consumed for each diet item were recorded, providing more relevant glycemic load estimation and both glycemic loads and energy intakes were independently considered, with the consequence that refined carbohydrate consumption better represented the effects of insulinemia. Subjects were given a high or low glycemic isocaloric breakfast, completed a dietary questionnaire, and were photographed at the same time after breakfast. This allowed us to examine how immediate and chronic consumption of refined carbohydrates affects facial attractiveness in healthy adults.

Materials and methods

Subjects

During 2018, subjects were invited to participate in a scientific study on diet via online calls, spread among to various university networks (Paul Valéry University, University of Montpellier, Engineering School Montpellier SupAgro) and social networks. The conditions for participation were being non diabetic and non hemophiliac, lacking food allergies, and without facial tattoo. Subjects were given an early-morning appointment and were asked to come to our laboratory for the experiments in groups of three or four on an empty stomach. They were given, at random, an isocaloric breakfast (approximately 500 Kcal) of type B1 (all carbohydrates were non refined) or B2 (all carbohydrates were refined) as described in [26].

The following data were self-reported for each subject: sex, age (birth year and month), sexual orientation (heterosexual or other), geographical origin of the grandparents (continents: Europe/Africa/ America/Asia/Oceania), couple status (yes or no, coded as 1 or 0, respectively), smoking (yes or no, coded as 1 or 0, respectively), parental home ownership as a proxy of socioeconomic status (owner or non-owner, coded as 1 or 0, respectively), physical activity (from 1: low activity, to 5: high activity), and, for women, use of hormonal contraceptive (yes or no, coded as 1 or 0, respectively). A quantitative diet questionnaire using the SU.VI.MAX cohort portion book concerning breakfast, afternoon snack [“goûter” in French, corresponding to an after-school snack] and between-meals snack of the day before was used to estimate participants’ chronic refined carbohydrate consumption as previously described [2628], S1 Table).

Then, the following body measurements were performed: height (using a measuring board) and weight (using a portable weighing scale). Subject glycemia was also measured 3 times (on an empty stomach, 30 minutes after breakfast and one hour and a half after breakfast), allowing the confirmation that consumption of refined carbohydrates during breakfast had a significant immediate effect on glucose metabolism [26].

Approximately two hours after they finished their breakfast, the subjects were photographed. Individual facial photographs were obtained from a frontal perspective at a distance of approximately 1 m using the same digital camera (Canon EOS 20D) with a 50-mm focal length in standardized settings (same room, light and white uniform background). The subjects were asked to express a neutral face (without a smile), to tie their hair and to remove any glasses, earrings, piercing and make-up. All photographs were processed using Adobe Photoshop CS5.1 to normalize size (photographs were aligned on the eye position, with a fixed distance between the eyes and the chin). An index of facial hairiness was estimated from male photographs, from 0 (no beard, no moustache) to 6 (abundant beard and moustache).

A total of 52 male and 52 female subjects with completely filled out questionnaires were finally selected according to the following characteristics: aged from 20 to 30, heterosexual, and with their 4 grand parents of European origin to reduce cultural heterogeneity. Descriptive statistics of physical characteristics of subjects are given in Table 1. The different food groups chronically consumed during these 3 meals are reported in Table 2. The proportion of individuals taking a breakfast was 87% for both sexes, those taking an afternoon snack were 38% and 52%, for males and females, respectively, and those taking a between-meal snack were 25% and 29%, respectively (Table 2).

Table 1. Descriptive statistics of the subjects’ physical characteristics.

Women (N = 52) Men (N = 52)
Range Mean SD Range Mean SD
Age (years) 20–28 22.5 2.0 20–30 23.0 2.1
Perceived age (years) 19–31 24.7 2.0 21–31 25.5 2.4
BMI (kg/m²) 16–30 22.1 3.1 16–37 23.0 3.8
Physical activity 1–5 2.9 1.1 1–5 3.3 1.2
Facial hairiness - - - 0–6 2.3 1.6
Fem/Masc Index -5.68 to -0.94 -3.17 1.02 -1.93 to 1.99 0.00 0.98
Range N % Range N %
Smoker 0–1 2 0.04 0–1 5 9.6
Parental home ownership 0–1 45 86.5 0–1 47 90.4
Couple status 0–1 27 51.9 0–1 30 57.7
Contraceptive 0–1 34 65.4 - - -

Table 2. Number of individuals consuming the different food groups for each meal.

N indicates the number of consumers.

Women (N = 52) Men (N = 52)
Food group Breakfast (N = 45, 87%) Afternoon snack (N = 27, 52%) Between-meal snack (N = 15, 29%) Breakfast (N = 45, 87%) Afternoon snack (N = 20, 38%) Between-meal snack (N = 13, 25%)
Cereals and bread 34 9 2 35 6 3
Biscuits, cakes, and pastries 9 11 5 9 11 3
Sweets and chocolate 18 13 5 27 7 8
Sweetened beverages 15 5 0 14 3 3
Dairy products 31 5 3 22 8 3
Fruits 16 12 4 13 6 5
Nuts 5 5 2 2 0 0

Daily diet variables

As previously described in [26], for each subject and each item of dietary questionnaire, Glycemic load (GL) was calculated by multiplying the glycemic index (GI) according to the International tables of glycemic Index [29] by the amount of available carbohydrates (g) per declared serving estimated from the SU.VI. MAX cohort catalogue divided by 100 [30]. Compared with low-GL diets, high-GL diets cause greater glycemic and insulin responses [29]. For each subject, the glycemic load for each item was then summed, leading to a total glycemic load (Table 3) estimation for breakfast (GL1), afternoon snack (GL2) and between-meal intake (GL3). In the same way, Energy intake (EI) for each item was obtained from the Anses-Ciqual database (www.anses.ciqual.fr) and calculated for each subject depending on its corresponding declared serving size (Table 3). For each subject, they were summed, leading to a total energy intake estimation for breakfast (EI1), afternoon snack (EI2) and between-meal intake (EI3) and corresponding macronutrient compositions. Mean glycemic load (GL) and energy intake (EI) for each meal were computed considering only consumers (Table 3). According to the general classification (e.g. [31]), the means of GL obtained for breakfast were high (>20).

Table 3. Descriptive statistics of food consumption for the three meals.

Mean and standard deviation (SD) are given for consumers only. GL1, GL2 and GL3 are the three variables representing chronic refined carbohydrate consumption.

Women (N = 52) Men (N = 52)
Range Mean SD Range Mean SD
Breakfast
 GL1 0–92 26.6 23.0 0–142 38.5 33.3
 EI1 0–1039 334.1 265.0 0–1451 421.1 345.3
  Carbohydrates (g) 0–144 37.5 (72%) 33.7 0–224 53.2 (70%) 44.9
  Fat (g) 0–39 8.6 (16%) 9.5 0–55 14.8 (20%) 12.6
  Protein (g) 0–27 6.0 (12%) 5.8 0–36 7.8 (10%) 8.0
  Fiber (g) 0–17 3.3 3.5 0–22 4.2 4.3
Afternoon Snack
 GL2 0–62 11.8 16.5 0–118 12.6 23.4
 EI2 0–985 166.2 241.0 0–1065 148.2 264.5
  Carbohydrates (g) 0–103 17.8 (64%) 26.0 0–95 13.7 (74%) 25.5
  Fat (g) 0–72 7.1 (25%) 13.3 0–42 2.9 (16%) 7.0
  Protein (g) 0–23 3.0 (11%) 4.9 0–30 1.9 (10%) 5.0
  Fiber (g) 0–16 3.3 3.3 0–10 1.0 2.2
Between-Meal Snack
 GL3 0–42 3.7 8.9 0–110 6.9 18.4
 EI3 0–622 61.0 143.7 0–1010 78.5 192.0
  Carbohydrates (g) 0–66 4.6 (59%) 11.1 0–111 8.0 (73%) 20.2
  Fat (g) 0–39 2.2 (28%) 6.4 0–23 1.8 (17%) 5.2
  Protein (g) 0–19 1.0 (13%) 3.2 0–22 1.1 (10%) 4.5
  Fiber (g) 0–8 0.5 1.6 0–7 0.8 1.7

To measure GL independent of EI, the method described in [32] was applied: linear models were used to produce regressions of EI as a function of GL for each meal using the lm function from the stats package for R software. These regression residuals were then used as new variables. Thus, each subject’s refined residual carbohydrate consumption is now described for breakfast (RGL1), afternoon snack (RGL2) and between-meal intake (RGL3). These variables correspond to the part of the glycemic load that is not explained by energy intake.

Femininity/Masculinity index

To generate a morphological facial femininity/masculinity index (Fem/Masc Index), a geometric morphometric analysis of the faces was performed following the methods described in [3335]. First, the coordinates of 142 landmarks (anatomical points present in all individuals, e.g., lips corners) and semi landmarks (sliding points positioned along selected anatomical curves, such as the eyebrow bow) were delineated for each male and female face. Landmark and semi landmark delineation were performed using Psychomorph [36]. The R package Geomorph (version 4.0.0) was used to perform Procrustes superimposition of the landmark and semi landmark data, which removes non shape information such as translation, size and rotational effects [37]. The coordinates were transformed into shape variables via principal component analysis (PCA). An arbitrary cut-off of minimum 80% variance explained was applied to select the axis, thus the first 16 axes were retained (explaining 83.7% of variance) for further analyses. To compute a data-driven single measure of facial masculinity, a linear discriminant analysis (LDA) was conducted on the PCA coordinates with sex as the grouping variable. The resulting discriminant function correctly classified 90.4% of subjects into two categories (48 women and 46 men out of the 104 individuals; thus, 4 women and 6 men were not rightly sorted). Each individual coordinate on the woman-man axis was used as a Fem/Masc Index, with high values indicating a more masculine facial morphology [3335].

Apparent age

The apparent age of each subject was evaluated from their facial photographs using raters. Volunteer raters were recruited in public places in Montpellier, France. For each rater, sex, age (birth year and month), grand-parent geographical origin and study level were recorded.

An HTLM/PHP computer program was generated to present randomly drawn subject photographs to raters. Each rater estimated the age of 22 distinct subjects. Three photographs randomly chosen among those previously viewed were presented again at the end to estimate judgment reliability. Unreliable raters (with more than fifteen years for the sum of the absolute difference between real ages and attributed ages during the three judgments of reliability) or non-adult raters (less than 18 years old) were removed. If the rater took more than 60 s or less than 0.5 s for the response, the trial was removed. To reduce cultural heterogeneity, only raters with 4 grandparents of European origin were kept in the study. This led to a final sample of 77 raters (39 men and 38 women, age range: 18–56, mean age ± s.d.: 26.5 ± 8 years for men and 25.3 ± 10 years for women), resulting in a total of 820 age estimations towards women and 860 age estimations towards men and a mean of 16.5 (range: 11–22) estimations for each man and 15.8 (range: 12–21) for each woman. The perceived age was on average 2.4 years older than the actual age (mean ± s.e.m. of 2.4 ± 0.21). It was estimated to be either younger (maximum 2.4 years) or older (maximum 6.2 years) than the actual age (Table 1).

Perceived masculinity and femininity

The relative masculinity or femininity of each subject was assessed from the facial photographs using a second rater set. Volunteer raters were recruited in public places in Montpellier, France. For each rater, sex, age (birth year and month), sexual orientation, geographical origin of the grandparents and study level were recorded.

An HTLM/PHP computer program was generated to present randomly drawn pairs of same-sex photographs (Fig 1). Pairs were presented to opposite sex raters. For each male pair, the female raters were instructed to click on the photograph depicting the face that they found the most masculine. For each female pair, the men raters were instructed to click on the photograph they found the more feminine. The photograph position on the screen (left or right) was randomly ascribed. Each rater assessed 25 distinct pairs of photographs, corresponding to different randomly chosen subjects. Three pairs randomly chosen from among those previously viewed were presented again at the end to estimate judgment reliability. Unreliable raters (with more than one incorrect answer during the test of judgment reliability) or non-adult raters (less than 18 years old) were removed. If the rater took more than 60 s or less than 0.5 s for the response, the trial was removed. To reduce cultural heterogeneity, only heterosexual raters with 4 grand-parents of European origin were kept in the study. A total of 150 raters were retained in the final sample (68 men and 82 women, age range: 18–71, mean age ± s.d.: 35.5 ± 16 years for men, and 33.1 ± 14 for women), corresponding to 1,494 judgments of men towards women and 1,802 judgments of women towards men. Each subject was seen by a mean of 69.3 (range: 51–88) raters for men and a mean of 57.5 (range: 41–76) raters for women. No correlation for perceived masculinity was evidenced with the Fem/Masc Index for men (Pearson correlation coefficient = 0.20, p = 0.159). Perceived femininity was also not correlated (Pearson correlation coefficient = - 0.18, p = 0.196) with the Fem/Masc Index for women.

Fig 1. Example of a pair of faces used during the evaluation of women’s facial attractiveness by male raters.

Fig 1

For each pair of women, the rater was instructed to click on the photograph of the woman that he found the most attractive. Faces were anonymized for publication.

Attractiveness

The subject relative attractiveness was assessed from their facial photographs using a third rater set. Volunteer raters were recruited in public places in Montpellier, France. For each rater, sex, age (birth year and month), sexual orientation, geographical origin of the grandparents and study level were recorded.

The same experimental protocol as for perceived masculinity and femininity was used to assess attractiveness. Raters assessed 26 distinct pairs of photographs, and three pairs randomly chosen from among those previously viewed were presented again at the end to estimate judgment reliability. Raters with more than one incorrect answer during the test of judgment reliability or non-adult raters (less than 18 years old) were removed. If the rater took more than 60 s or less than 0.5 s for the response, the trial was removed. To reduce cultural heterogeneity, only heterosexual raters with 4 grandparents of European origin were kept in the study. A total of 252 raters were retained in the final sample (110 men and 142 women, age range: 18–73, mean age ± s.d.: 35.3 ± 13 years for men and 35.6 ± 13 years for women), corresponding to 2,860 judgments of men towards women and 3,536 judgments of women towards men. Each subject was seen by a mean of 136.0 (range: 107–164) raters for men and a mean of 110.0 raters (range: 83–137) for women.

Statistical analyses

The following statistical analyses were performed using R software version 3.6.3 using the packages blme (v1.0–5, [38]), lme4 (v1.1–26), stats (3.6.3) and lavaan (v0.6–8, [39]). The variance inflation factor was computed using the vif.mer function adapted from the vif function of the R package rms (v6.2–0, [40, 41]). The effects of the rater’s age and study level on their perception of subject’s age, masculinity/femininity and attractiveness were tested before proceeding to the analyses of evaluators’ preferences in terms of attractiveness, in order to take them into account in case of significance.

Effects of rater characteristics on their perception of subject’s age, masculinity/femininity and attractiveness

Age perception. To understand the potential effects of rater characteristics on the age perception of subjects, a first model was used. The response variable was the estimated age, and the variables of interest were the rater characteristics (age, sex, and study level). The model also integrated the subject sex. Each subject was viewed by several raters, and each rater evaluated several subjects. Thus, linear mixed-effect models using the lmer function were used. Random slope effects on the raters and on the subjects were integrated into the models. The regression showed no significant effect (p > 0.05) of the rater characteristics on their perception of age (S2 Table). This allowed us to compute for each subject the mean perceived age as the average age estimated by all raters. Masculinity/femininity perception. A measure of perceived masculinity was computed for men as the number of times a given individual was chosen divided by the number of occurrences in the experiment. To assess a potential effect of rater age on masculinity perception, this measure was computed using only raters below or above the median age. The two resulting masculinity measures were not significantly different (Wilcoxon signed ranks test, p = 0.96, S3 Table). The measures were also computed from tercile ages, with no significant differences (Friedman two-way analysis of variance, p = 0.10). The same procedure was used to test the influence of rater study level on masculinity perception. Masculinity measures from raters below or above the median study level were not significantly different (Wilcoxon signed ranks test, p > 0.94) or among the three terciles (Friedman two-way analysis of variance, p > 0.58). A measure of femininity was computed for women in a similar way as for men. A potential effect of rater age or study level on femininity perception was evaluated as above, and no significant effect was found (age: for median, p > 0.33, for terciles, p > 0.32; study level: for median, p > 0.29, for terciles, p > 0.94, S3 Table). Attractiveness perception. A measure of perceived attractiveness was computed for women and men as the number of times a given individual was chosen divided by the number of occurrences in the experiment. To assess a potential effect of rater age on attractiveness perception, this measure was computed using only raters below or above the median age. For both sexes, the two resulting attractiveness measures were not significantly different (Wilcoxon signed ranks test, p = 0.71 and p = 0.36 for women and men faces, respectively, S4 Table). The measures were also computed from tercile ages, with no significant differences (Friedman two-way analysis of variance, p = 0.63 and p = 0.48 for women and men faces, respectively, S4 Table). The same procedure was used to test the influence of rater study level on attractiveness perception. For both sexes, attractiveness measures from raters below or above the median study level were not significantly different (Wilcoxon signed ranks test, p = 0.67 and p = 0.94 for women and men faces, respectively, S4 Table) or among the three terciles (Friedman two-way analysis of variance, p = 0.86 and p = 0.87 for women and men faces, respectively, S4 Table).

Statistical analyses for perceived attractiveness

A logistic regression was used to analyze the rater preferences. The binary response variable corresponded to being chosen or not for the focal subject (arbitrarily, the subject presented at the left position) during each pair presentation. Subjects and raters occurred repeatedly (each subject was viewed by several raters, and each rater evaluated several pairs of subjects) and were thus random-effects variables. Therefore, generalized linear mixed models with a binomial error structure were applied. To force the models to fit away from singularities, the Bayesian bglmer function was used. The maximum random-effects structure (intercept and slope) was tentatively included according to [42]. For each choice made by a rater, the difference (left minus right) between the focal RGL1 and the non-focal subject was calculated, and the same procedure was performed for RGL2, RGL3, EI1, EI2 and EI3. These differences were integrated into the model as the variables of interest. The difference between focal and non-focal subjects concerning their type of immediate breakfast was also integrated as a qualitative variable of interest with three modalities (B1 versus B2, same breakfast type and B2 versus B1). Because subject pairs were rated by the opposite sex (men rated by women and women rated by men), two models were performed, one for each subject’s sex. For both, several control variables potentially affecting facial attractiveness were added: age, age departure from actual age (further referred to as ‘age departure’), Fem/Masc index, perceived masculinity/femininity, BMI, physical activity, parental home ownership [43], smoking, couple status, hormonal contraceptive use (for women) and facial hairiness (for men). For each control variable, values associated with the left individual minus values associated with the right individual were computed. All quantitative variables were centered. The significance of each term was assessed from the model including all of the other variables. Because the dietary variables (RGL1, RGL2, RGL3, EI1, EI2, EI3 and breakfast type) could potentially affect certain control variables directly (e.g., age departure, Fem/Masc Index and perceived masculinity/femininity) or be affected by control variables (physical activity), this could indirectly influence the effect of the GL variables on the dependent variable. To evaluate this possibility, structural equation modeling was performed using the variables from the model displaying p < 0.1, conservatively. An attractiveness measure was constructed for each individual, computed as the number of times this individual was chosen over the number of occurrences. A hypothesized path model was constructed for each sex, incorporating linear regressions with the diet variables. For women, it aimed to explain attractiveness, age departure from actual age, perceived femininity and contraception with EI1, RGL1, RGL2, RGL3 and the breakfast type. Parental home ownership, physical activity and age were also included as control variables (Fig 2). For men, the model incorporated linear regressions of EI1, EI2, RGL2, RGL3 and the breakfast type to explain attractiveness, Fem/Masc Index and perceived masculinity (Fig 3). Facial hairiness, physical activity, age and couple status were also included as control variables.

Fig 2. Hypothesized path model for women’s attractiveness with the variables of the generalized linear mixed model.

Fig 2

Fig 3. Hypothesized path model for men’s attractiveness with the variables of the generalized linear mixed model.

Fig 3

Assessment of systematic and random errors

We have sought to reduce the influence of systematic and random errors in our study and ensure the robustness of our results. To assess systematic errors, we meticulously designed our study by following established protocols and ensuring that experimental conditions were standardized as much as possible for participants and raters. This included the fact that we implemented carefully recruitment procedures to limit the risk of selection bias by defining clear inclusion and exclusion criteria for our study samples. In addition, all assessments of photographs and facial attractiveness were carried out in a controlled environment, with constant lighting, background and ambient temperature, to reduce variability caused by external factors. We used validated questionnaires. Participants and raters were not informed of the study objectives in order to minimize potential biases related to knowledge of the research objectives. We used appropriate statistical methods to control for potential confounding factors concerning subjects and raters (see Statistical Analyses section). To minimize random errors and improve the reliability of our measurements, we used highly reliable and reproducible measurement techniques for the photographs and for the assessment of facial attractiveness. The evaluation process was conducted randomly and independently by several raters to ensure the robustness of our results. The sample sizes of participants and raters were determined on the basis of an effect size of 0.1 (based on the results of a previous pilot study [8]), a power of 80% and a threshold of 0.05 to ensure that the study had sufficient statistical power to detect significant differences in attractiveness ratings, and were chosen to minimize the impact of random variability.

Ethical statement

The protocol used to recruit participants and collect data was approved by the French Committee of Information and Liberty (CNIL #1783997V0) and the Committee for the protection of persons (CPP IDRCB 2018-A00505-50). For each participant, the general purpose of the study was explained (“Effects of diet on major phenotypic traits”), and written voluntary agreement was requested for statistical use of data (private information and photographs). Data were analyzed anonymously and no authors had access to information that could identify individual participants during or after data collection.

Results

Chronic and immediate refined carbohydrate consumption, energy intake and controlling variables had different effects on attractiveness (Fig 4 and Table 4). The breakfast consumed by subjects just before the photo session had a significant effect on attractiveness for both sexes. Individuals who had B2 were considered less attractive than those with B1 (men: β = -1.01, se = 0.187, p < 10−6; women: β = -1.31, se = 0.191, p < 10−10). Some chronic diet variables of interest had the same effect between men and women: the probability that a subject was chosen as the most attractive was significantly influenced by the energy intake variable EI1 (men: β = 0.26 se = 0.057, p < 10−5; women: β = 0.38, se = 0.097, p < 10−3). For breakfast, women preferred men, and men preferred women, with the highest energy intake. The variable RGL3 decreased attractiveness; this effect was marginally non-significant for women (β = -0.274, se = 0.158, p = 0.083) and significant for men (β = -0.434, se = 0.089, p < 10−5). For RGL1, RGL2 and EI2, preference was influenced by different meals and had different directions for men and women: RGL1 and RGL2 significantly decreased women’s attractiveness (RGL1: β = -0.202, se = 0.097, p = 0.037; RGL2: β = -0.235, se = 0.098, p = 0.017), whereas for men, RGL2 increased attractiveness (β = 0.410, se = 0.082, p < 10−6) and EI2 decreased attractiveness (β = -0.315, se = 0.079, p < 10−4). Men preferred women with lower breakfast and afternoon snack glycemic load, and women preferred men with a higher afternoon snack glycemic load and a lower energy intake.

Fig 4. Graphical representation of the adjusted odd ratios with their 95% confidence intervals from the model studying the probability of being chosen in the attractiveness test for male or female faces.

Fig 4

Raters were instructed to choose the individual found to be the most attractive between two facial photographs. RGL1, RGL2 and RGL3 are the three variables representing chronic refined carbohydrate consumption. For each variable, the difference between the two individuals (left minus right) presented was integrated into the model. For the immediate breakfast type variable, estimates are given for one category compared with the reference category corresponding to focal with B1 and non-focal with B2 (underlined term). * p < 0.05 ** p < 0.01 *** p < 0.001.

Table 4. Effects of different variables on the probability of being chosen during the test of attractiveness for male or female faces.

Raters were instructed to choose the individual found to be the most attractive between two facial photographs. RGL1, RGL2 and RGL3 are the three variables representing chronic refined carbohydrate consumption. For each variable, the difference between the two individuals (left minus right) presented was integrated into the model. For the immediate breakfast type variable, the estimates are given for one category compared with the reference category corresponding to focal with B1 and non-focal with B2 (underlined term). The estimate (b), standard error of the mean (se), χ² statistic, and corresponding p-value are given. F Bold characters indicate significant (p < 0.05) effects.

Male faces evaluated by women Female faces evaluated by men
β se χ² p(>χ²) β se χ² p(>χ²)
Intercept 0.455 0.160 0.558 0.180
RGL1 - 0.014 0.056 0.063 0.802 - 0.202 0.097 4.349 0.037
RGL2 0.410 0.082 25.23 < 10 −6 - 0.235 0.098 5.673 0.017
RGL3 - 0.434 0.089 23.64 < 10 −5 - 0.275 0.158 3.008 0.083
EI1 0.259 0.057 20.30 < 10 −5 0.377 0.097 15.05 < 10 −3
EI2 - 0.315 0.079 15.88 < 10 −4 0.006 0.088 0.005 0.942
EI3 0.045 0.064 0.500 0.480 0.124 0.112 1.222 0.269
Breakfast type (Same breakfast/B1 vs. B2) - 0.421 0.123 30.70 < 10 −6 - 0.534 0.129 48.41 < 10 −10
(B2 vs. B1/B1 vs. B2) - 1.008 0.187 - 1.313 0.192
Age - 0.281 0.072 15.24 < 10 −4 - 0.370 0.091 16.65 < 10 −4
Age departure from actual age - 0.116 0.094 1.895 0.169 - 0.371 0.085 18.99 < 10 −4
Fem/Masc Index 0.119 0.063 3.490 0.062 0.023 0.075 0.094 0.759
Perceived masculinity/femininity 0.167 0.085 4.133 0.042 0.182 0.062 8.460 0.004
BMI 0.035 0.064 0.311 0.577 - 0.044 0.083 0.284 0.594
Physical activity 0.124 0.066 3.458 0.063 0.261 0.075 12.12 < 10 −3
Smoker - 0.079 0.146 0.295 0.587 - 0.092 0.252 0.132 0.716
Parental home ownership - 0.148 0.149 0.983 0.321 0.461 0.170 7.315 0.007
Contraceptive - - - - 0.581 0.124 21.95 < 10 −5
Couple status 0.282 0.090 9.765 0.002 - 0.125 0.113 1.237 0.266
Facial hairiness - 0.345 0.078 19.73 < 10 −5 - - - -

Some control variables significantly influenced the choice of raters. For male and female subjects, age decreased the probability of being chosen as the most attractive (men: p < 10−4; women: p < 10−4). The age departure from actual age decreased women’s attractiveness (p < 10−4): at equal actual age, men preferred women with the youngest perceived age. As expected, physical activity had an increasing effect for both sexes but effect was marginally non-significant for men (men: p = 0.063; women: p < 10−3): individuals with higher physical activity were found to be more attractive. Perceived masculinity/femininity significantly increased attractiveness (men: p = 0.042; women: p = 0.004), while the effect of Fem/Masc Index on increasing male attractiveness was marginally non-significant (p = 0.062). Women preferred men considered more masculine, and men preferred women considered more feminine. Facial hairiness decreased the probability of being chosen (p < 10−5): men with more abundant facial hairiness were considered less attractive by women. Women also preferred men who were involved in a couple (p = 0.002). Parental home ownership increased women’s attractiveness (p = 0.007), and the use of a hormonal contraceptive also increased women’s attractiveness (p < 10−5).

The full models for men and women explained 4.5% and 6.0% of the total deviance, respectively. For both, the variance inflation factors (VIFs) were less than 2.50 (less than 3.20 for the qualitative variable of breakfast type for men). The VIF values for both models indicated that the multicollinearity between covariables was weak and not of concern [41].

Structural equation modeling indicated that the effect of RGL2 for women on attractiveness could be mediated by an effect on age departure from actual age (p = 0.013, S5 Table): a higher snack glycemic load increased the appearance of women towards an older age. These analyses also showed that the effect of physical activity on women’s attractiveness could be mediated by an effect on EI1, although marginally non-significant (p = 0.08): women who had higher physical activity were more likely to have breakfast with higher energy intake. For men, structural equation modeling indicated that the effect associated with RGL3 and EI2 on attractiveness could be mediated by an effect on perceived masculinity (RGL3: p = 0.015; EI2: p = 0.01, S5 Table). Men having a higher between-meal glycemic load or a higher energy intake during snacks were perceived as more feminine by women. The effect on EI1 on male attractiveness could also be mediated by an effect on perceived masculinity but in an opposite direction, although marginally non-significant (p = 0.057). Men with a higher breakfast energy intake were perceived as more masculine by women. Concerning the effect of physical activity on male attractiveness, analyses suggested that it could be mediated by RGL3 (p = 0.0140). Men practicing more sports had a lower between-meal glycemic load.

Discussion

In this study, we investigated the relationship between refined carbohydrate intake and facial attractiveness in healthy adults, women and men. We observed that facial attractiveness is not independent of immediate or chronic consumption of refined carbohydrates. Immediate consumption of a high glycemic breakfast decreases facial attractiveness for men and women. Chronic refined carbohydrate consumption displays different effects on attractiveness depending on the meal and/or the sex. Chronic refined carbohydrate consumption, estimated by the glycemic load, during the three studied meals (breakfast, afternoon snack and between-meal intake) reduced attractiveness, while a high energy intake increased it. Nevertheless, the effect was reversed for men concerning the afternoon snack, for which a high energy intake reduced attractiveness and a high glycemic load increased it. These effects were maintained when potential confounders for facial attractiveness were controlled such as age, age departure from actual age, masculinity/femininity (perceived and measured), BMI, physical activity, parental home ownership, smoking, couple status, hormonal contraceptive use (for women), and facial hairiness (for men).

How refined carbohydrate consumption could affect facial attractiveness?

Immediate breakfast consumption influenced attractiveness. Women and men who had eaten a high-glycemic breakfast were considered less attractive than those who had eaten a low-glycemic breakfast. The two types of breakfast were isocaloric, although they differed in the resulting glycemic dynamics [28]. Two hours after breakfast consumption, when facial pictures were taken, only the high-glycemic breakfast generated hypoglycemia [44]. Hypoglycemia is known to have visible symptoms, as it affects blood flow and skin [4547], which could be detectable on photos and thus affect attractiveness perception.

Chronic refined carbohydrate-rich food consumption leads to chronic hyperinsulinemia as a consequence of hyperglycemia, which interferes with growth factors and sex hormones, which in turn could modulate morphology and secondary sex characteristics [9]. Moreover, saturated fat is a known antagonist of insulin and a contributor to insulin resistance [48]. Thus, a large energy intake due to saturated fat consumption, even associated with low refined carbohydrate consumption, could lend some support to the hyperinsulinemic theory of [9, 12]. Chronic hyperinsulinemia influences the synthesis of androgens which are the precursors of male and female sex hormones [49]. It has been shown that facial femininity/masculinity can be influenced by sex hormones, which in turn could affect attractiveness: in general men prefer more feminine faces and women prefer more or less masculine faces, depending on the tradeoff between the costs and benefits of mating with a masculine male (for a review see [15]). In this study, for men, the perceived masculinity and the morphological Fem/Masc indices were positively linked with attractiveness. Structural equation modeling suggested that the negative effect of chronic between-meal glycemic load and afternoon snack energy intake on attractiveness could be mediated by an effect on perceived masculinity (chronic glycemic load reducing masculinity, thus indirectly decreasing attractiveness).

Repeated hyperglycemia due of chronic consumption of refined foods rich in carbohydrates could also have an impact on facial attractiveness. Indeed, it has been shown that chronic hyperglycemia accelerates glycation processes which, in turn, have an impact on skin aging [50, 51]. As skin aging directly impacts age appearance [52], hyperglycemia could affect age perception. Moreover, age is known to influence attractiveness [53]. For women, this influence is generally negative, as men generally prefer younger women [53]. For men, preference studies based only on facial photographs (thus no information on social status) have found a decrease in men’s attractiveness with age [5456]. For women, both actual age and age departure from actual age lead to a decrease in attractiveness. Structural equation modeling showed that the effect of afternoon snack glycemic load on attractiveness could be indirectly mediated through a direct effect on age departure from actual age, leading to an older appearance at equal actual age.

Why could the three chronic meals affect facial attractiveness differently between sexes?

Lipid and glucose metabolism are tuned to distinct sex-specific functions under the action of sex chromosomes and hormones. Considering glucose metabolism, women have higher whole-body insulin sensitivity than men [57, 58]. Glucose homeostasis, prediabetic syndromes, and type 1 and 2 diabetes show strong sex differences with a partial role of sex hormones [59]. The prevalence of type 2 diabetes and insulin resistance is higher in men than in women, and the opposite pattern is found for obesity [58]. Obese men are characterized by a progressive decrease in testosterone levels with increasing body weight, whereas obese women, particularly those with the abdominal phenotype (i.e., with insulin resistance), tend to develop a condition of functional hyperandrogenism [60]. Thus, the consequences of hyperglycemia and hyperinsulinemia could be different between men and women. For women, because of their higher sensitivity to insulin than men (and thus their lower risk of developing insulin resistance), sex hormones, and consequently facial femininity/masculinity, could be less affected by a large consumption of refined carbohydrates. This could explain why the effects of refined carbohydrate consumption on attractiveness were mediated by perceived masculinity for men, but not by perceived femininity for women.

Why do the three chronic meals affect facial attractiveness differently?

For women, chronic refined carbohydrate consumption during breakfast decreased facial attractiveness, whereas energy intake increased it. The effect of energy intake was estimated in the model at equal glycemic load and thus primarily represented the effects of fat and protein intake. Thus, breakfasts resulting in an increase in attractiveness comprised mainly fats and proteins (such as dairy) with few refined carbohydrates (Table 2). Breakfast is an important meal of the day, and skipping it (for those who usually take one) may be related to health issues, such as overweight and obesity [6163] or bad health habits. For instance, skipping breakfast is linked to a decrease in physical activity in women [64]. Structural equation modeling showed a marginally non-significant effect of physical activity on women’s breakfast energy intake. Indeed, women exercising more could be likely to have a higher protein and fat and a lower refined carbohydrate intake at breakfast, and to be involved in better life hygiene with a higher diet quality. Moreover, the intensity of physical activity can be a strong indicator of attractiveness [65], principally because it shows good health and because good health is associated with facial cues that affect attractiveness perception [66]. For men, an increase in energy intake during breakfast also increased attractiveness, probably for the same physiological and environmental reasons as those for women. However, the reduced attractiveness resulting from an increase in glycemic load during breakfast was restricted to women.

Afternoon snacking, a usual mid-afternoon meal known called “goûter” in France, corresponds (for people who are used to it) to a real food need. This meal is associated with a preprandial drop in plasma glucose and insulin concentrations and a strong motivation to eat [67], although only men were evaluated in that study. This could explain the increased attractiveness of men with a high glycemic load food consumption during the afternoon snack, providing immediately available glucose. Interestingly, also for men, energy intake had a reversed effect during this meal. One possibility is that a large proportion of saturated fat is involved in this meal, such as those found in pastries, as such fat is known to be an antagonist of insulin and a contributor to insulin resistance and thus hyperinsulinemia [48], thus mimicking the potential negative effects of refined carbohydrates on masculinity/femininity. This hypothesis was supported by structural equation modeling, which suggested that the decrease in attractiveness due to afternoon snack energy intake was mediated by a decrease in perceived masculinity for men. For women, the results were different: a negative effect of afternoon snack glycemic load on attractiveness was observed, and this effect was mediated by an older appearance (at equal chronological age), probably due to the consequence of hyperglycemia on aging.

Between-meal snacks are generally not associated with physiological hunger and are instead a consequence of social or other external stimuli, with little impact on satiety and compensation mechanisms [20]. The decreased attractiveness associated with an increase in refined carbohydrates consumption during between-meal snacks was observed for both sexes. For men, it could be modulated by physical activity and mediated by masculinity, as suggested by structural equation modeling: men who exercise less tend to eat more refined carbohydrates outside of regular meals, affecting their masculinity and their attractiveness.

Thus, the three types of meals might affect subjects’ facial attractiveness differently because they correspond to different ecological eating habits that have different physiological consequences.

How can the influence of diet on facial attractiveness be evolutionary triggered?

In general, traditional foods (pre-industrial or non-refined) do not generate hyperglycemia, with the exception of ripe fruits or honey which are energetically rewarding but are traditionally seasonal or scarce. In fact, humans did not evolve with constant access to food provoking a high glycaemic response, even after the rise of agriculture in the Neolithic era. It has been previously proposed that in the current industrial dietary environment, consumption of food that generates hyperglycemia is no longer a signal of quality, because this type of food is now not limited [8]. Its massive consumption generates phenotypic and physiological changes in the body, such as obesity and type 2 diabetes, which are attracting medical attention due to their life-threatening effects. It is thus not surprising that other negative effects not directly affecting health are also generated, such as reduced facial attractiveness.

Limitations

In this study, the chronic effect of refined carbohydrate intake on attractiveness may have been confounded by several variables that were not considered here. For example, attractiveness was not controlled for skin color (redness, yellowness) and aspect (brightness, luminance), although these factors are known to impact health perception [68] and could thus impact attractiveness [69, 70]. However, all facial photographs were taken indoors in the same technical room with fully controlled lighting conditions, thus reducing environmental variance for these traits. Skin color can also be modulated by diet and health habits [7174]. For instance, fruit and vegetable consumption is known to increase skin yellowness [75, 76]. In addition, because lunch and dinner were not recorded in this study, it was not possible to calculate an overall index of diet quality that could have accounted for other aspects of food that influence attractiveness. However, diet quality index and glycemic load values are correlated: higher index values are associated with increased low GL foods, see, e.g., [77, 78] and high fruit and vegetable consumption. Thus, diet quality with fruit and vegetable consumption was partially described by glycemic load measures. Another potential confounding variable we do not control is menstrual cycle, in woman sample of subject and raters. It has been shown that facial attractiveness may increase during ovulation, as assessed by male raters [79] and that women’s perception of men’s facial attractiveness could be influenced by their menstrual cycle [80]. We only control for contraception in woman sample of subjects (65% of the sample took a contraception). However, the bias associated with not taking this variable into account could be offset by the sample size, with the assumption that each participant’s menstrual cycle stage is randomized for the day of sampling. In addition, future studies should aim to control sleep, as sleep deprivation has been shown to have an effect on facial attractiveness [81]. Finally, the sample size of participants was relatively small. However, when 10% of the dataset was randomly deleted (1000 repetitions), for both women and men, the results did not change qualitatively (S6 Table). This indicates that the effects observed are strong enough to be detected even in a smaller sample.

Conclusion

The recent Western dietary change, mainly the massive increase in refined carbohydrate consumption, has well described adverse health consequences. Traits not under medical competence but still with large social importance seem also impacted, such as facial attractiveness. Facial attractiveness, an important factor of social interactions, seems to be impacted by immediate and chronic refined carbohydrate consumption. Further studies are needed to investigate how diet effects are mediated and which other social traits could be affected by refined carbohydrate consumption.

Supporting information

S1 Table. Exhaustive list of the different food items of the diet questionnaire in French and translated.

(DOCX)

pone.0298984.s001.docx (17.4KB, docx)
S2 Table. Effects of rater characteristics and subject age and sex on the subject age perception by raters.

Raters were instructed to ascribe an age for the photographs they were viewing. The estimate (β), standard error of the mean (se), χ² statistic, and corresponding p-value are given. Bold characters indicate significant (p < 0.05) effects.

(DOCX)

pone.0298984.s002.docx (15.6KB, docx)
S3 Table. Effects of rater characteristics on the subjects’ masculinity/femininity perception by raters.

The Wilcoxon test statistic (V), Friedman chi-squared (F) and corresponding p-value are given. Bold characters indicate significant (p < 0.05) effects. Median and terciles of age and study level were used for the Wilcoxon signed-rank test and Friedman two-way analysis of variance, respectively.

(DOCX)

pone.0298984.s003.docx (15.4KB, docx)
S4 Table. Effects of rater characteristics on the subjects’ attractiveness perception by raters.

The Wilcoxon test statistic (V), Friedman chi-squared (F) and corresponding p-value are given. Bold characters indicate significant (p < 0.05) effects. Median and terciles of age and study level were used for the Wilcoxon signed-rank test and Friedman two-way analysis of variance, respectively.

(DOCX)

pone.0298984.s004.docx (15.3KB, docx)
S5 Table. Structural equation analysis.

The results based on Figs 2 and 3. RC1, RC2 and RC3 are the three variables representing refined carbohydrate consumption. The standardized estimate (β), standard error of the mean (se), z-value, and corresponding p-value are given. Bold characters indicate significant (p < 0.05) effects. Foxing each sex, only variables with a p-value < 0.01 were integrated into the model.

(DOCX)

pone.0298984.s005.docx (22.8KB, docx)
S6 Table. Sensitivity analysis for the test of attractiveness for male or female faces.

After a random 10% data reduction, p-values are computed and this process is repeated 1000 times, providing a p-value distribution for each variable. RGL1, RGL2 and RGL3 are the three variables representing refined carbohydrate consumption. The mean p-value (mean p), standard deviation (sd), minimum p-value (min) and maximum p-value (max) are given.

(DOCX)

pone.0298984.s006.docx (18.1KB, docx)

Acknowledgments

The authors thank the City Hall of Montpellier, Luc Gomel and all staff from Serre Amazonienne for providing places for rater recruitment and the women and men who participated in this study. This is contribution ISEM 2024–032.

Data Availability

The data and R script associated with this research are available on Zenodo repository 10.5281/zenodo.7708732 but the photos of the participants are not available.

Funding Statement

This work was supported by Agence Nationale pour la Recherche “HUMANWAY” project (ANR-12- BSV7-0008-01). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Cordain L, Eaton SB, Sebastian A, Mann N, Lindeberg S, Watkins BA, et al. Origins and evolution of the Western diet: health implications for the 21st century. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 2005;81(2):341–54. doi: 10.1093/ajcn.81.2.341 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Hu FB, Manson JE, Stampfer MJ, Colditz G, Liu S, Solomon CG, et al. Diet, lifestyle, and the risk of type 2 diabetes mellitus in women. New England Journal of Medicine. 2001;345(11):790–7. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa010492 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Jellinger PS. Metabolic consequences of hyperglycemia and insulin resistance. Clinical Cornerstone. 2007;8:S30–42. doi: 10.1016/s1098-3597(07)80019-6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Johnson RJ, Segal MS, Sautin Y, Nakagawa T, Feig DI, Kang DH, et al. Potential role of sugar (fructose) in the epidemic of hypertension, obesity and the metabolic syndrome, diabetes, kidney disease, and cardiovascular disease. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 2007;86(4):899–906. doi: 10.1093/ajcn/86.4.899 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Gentreau M, Chuy V, Féart C, Samieri C, Ritchie K, Raymond M, et al. Refined carbohydrate-rich diet is associated with long-term risk of dementia and Alzheimer’s disease in apolipoprotein E ε4 allele carriers. Alzheimer’s & Dementia. 2020;16(7):1043–53. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Al-Badrani SM, Al-Sowayan NS. Consequences of insulin resistance long term in the body and its association with the development of chronic diseases. Journal of Biosciences and Medicines. 2022;10(12):96–109. [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Janssen JAMJL. Hyperinsulinemia and its pivotal role in aging, obesity, type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease and cancer. International Journal of Molecular Sciences. 2021;22(15):7797. doi: 10.3390/ijms22157797 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Berticat C, Durand V, Raymond M. Refined carbohydrate consumption and facial attractiveness. Evolutionary Psychology. 2020;18(4):147470492096044. doi: 10.1177/1474704920960440 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Cordain L, Lindeberg L, Hurtado AM, Hill K, Boyd Eaton S, Brand- Miller J. Acne vulgaris: a disease of Western civilization. Archives of Dermatology. 2002;138:1584–90. doi: 10.1001/archderm.138.12.1584 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Pitteloud N, Hardin M, Dwyer AA, Valassi E, Yialamas M, Elahi D, et al. Increasing insulin resistance is associated with a decrease in Leydig cell testosterone secretion in men. The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism. 2005;90(5):2636–41. doi: 10.1210/jc.2004-2190 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Pateguana NB, Janes A. The contribution of hyperinsulinemia to the hyperandrogenism of polycystic ovary syndrome. Journal of Insulin Resistance. 2019;4(1):1–3. [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Cordain L, Eades MR, Eades MD. Hyperinsulinemic diseases of civilization: more than just Syndrome X. Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology Part A: Molecular & Integrative Physiology. 2003;136(1):95–112. doi: 10.1016/s1095-6433(03)00011-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Chaudhuri A. Polycystic ovary syndrome: Causes, symptoms, pathophysiology, and remedies. Obesity Medicine. 2023;39:100480. [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Zhang Z, Hu X, Yang C, Chen X. Early age at menarche is associated with insulin resistance: a systemic review and meta-analysis. Postgraduate Medicine. 2019;131(2):144–50. doi: 10.1080/00325481.2019.1559429 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Puts DA, Jones BC, DeBruine LM. Sexual selection on human faces and voices. The Journal of Sex Research. 2012;49(2-3):227–43. doi: 10.1080/00224499.2012.658924 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Eastwick PW, Luchies LB, Finkel EJ, Hunt LL. The predictive validity of ideal partner preferences: a review and meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin. 2014;140(3):623–65. doi: 10.1037/a0032432 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Ritts V, Patterson ML, Tubbs ME. Expectations, impressions, and judgments of physically attractive students: a review. Review of Educational Research. 1992. [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Praino R, Stockemer D, Ratis J. Looking good or looking competent? Physical appearance and electoral success in the 2008 congressional elections. American Politics Research. 2014. [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Van Den Abbeele J, Penton-Voak IS, Attwood AS, Stephen ID, Munafò MR. Increased facial attractiveness following moderate, but not high, alcohol consumption. Alcohol and Alcoholism. 2015;50(3):296–301. doi: 10.1093/alcalc/agv010 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Bellisle F. Meals and snacking, diet quality and energy balance. Physiology & Behavior. 2014;134:38–43. doi: 10.1016/j.physbeh.2014.03.010 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Kanarek RB, Swinney D. Effects of food snacks on cognitive performance in male college students. Appetite. 1990;14(1):15–27. doi: 10.1016/0195-6663(90)90051-9 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Hätönen KA, Virtamo J, Eriksson JG, Sinkko HK, Sundvall JE, Valsta LM. Protein and fat modify the glycaemic and insulinaemic responses to a mashed potato-based meal. British Journal of Nutrition. 2011;106(2):248–53. doi: 10.1017/S0007114511000080 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Sun L, Goh HJ, Govindharajulu P, Leow MKS, Henry CJ. Postprandial glucose, insulin and incretin responses differ by test meal macronutrient ingestion sequence (PATTERN study). Clinical Nutrition. 2020;39(3):950–7. doi: 10.1016/j.clnu.2019.04.001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Bellisle F, Dalix AM, Mennen L, Galan P, Hercberg S, de Castro JM, et al. Contribution of snacks and meals in the diet of French adults: a diet-diary study. Physiology & Behavior. 2003;79(2):183–9. doi: 10.1016/s0031-9384(03)00088-x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.BBellisle F, Hébel P, Salmon-Legagneur A, Vieux F. Breakfast consumption in French children, adolescents, and adults: a nationally representative cross-sectional survey examined in the context of the international breakfast research initiative. Nutrients. 2018;10(8):1056. doi: 10.3390/nu10081056 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Guillou L, Durand V, Raymond M, Berticat C. Chronic refined carbohydrate consumption measured by glycemic load and variation in cognitive performance in healthy people. Personality and Individual Differences. 2023;206:112138. [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Slimani N, Ferrari P, Ocke M, Welch A, Boeing H, Van Liere M, et al. Standardization of the 24-hour diet recall calibration method used in the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC): general concepts and preliminary results. European Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 2000;54(12):900. doi: 10.1038/sj.ejcn.1601107 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Hercberg S, Galan P, Preziosi P, Bertrais S, Mennen L, Malvy D, et al. The SU. VI. MAX Study: a randomized, placebo-controlled trial of the health effects of antioxidant vitamins and minerals. Archives of internal medicine. 2004;164(21):2335–42. doi: 10.1001/archinte.164.21.2335 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Foster-Powell K, Holt SH, Brand-Miller JC. International table of glycemic index and glycemic load values: 2002. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 2002;76(1):5–56. doi: 10.1093/ajcn/76.1.5 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Monro JA, Shaw M. Glycemic impact, glycemic glucose equivalents, glycemic index, and glycemic load: definitions, distinctions, and implications. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 2008;87(1):237S–243S. doi: 10.1093/ajcn/87.1.237S [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Eleazu CO. The concept of low glycemic index and glycemic load foods as panacea for type 2 diabetes mellitus; prospects, challenges and solutions. African Health Sciences. 2016;16(2):468–79. doi: 10.4314/ahs.v16i2.15 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Willett WC, Howe GR, Kushi LH. Adjustment for total energy intake in epidemiologic studies. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 1997;65(4):1220S–1228S. doi: 10.1093/ajcn/65.4.1220S [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Dixson BJW, Lee AJ, Sherlock JM, Talamas SN. Beneath the beard: do facial morphometrics influence the strength of judgments of men’s beardedness? Evolution and Human Behavior. 2017;38(2):164–74. [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Lee AJ, Mitchem DG, Wright MJ, Martin NG, Keller MC, Zietsch BP. Genetic factors that increase male facial masculinity decrease facial attractiveness of female relatives. Psychological Science. 2014;25(2):476–84. doi: 10.1177/0956797613510724 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Scott IML, Pound N, Stephen ID, Clark AP, Penton-Voak IS. Does masculinity matter? The contribution of masculine face shape to male attractiveness in humans. Vitzthum VJ, éditeur. PLOS One. 2010;5(10):e13585. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0013585 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Tiddeman BP, Stirrat MR, Perrett DI. Towards realism in facial image transformation: results of a wavelet MRF method. Computer Graphics Forum. 2005;24(3):449–56. [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Zelditch ML, Swiderski DL, Sheets HD. Geometric morphometrics for biologists: a primer. Academic Press; 2012. [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Chung Y, Rabe-Hesketh S, Dorie V, Gelman A, Liu J. A Nondegenerate penalized likelihood estimator for variance parameters in multilevel models. Psychometrika. 2013;78(4):685–709. doi: 10.1007/s11336-013-9328-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Rosseel Y. lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling. Journal of Statistical Software. 2012;48(1):1–36. [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Harrell FE. Regression modeling strategies: with applications to linear models, logistic and ordinal regression, and survival analysis. Springer International Publishing; 2015. [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Zuur AF, Ieno EN, Elphick CS. A protocol for data exploration to avoid common statistical problems. Methods in Ecology and Evolution. 2010;1(1):3–14. [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Barr DJ, Levy R, Scheepers C, Tily HJ. Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and Language. 2013;68(3):255–78. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2012.11.001 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Hume DK, Montgomerie R. Facial attractiveness signals different aspects of “quality” in women and men. Evolution and human behavior. 2001; 22(2), 93–112.) doi: 10.1016/s1090-5138(00)00065-9 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Jenkins DJ, Wolever TM, Taylor RH, Ghafari H, Jenkins AL, Barker H, et al. Rate of digestion of foods and postprandial glycaemia in normal and diabetic subjects. British Medical Journal.1980;281(6232):14–7. doi: 10.1136/bmj.281.6232.14 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Allwood MJ, Hensel H, Papenberg J. Muscle and skin blood flow in the human forearm during insulin hypoglycaemia. The Journal of Physiology. 1959;147(2):269–73. doi: 10.1113/jphysiol.1959.sp006242 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Pundyk KJ, Marks SD. Hypoglycemia. In: Stanley T, Misra M, editors. Endocrine conditions in pediatrics: a practical guide. Springer International Publishing; 2021. p. 53–55. [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Tronstad C, Elvebakk O, Staal OM, Kalvøy H, Høgetveit JO, Jenssen TG, et al. Non-invasive prediction of blood glucose trends during hypoglycemia. Analytica Chimica Acta. 2019;1052:37–48. doi: 10.1016/j.aca.2018.12.009 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Kennedy A, Martinez K, Chuang CC, LaPoint K, McIntosh M. Saturated fatty acid-mediated inflammation and insulin resistance in adipose tissue: mechanisms of action and implications. The Journal of Nutrition. 2009;139(1):1–4. doi: 10.3945/jn.108.098269 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Lutz SZ, Wagner R, Fritsche L, Peter A, Rettig I, Willmann C, et al. Sex-specific associations of testosterone with metabolic traits. Frontiers in Endocrinology. 2019;10. doi: 10.3389/fendo.2019.00090 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Danby FW. Nutrition and aging skin: sugar and glycation. Clinical Dermatology. 2010;28(4):409–11. doi: 10.1016/j.clindermatol.2010.03.018 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Jencks C, And Others. Who gets ahead? The determinants of economic success in America. New York: Basic Books;1979. [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Nkengne A, Bertin C, Stamatas GN, Giron A, Rossi A, Issachar N, et al. Influence of facial skin attributes on the perceived age of Caucasian women. Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology. 2008;22(8):982–91. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-3083.2008.02698.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Samson N, Fink B, Matts PJ. Visible skin condition and perception of human facial appearance. International Journal of Cosmetic Science. 2010;32(3):167–84. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2494.2009.00535.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Escasa M, Gray PB, Patton JQ. Male traits associated with attractiveness in Conambo, Ecuador. Evolution and Human Behavior. 2010;31(3):193–200. [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Mathes EW, Brennan SM, Haugen PM, Rice HB. Ratings of physical attractiveness as a function of age. The Journal of Social Psychology. 1985;125(2):157–68. doi: 10.1080/00224545.1985.9922868 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.McLellan B, McKelvie SJ. Effects of age and gender on perceived facial attractiveness. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science / Revue canadienne des sciences du comportement. 1993;25(1):135–42. [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Magkos F, Wang X, Mittendorfer B. Metabolic actions of insulin in men and women. Nutrition. 2010;26(7):686–93. doi: 10.1016/j.nut.2009.10.013 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Varlamov O, Bethea CL, Roberts CT. Sex-specific differences in lipid and glucose metabolism. Frontiers in Endocrinology. 2015;5:241. doi: 10.3389/fendo.2014.00241 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Mauvais-Jarvis F. Gender differences in glucose homeostasis and diabetes. Physiology & Behavior. 2018;187:20–3. doi: 10.1016/j.physbeh.2017.08.016 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Pasquali R. Obesity and androgens: facts and perspectives. Fertility and Sterility. 2006;85(5):1319–40. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2005.10.054 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Ma L, Wang J, Li Y. Insulin resistance and cognitive dysfunction. Clinica Chimica Acta. 2015;444:18–23. doi: 10.1016/j.cca.2015.01.027 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Mekary RA, Giovannucci E, Willett WC, van Dam RM, Hu FB. Eating patterns and type 2 diabetes risk in men: breakfast omission, eating frequency, and snacking1234. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 2012;95(5):1182–9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Song WO, Chun OK, Obayashi S, Cho S, Chung CE. Is consumption of breakfast associated with body mass index in US adults? Journal of the American Dietetic Association. 2005;105(9):1373–82. doi: 10.1016/j.jada.2005.06.002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Yoshimura E, Hatamoto Y, Yonekura S, Tanaka H. Skipping breakfast reduces energy intake and physical activity in healthy women who are habitual breakfast eaters: A randomized crossover trial. Physiology & Behavior. 2017;174:89–94. doi: 10.1016/j.physbeh.2017.03.008 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Brewer G, Howarth S. Sport, attractiveness and aggression. Personality and Individual Differences. 2012;53(5):640–3. [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Shackelford TK, Larsen RJ. Facial attractiveness and physical health. Evolution and Human Behavior. 1999;20(1):71–6. [Google Scholar]
  • 67.Chapelot D, Marmonier C, Aubert R, Gausseres N, Louis-Sylvestre J. A role for glucose and insulin preprandial profiles to differentiate meals and snacks. Physiology & Behavior. 2004;80(5):721–31. doi: 10.1016/j.physbeh.2003.12.006 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 68.Jones AL, Porcheron A, Sweda JR, Morizot F, Russell R. Coloration in different areas of facial skin is a cue to health: The role of cheek redness and periorbital luminance in health perception. Body Image. 2016;17:57–66. doi: 10.1016/j.bodyim.2016.02.001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 69.Fink B, Grammer K, Matts PJ. Visible skin color distribution plays a role in the perception of age, attractiveness, and health in female faces. Evolution and Human Behavior. 2006;27(6):433–42. [Google Scholar]
  • 70.Fink B, Matts PJ, D’Emiliano D, Bunse L, Weege B, Röder S. Colour homogeneity and visual perception of age, health and attractiveness of male facial skin. Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology. 2012;26(12):1486–92. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-3083.2011.04316.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 71.Ashton LM, Pezdirc KB, Hutchesson MJ, Rollo ME, Collins CE. Is Skin Coloration Measured by Reflectance Spectroscopy Related to Intake of Nutrient-Dense Foods? A Cross-Sectional Evaluation in Australian Young Adults. Nutrients. 2018;10(1):11. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 72.Coyle DH, Pezdirc K, Hutchesson MJ, Collins CE. Intake of specific types of fruit and vegetables is associated with higher levels of skin yellowness in young women: A cross-sectional study. Nutrition research. 2018;56:23–31. doi: 10.1016/j.nutres.2018.03.006 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 73.Gupta MA, Gupta AK. Dissatisfaction with skin appearance among patients with eating disorders and non-clinical controls. British Journal of Dermatology. 2001;145(1):110–3. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2133.2001.04292.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 74.Perrett DI, Talamas SN, Cairns P, Henderson AJ. Skin color cues to human health: carotenoids, aerobic fitness, and body fat. Frontiers in Psychology. 2020;11:392. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00392 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 75.Appleton KM, McGrath AJ, McKinley MC, Draffin CR, Hamill LL, Young IS, et al. The value of facial attractiveness for encouraging fruit and vegetable consumption: analyses from a randomized controlled trial. BMC Public Health. 2018;18(1):298. doi: 10.1186/s12889-018-5202-6 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 76.Zuniga A, Stevenson RJ, Mahmut MK, Stephen ID. Diet quality and the attractiveness of male body odor. Evolution and Human Behavior. 2017;38(1):136–43. [Google Scholar]
  • 77.Azadbakht L, Mohammadifard N, Akhavanzanjani M, Taheri M, Golshahi J, Haghighatdoost F. The association between dietary glycemic index, glycemic load and diet quality indices in Iranian adults: results from Isfahan Healthy Heart Program. International Journal of Food Sciences and Nutrition. 2016;67(2):161–9. doi: 10.3109/09637486.2015.1134443 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 78.Jones M, Barclay AW, Brand-Miller JC, Louie JCY. Dietary glycaemic index and glycaemic load among Australian children and adolescents: results from the 2011–2012 Australian Health Survey. British Journal of Nutrition. 2016;116(1):178–87. doi: 10.1017/S0007114516001823 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 79.Roberts SC, Havlicek J, Flegr J, Hruskova M, Little AC, Jones BC, et al. Female facial attractiveness increases during the fertile phase of the menstrual cycle. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series B. 2004;271(Suppl 5):S270–2. doi: 10.1098/rsbl.2004.0174 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 80.Penton-Voak IS, Perrett DI, Castles DL, Kobayashi T, Burt DM, Murray LK, et al. Menstrual cycle alters face preference. Nature.1999;399(6738):741–2. doi: 10.1038/21557 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 81.Sundelin T, Lekander M, Sorjonen K and Axelsson J. Negative effects of restricted sleep on facial appearance and social appeal. Royal Society Open Science. 2017;4160918160918. doi: 10.1098/rsos.160918 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Shen Liu

5 Sep 2023

PONE-D-23-07591Chronic and immediate refined carbohydrate consumption measured by glycemic load, and facial attractivenessPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Berticat,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Oct 20 2023 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Shen Liu, Ph.D

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please amend either the abstract on the online submission form (via Edit Submission) or the abstract in the manuscript so that they are identical.

3. We note that Figure 1  in your submission contain copyrighted images. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright. 

We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission:

A. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figure 1 to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license. 

We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text:

“I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.”

Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an "Other" file with your submission. 

In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].”

B. If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: I read the whole manuscript entitled " Chronic and immediate refined carbohydrate consumption measured by glycemic load, and facial attractiveness" and I have few suggestions.

It's very hard to state attractiveness in words but it would be great if authors can define in few words/lines about it. Also, the opposite genders always have some degree of attractiveness to each other too. So, a formal statement about it should also be included in definition.

Page#3 and Line#64: I suggest changing the word “repeated” with persistent.

Page#3 and Line#68-69: any reference to support this would be great

Reviewer #2: Thank you for the opportunity to review this very interesting study.

This is an observational study assessing the association between refined carbohydrate consumption and facial attractiveness. The authors have conducted a thorough investigation, taking into account a large number of variables that could potentially be related to the main outcome.

Although I find great interest in the study and its results, I have some concerns regarding the methodology and study design. I find that the authors have not controlled well all possible confounders and have conducted a large number of tests in order to explore various associations. Also, the sample population is very small in order to make reliable conclusions about the primary outcome if all possible confounders are taken into account.

Therefore, I am unfortunately not able to recommend publication of this manuscript in its current form. My detailed comments are listed below.

Major comments:

•Introduction

- I suggest that the authors rephrase and soften their statements about the association between carbohydrate consumption and medical disease. Despite current evidence regarding these relationships, most of these diseases have multifaceted etiologies and are likely not attributed to a single cause. I am referring to the first paragraph of the introduction.

- The authors are citing Reference #8 to support a lot of their statement in the introduction. Reference #8 is a non-systematic, topic review article with little scientific merit. I suggest that the authors support their statements with research articles or systematic reviews/meta-analyses throughout the manuscript.

•Material and Methods

- Please provide more information about the study population in the text. There is no information regarding the number of subjects per group, ages, sexual orientation, etc. This information are only partially provided in tables. It appears that references #27 is a study previously performed by the group using the same sample population. I looked at the study, but the demographic information provided there is also incomplete. Please elaborate in detail on the characteristics of the study population.

- In study #27, the authors mention that the study population comprises young adults between 20-30 yrs of age. This information is not provided clearly in the present manuscript, however I assume that is true. There is a large discrepancy in the age of the subjects and the raters. It is well documented that age has a significant effect on the perception of attractiveness, with older individuals becoming “less strict” with time.

- The authors report keeping the first 16 PDs for their shape analysis (explaining more than 83% of variation). How did they decide on this cut off limit? Was the broken-stick method used?

- There is no mention in the manuscript regarding the assessment of systematic and random error related to the study methodology. In my view this is an essential part of the study methodology when conducting studies that investigate the subjective outcomes such as facial attractiveness.

•Results

- It appears that a 10% type-1 error was accepted for all statistical analyses. Can the authors please elaborate on this decision?

Minor comments:

•Title

-The title is a little confusing. It implies that carbohydrate consumption was measured with facial attractiveness. I suggest rephrasing the title to: “Refined carbohydrate consumption and facial attractiveness.”

•Abstract:

- Please include more specific results in the abstract. For example, how much was facial attractiveness decreased?

•Ethic Statement:

- The authors state that no authors had access to identifying information of the study participants. Were the authors not part of the study protocol that was submitted to the ethics committee? Did none of the authors participate in data collection and analyses? Could the authors please provide an “author contribution statement” in the revised manuscript?

•Introduction:

- There is a large number of references used in the first paragraph (2-14) to show an association between carbohydrate consumption and medical disease. I would suggest to reduce the number of references to the most relevant ones that apply more to the topic of interest.

•Material and Methods

- Menstrual cycle has an effect on facial attractiveness in women. Facial attractiveness increases during ovulation, as rated by male observers. This is a confounding factor that was not taken into consideration. Please see: “Roberts, S. C. et al. Female facial attractiveness increases during the fertile phase of the menstrual cycle. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences 271, 1–3 (2004).’

Also, women’s perception of male facial attractiveness is influenced by their menstrual cycle which would also affect ratings in this study. Please see: Penton-Voak, I. S. et al. Menstrual cycle alters face preference. Nature 399, 741–742 (1999).

These factors need to be discussed and considered as serious confounders in the methodology of this investigation.

- Was raters’ sexual orientation taken into consideration in the regression models or in rater selection?

•Figures and Tables

- Figures 2 and 3: Is the P-value a typo or did the authors accept a 10% type-1 error?

- I suggest that the authors reduce the text in the result section and add tables and figures displaying their results more visually. This will help readership the understand and interpret the results easier.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Ahsan

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2024 Mar 6;19(3):e0298984. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0298984.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


3 Nov 2023

Thank you for the comments. They have all been taken into consideration, and the revised manuscript is significantly improved.

Reviewer #1: I read the whole manuscript entitled " Chronic and immediate refined carbohydrate consumption measured by glycemic load, and facial attractiveness" and I have few suggestions.

- It's very hard to state attractiveness in words but it would be great if authors can define in few words/lines about it. Also, the opposite genders always have some degree of attractiveness to each other too. So, a formal statement about it should also be included in definition.

A sentence was added page 3, lines 76-78: “In the field of evolutionary biology, attractiveness (or preference) refers to an individual's tendency to be drawn to specific traits or characteristics in potential mating or social exchange partners.”

- Page#3 and Line#64: I suggest changing the word “repeated” with persistent.

This word has been changed as suggested.

- Page#3 and Line#68-69: any reference to support this would be great

We have added a reference page 3, line 67.

Reviewer #2: Thank you for the opportunity to review this very interesting study.

This is an observational study assessing the association between refined carbohydrate consumption and facial attractiveness. The authors have conducted a thorough investigation, taking into account a large number of variables that could potentially be related to the main outcome. Although I find great interest in the study and its results, I have some concerns regarding the methodology and study design. I find that the authors have not controlled well all possible confounders and have conducted a large number of tests in order to explore various associations. Also, the sample population is very small in order to make reliable conclusions about the primary outcome if all possible confounders are taken into account. Therefore, I am unfortunately not able to recommend publication of this manuscript in its current form. My detailed comments are listed below.

Major comments:

•Introduction

- I suggest that the authors rephrase and soften their statements about the association between carbohydrate consumption and medical disease. Despite current evidence regarding these relationships, most of these diseases have multifaceted etiologies and are likely not attributed to a single cause. I am referring to the first paragraph of the introduction.

In the first paragraph of introduction, we have moderated the importance of the link between refined carbohydrate consumption and medical problems page 3, lines 58-62: “The mismatch between how human physiology has evolved and Western industrialized lifestyles is seen as a contributing factor to the current epidemic of numerous medical problems. For example, it has been shown that this massive dietary change was involved in obesity, insulin resistance, type II diabetes, cardiovascular diseases, Alzheimer’s disease, hypertension or myopia (2–5).”

- The authors are citing Reference #8 to support a lot of their statement in the introduction. Reference #8 is a non-systematic, topic review article with little scientific merit. I suggest that the authors support their statements with research articles or systematic reviews/meta-analyses throughout the manuscript.

We have added reference to research articles or reviews throughout the manuscript each time this reference is cited (it is now reference #12). We agree that this reference is not a systematic review or meta-analyses. However, Cordain et al 2003 were the first to propose a plausible synthesis about the potential hormonal consequences of refined carbohydrate consumption on health.

•Material and Methods

- Please provide more information about the study population in the text. There is no information regarding the number of subjects per group, ages, sexual orientation, etc. This information are only partially provided in tables. It appears that references #27 is a study previously performed by the group using the same sample population. I looked at the study, but the demographic information provided there is also incomplete. Please elaborate in detail on the characteristics of the study population.

Characteristics of the population are now provided in the Materials and Methods section, page 6, lines 138-144, and in the new Table 1 (corresponding to the former Table 4, completed). The order of the tables has been changed and the first paragraph of the Results section has been deleted. The population information contained in this paragraph has been moved to the Materials and Methods section for the sake of consistency (lines 165-167, page 8; lines 210-213,page 10; lines 234-235, page 11).

- In study #27, the authors mention that the study population comprises young adults between 20-30 yrs of age. This information is not provided clearly in the present manuscript, however I assume that is true. There is a large discrepancy in the age of the subjects and the raters. It is well documented that age has a significant effect on the perception of attractiveness, with older individuals becoming “less strict” with time.

This information on age of the study population in now clearly provided in Materials and Methods section, line 138 page 6. Effect of rater’s age on attractiveness (and also level study) was tested and was non significant for both sex. This is now indicated in manuscript page 13, lines 285-297, in a new paragraph “Effects of rater characteristics on their attractiveness perception” and results have been added in a new table in Supporting Information, Table S4.

- The authors report keeping the first 16 PDs for their shape analysis (explaining more than 83% of variation). How did they decide on this cut off limit? Was the broken-stick method used?

The procedure is now explained in the text page 9 line 189-190: “ An arbitrary cut-off of minimum 80% variance explained was applied to select the axis, thus the first 16 axes were retained (explaining 83.7% of variance) for further analyses”.

- There is no mention in the manuscript regarding the assessment of systematic and random error related to the study methodology. In my view this is an essential part of the study methodology when conducting studies that investigate the subjective outcomes such as facial attractiveness.

We understand the importance of assessing systematic and random errors in studies investigating subjective outcomes such as facial attractiveness. While these aspects were not explicitly addressed in the first version of the manuscript, we would like to highlight that we have taken measures to account for them in our methodology. To assess systematic errors, we meticulously designed our study by following established protocols and ensuring that experimental conditions were standardized as much as possible (for subjects and raters). For example, we used recruitment procedures to limit the risk of selection bias by defining clear inclusion and exclusion criteria for our study samples. In addition, all photographs and all assessments of facial attractiveness were conducted in a controlled environment with consistent lighting, background, and room temperature to reduce variability caused by external factors. Participants and raters were also kept blind to the study's objectives to minimize potential biases related to knowledge of the research goals. Additionally, we employed appropriate statistical methods to control for potential confounding factors (for raters and subjects). Regarding random errors, we used reliable and reproducible measurement techniques for the photographs and the assessment of facial attractiveness. The sample sizes of participants and raters were determined on the basis of power calculations to ensure that the study had sufficient statistical power to detect significant differences in attractiveness ratings and we increased the sample sizes to minimize the impact of random variability (subjects and raters). This is now included in the manuscript in materials and methods, section “Assessment of systematic and random errors.“ (lines 339-356 page 15).

•Results

- It appears that a 10% type-1 error was accepted for all statistical analyses. Can the authors please elaborate on this decision?

Type-I error is 5% throughout. There were several mentions in the text of “marginally significant” results when the P-value was between 0.05 and 0.10. To avoid confusion, these situations are now mentioned as “marginally non-significant” (page 16, lines 377, 389; page 17, lines 392, 405, 411). See also below for the path-analysis section (Minor comments / Figures and Tables).

Minor comments:

•Title

-The title is a little confusing. It implies that carbohydrate consumption was measured with facial attractiveness. I suggest rephrasing the title to: “Refined carbohydrate consumption and facial attractiveness.”

The title was rephrased: “Chronic and immediate Refined carbohydrate consumption and facial attractiveness”

•Abstract

- Please include more specific results in the abstract. For example, how much was facial attractiveness decreased?

More specific results are now included in the abstract, lines 38-45.

•Ethic Statement

- The authors state that no authors had access to identifying information of the study participants. Were the authors not part of the study protocol that was submitted to the ethics committee? Did none of the authors participate in data collection and analyses? Could the authors please provide an “author contribution statement” in the revised manuscript?

Some authors did participate at all stages of the study. Data were analyzed anonymously and no authors had access to information that could identify individual participants during or after data collection. We gave each participant a unique ID and each facial sample was anonymized with a separate set of ID. The translation key between these two sets of IDs was stored in a separate file. This file was stored in a secured server and was not stored beside the collected data.

We have had a section “Author contribution in the revised manuscript” page 25 line 591-594. “CB and MR planned and supervised study. AV, CB, LG and VD conducted different parts of study. AV and CB analyzed study. AV, CB and MR wrote the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.”

•Introduction:

- There is a large number of references used in the first paragraph (2-14) to show an association between carbohydrate consumption and medical disease. I would suggest to reduce the number of references to the most relevant ones that apply more to the topic of interest.

This was done. We have reduced the number of references.

•Material and Methods

- Menstrual cycle has an effect on facial attractiveness in women. Facial attractiveness increases during ovulation, as rated by male observers. This is a confounding factor that was not taken into consideration. Please see: “Roberts, S. C. et al. Female facial attractiveness increases during the fertile phase of the menstrual cycle. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences 271, 1–3 (2004).’

Also, women’s perception of male facial attractiveness is influenced by their menstrual cycle which would also affect ratings in this study. Please see: Penton-Voak, I. S. et al. Menstrual cycle alters face preference. Nature 399, 741–742 (1999).

These factors need to be discussed and considered as serious confounders in the methodology of this investigation.

Facial attractiveness is indeed influenced by many variables and we have taken into account the main ones, such as age, facial morphology, hormonal contraception, etc. But of course there are many variables not considered in this study, including menstrual cycles. This is compensated by the sample size, with the hypothesis that the sample is randomized according to the variables not included. In other words, if the stage of the menstrual cycle of each women participant is randomized for the sampling day, then there is no bias of not considering this variable. This limitation is now stated in the manuscript page 24, lines 567-573 and hormonal contraception was added in the new Table 1.

- Was raters’ sexual orientation taken into consideration in the regression models or in rater selection?

In order to reduce cultural sample heterogeneity, we kept for analyses heterosexual individuals (participants and raters).

This is now clearly indicated: line 138, page 6 for participants; line 229, page 11 for masculinity/femininity raters; line 250, page 12 for attractiveness raters.

•Figures and Tables

- Figures 2 and 3: Is the P-value a typo or did the authors accept a 10% type-1 error?

Structural equation modeling was performed using (conservatively) the variables from the model studying perceived attractiveness displaying P < 0.1, as explained in the text (page 14, lines 322-323). But all results described in this study are based on type-I error of 5%. This is now clearly stated. The legends of Figures 2 and 3 have been modified to avoid confusion.

- I suggest that the authors reduce the text in the result section and add tables and figures displaying their results more visually. This will help readership the understand and interpret the results easier.

We have added a new figure (Figure 4) which is a forest plot with the odds ratio from the model studying perceived attractiveness.

Attachment

Submitted filename: response_to_reviewers.docx

pone.0298984.s007.docx (25.4KB, docx)

Decision Letter 1

Shen Liu

22 Jan 2024

PONE-D-23-07591R1Chronic and immediate refined carbohydrate consumption and facial attractivenessPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Berticat,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Mar 07 2024 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Shen Liu, Ph.D

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Additional Editor Comments:

I have carefully read the manuscript “Chronic and immediate refined carbohydrate consumption and facial attractiveness.” Note that I became a reviewer at this round; and my knowledge of the evolution of the manuscript is limited to what is present in the “response to reviewers” section. I gather that the revisions sufficiently addressed the previous concerns. I found much to like in the manuscript and found the topic novel and interesting. However, I think some further revisions may be necessary. I list potential revisions below for the editor and authors’ consideration.

1. My biggest issue with the present article was that I was unable to find any report of power analyses and could not discern how sample size was determined. In the revision, the authors explain in response to a reviewer that “The sample sizes of participants and raters were determined on the basis of power calculations to ensure that the study had sufficient statistical power to detect significant differences in attractiveness ratings, based on a previous study (8) and were chosen to minimize the impact of random variability.” The same text is also in the manuscript now. I was unable to find any details of power analyses in reference #8, (which, to be sure, should be here: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1474704920960440). If power analyses indeed exist, they need to be reported. If they do not exist, then sensitivity analyses should be provided retrospectively and their result would critically determine the evaluation of the article (my decision recommendation of "minor revision" would probably not hold any longer). The current sample size is not so large by some standards (e.g., https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0092656613000858) and we need to have a clearer idea of the reliability of the present findings.

2. My position amidst the incessant debates about null hypothesis significance testing is that usage of phrases such as “marginally significant” are in error. If you subscribe to the Neyman-Pearson approach, there is no such thing. I would recommend removing this phrase and being consistent in the usage of alpha level to decide on significance and its absence. In addition, there are many p-values derived from the same dataset and no consideration of experimentwise Type I error. Thus, if one also extends the threshold for deciding on the presence of effects to the “marginal” area (e.g., .05-.1), then there is an even greater risk of some of these findings to represent Type 1 error.

3. I did not see any mention of sleep quality (chronic and in the night prior to data collection) but based on the literature, this is another important factor in the current setting and could be mentioned as something that future studies should aim to control.

4. I did not see any mention of make-up or facial accessories. Was there any request for participants to remove make-up or detachable accessories (piercing, etc.)? If not this would be a serious limitation and could also be confounded with lifestyle and thus the chronic diet. Did any participants have facial tattoos? At the least, I would expect the authors to handle this by performing the same kind of procedure they applied to facial hairiness.

5. Response options for the “geographical origin of the grandparents” item could be added. It is not clear whether this is asking for ethnicity directly or the researchers are inferring ethnicity from geographical position of where the grandparents were born or grew up in.

6. Line 191: The full term for “LDA” should be added (i.e., “linear discriminant analysis” I suppose).

7. The authors describe where participants were approached but not where they were tested. The latter should be added.

8. Where only p-values are provided, full statistics could be added, such as on lines 234-235 (correlation coefficients should be added there). Assuming those are p-values, why are they capitalized?

9. I think the Statistical Analyses section would be easier to read if there was an overview of what was done and why at the beginning (and/or at the beginning of each of its subsections). Why was a particular analysis needed could be made clearer. In addition, I think the subsections should be grouped under broader headings. Which subsections are preparatory or necessary checks and which ones contain the central tests would become clearer this way.

10. It is not clear to me why parental home ownership was assessed. I assume it is a proxy for the participant’s socioeconomic status as these are relatively young individuals. Whatever it is assumed to measure, how is it linked to facial attractiveness (or how is it relevant to the current study)? These could be clarified.

11. In the parenthesis that starts at the end of line 310, shouldn’t one of the three modalities be “B2 versus B1” (instead of two of them both being “B1 versus B2”)?

12. In the captions for Figures 2 and 3, instead of “women/men to explain their attractiveness,” one could simply write “women’s/men’s attractiveness.”

13. Line 398: Shouldn’t “total deviance” be “total variance?”

14. Line 462: “influence” should be “influences”. In the same line, as in others, I think it’s better to follow an earlier reviewer’s suggestion of using “persistent” or “chronic” instead of “repeated.”

15. Lines 464-465: Delete the last “s” in both of these phrases: “men prefers” and “women prefers”

16. Line 465: I disagree with the assertion that “women prefers more masculine faces.” For instance, even the review article cited in support of this mentions the many nuances (e.g., contextual moderators) that would qualify such a broad assertion as well as findings in the opposite direction. Thus, I think at least an indication that these caveats are acknowledged should be provided. This is important because it will make the authors’ explanation of some of their effects more tentative, which I think would be more balanced at this stage of our knowledge about the topic.

17. Line 478: I do not understand the usage of “escalated”. How do these factors escalate (i.e., increase in intensity) to anything? I am not a native speaker but this does not make sense to me.

18. Line 536: I think this heading is not grammatical because of the phrase “evolutionary triggered.” The second paragraph under this heading seems unrelated to the heading.

19. Line 547: If the present study aimed to replicate reference #8, why not mention that in the introduction?

20. Line 574: Was this analysis reported anywhere? If no intention to report, then maybe the authors could add a note that the details are available upon request. Better, it could be added to the supplementary materials.

I hope my suggestions are useful and that at least some of them can be implemented with the effect of improving the manuscript.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #3: I have carefully read the manuscript “Chronic and immediate refined carbohydrate consumption and facial attractiveness.” Note that I became a reviewer at this round; and my knowledge of the evolution of the manuscript is limited to what is present in the “response to reviewers” section. I gather that the revisions sufficiently addressed the previous concerns. I found much to like in the manuscript and found the topic novel and interesting. However, I think some further revisions may be necessary. I list potential revisions below for the editor and authors’ consideration.

1. My biggest issue with the present article was that I was unable to find any report of power analyses and could not discern how sample size was determined. In the revision, the authors explain in response to a reviewer that “The sample sizes of participants and raters were determined on the basis of power calculations to ensure that the study had sufficient statistical power to detect significant differences in attractiveness ratings, based on a previous study (8) and were chosen to minimize the impact of random variability.” The same text is also in the manuscript now. I was unable to find any details of power analyses in reference #8, (which, to be sure, should be here: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1474704920960440). If power analyses indeed exist, they need to be reported. If they do not exist, then sensitivity analyses should be provided retrospectively and their result would critically determine the evaluation of the article (my decision recommendation of "minor revision" would probably not hold any longer). The current sample size is not so large by some standards (e.g., https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0092656613000858) and we need to have a clearer idea of the reliability of the present findings.

2. My position amidst the incessant debates about null hypothesis significance testing is that usage of phrases such as “marginally significant” are in error. If you subscribe to the Neyman-Pearson approach, there is no such thing. I would recommend removing this phrase and being consistent in the usage of alpha level to decide on significance and its absence. In addition, there are many p-values derived from the same dataset and no consideration of experimentwise Type I error. Thus, if one also extends the threshold for deciding on the presence of effects to the “marginal” area (e.g., .05-.1), then there is an even greater risk of some of these findings to represent Type 1 error.

3. I did not see any mention of sleep quality (chronic and in the night prior to data collection) but based on the literature, this is another important factor in the current setting and could be mentioned as something that future studies should aim to control.

4. I did not see any mention of make-up or facial accessories. Was there any request for participants to remove make-up or detachable accessories (piercing, etc.)? If not this would be a serious limitation and could also be confounded with lifestyle and thus the chronic diet. Did any participants have facial tattoos? At the least, I would expect the authors to handle this by performing the same kind of procedure they applied to facial hairiness.

5. Response options for the “geographical origin of the grandparents” item could be added. It is not clear whether this is asking for ethnicity directly or the researchers are inferring ethnicity from geographical position of where the grandparents were born or grew up in.

6. Line 191: The full term for “LDA” should be added (i.e., “linear discriminant analysis” I suppose).

7. The authors describe where participants were approached but not where they were tested. The latter should be added.

8. Where only p-values are provided, full statistics could be added, such as on lines 234-235 (correlation coefficients should be added there). Assuming those are p-values, why are they capitalized?

9. I think the Statistical Analyses section would be easier to read if there was an overview of what was done and why at the beginning (and/or at the beginning of each of its subsections). Why was a particular analysis needed could be made clearer. In addition, I think the subsections should be grouped under broader headings. Which subsections are preparatory or necessary checks and which ones contain the central tests would become clearer this way.

10. It is not clear to me why parental home ownership was assessed. I assume it is a proxy for the participant’s socioeconomic status as these are relatively young individuals. Whatever it is assumed to measure, how is it linked to facial attractiveness (or how is it relevant to the current study)? These could be clarified.

11. In the parenthesis that starts at the end of line 310, shouldn’t one of the three modalities be “B2 versus B1” (instead of two of them both being “B1 versus B2”)?

12. In the captions for Figures 2 and 3, instead of “women/men to explain their attractiveness,” one could simply write “women’s/men’s attractiveness.”

13. Line 398: Shouldn’t “total deviance” be “total variance?”

14. Line 462: “influence” should be “influences”. In the same line, as in others, I think it’s better to follow an earlier reviewer’s suggestion of using “persistent” or “chronic” instead of “repeated.”

15. Lines 464-465: Delete the last “s” in both of these phrases: “men prefers” and “women prefers”

16. Line 465: I disagree with the assertion that “women prefers more masculine faces.” For instance, even the review article cited in support of this mentions the many nuances (e.g., contextual moderators) that would qualify such a broad assertion as well as findings in the opposite direction. Thus, I think at least an indication that these caveats are acknowledged should be provided. This is important because it will make the authors’ explanation of some of their effects more tentative, which I think would be more balanced at this stage of our knowledge about the topic.

17. Line 478: I do not understand the usage of “escalated”. How do these factors escalate (i.e., increase in intensity) to anything? I am not a native speaker but this does not make sense to me.

18. Line 536: I think this heading is not grammatical because of the phrase “evolutionary triggered.” The second paragraph under this heading seems unrelated to the heading.

19. Line 547: If the present study aimed to replicate reference #8, why not mention that in the introduction?

20. Line 574: Was this analysis reported anywhere? If no intention to report, then maybe the authors could add a note that the details are available upon request. Better, it could be added to the supplementary materials.

I hope my suggestions are useful and that at least some of them can be implemented with the effect of improving the manuscript.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #3: Yes: S. Adil Saribay

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2024 Mar 6;19(3):e0298984. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0298984.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1


1 Feb 2024

Thank you for the comments. They have all been taken into consideration, and the revised manuscript is significantly improved.

Reviewer #3: I have carefully read the manuscript “Chronic and immediate refined carbohydrate consumption and facial attractiveness.” Note that I became a reviewer at this round; and my knowledge of the evolution of the manuscript is limited to what is present in the “response to reviewers” section. I gather that the revisions sufficiently addressed the previous concerns. I found much to like in the manuscript and found the topic novel and interesting. However, I think some further revisions may be necessary. I list potential revisions below for the editor and authors’consideration.

1. My biggest issue with the present article was that I was unable to find any report of power analyses and could not discern how sample size was determined. In the revision, the authors explain in response to a reviewer that “The sample sizes of participants and raters were determined on the basis of power calculations to ensure that the study had sufficient statistical power to detect significant differences in attractiveness ratings, based on a previous study (8) and were chosen to minimize the impact of random variability.” The same text is also in the manuscript now. I was unable to find any details of power analyses in reference #8, (which, to be sure, should be here: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1474704920960440). If power analyses indeed exist, they need to be reported. If they do not exist, then sensitivity analyses should be provided retrospectively and their result would critically determine the evaluation of the article (my decision recommendation of "minor revision" would probably not hold any longer). The current sample size is not so large by some standards (e.g., https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0092656613000858) and we need to have a clearer idea of the reliability of the present findings.

The explanation of the choice of sample size based on our pilot study has been given in lines 350 to 352, page 15, and the sentence has been reworded. We agree that our sample size is not very large. This is why we now present the details of the sensibility analysis (randomly deleting 10% of the data and computing p-values, then repeating this process 1000 times, and analyzing the resulting p-value distributions for each variable) in the new Table S6.

2. My position amidst the incessant debates about null hypothesis significance testing is that usage of phrases such as “marginally significant” are in error. If you subscribe to the Neyman-Pearson approach, there is no such thing. I would recommend removing this phrase and being consistent in the usage of alpha level to decide on significance and its absence. In addition, there are many p-values derived from the same dataset and no consideration of experiment wise Type I error. Thus, if one also extends the threshold for deciding on the presence of effects to the “marginal” area (e.g., .05-.1), then there is an even greater risk of some of these findings to represent Type 1 error.

We agree. The only occurrence of “marginally significant” was replaced with “marginally non-significant” (line 501 page 22). Thus, the threshold of significance is maintained at 0.05 throughout. Thus type-I error are not inflated due to a variable threshold.

3. I did not see any mention of sleep quality (chronic and in the night prior to data collection) but based on the literature, this is another important factor in the current setting and could be mentioned as something that future studies should aim to control.

We now mention this point in the limitations section and have added a reference.

4. I did not see any mention of make-up or facial accessories. Was there any request for participants to remove make-up or detachable accessories (piercing, etc.)? If not this would be a serious limitation and could also be confounded with lifestyle and thus the chronic diet. Did any participants have facial tattoos? At the least, I would expect the authors to handle this by performing the same kind of procedure they applied to facial hairiness.

We indeed asked participant to remove their make-up and all detachable accessories. In the manuscript, we already stated on page 6, line 135 to 136 “The subjects were asked to express a neutral face (without a smile), to tie their hair and to remove any glasses or earrings”. We added clarifications as suggested “The subjects were asked to express a neutral face (without a smile), to tie their hair and to remove any glasses, earrings, piercing or make-up.” No participant was wearing a facial tattoo. Indeed, absence of facial tattoo was a condition for participation, and this is now stated (line 115, page 5).

5. Response options for the “geographical origin of the grandparents” item could be added. It is not clear whether this is asking for ethnicity directly or the researchers are inferring ethnicity from geographical position of where the grandparents were born or grew up in.

We asked participants to specify the continent each of their grandparents came from in order to reduce cultural heterogeneity (only participants with their 4 grandparents of European origin were selected). The text has been modified to specify this aspect (line 120-121 page 5).

6. Line 191: The full term for “LDA” should be added (i.e., “linear discriminant analysis” I suppose).

This was done. We added the full term.

7. The authors describe where participants were approached but not where they were tested. The latter should be added.

We added this page 5 lines 116 and replaced the sentence “Subjects were given an appointment early in the morning and had to come in on an empty stomach in groups of three to four” with “Subjects were given an early-morning appointment and were asked to come to our laboratory for the experiments in groups of three or four on an empty stomach”.

8. Where only p-values are provided, full statistics could be added, such as on lines 234-235 (correlation coefficients should be added there). Assuming those are p-values, why are they capitalized?

We have replaced “P” with “p” for p-values throughout the manuscript. We have added the full statistics when p-values were provided without a table.

9. I think the Statistical Analyses section would be easier to read if there was an overview of what was done and why at the beginning (and/or at the beginning of each of its subsections). Why was a particular analysis needed could be made clearer. In addition, I think the subsections should be grouped under broader headings. Which subsections are preparatory or necessary checks and which ones contain the central tests would become clearer this way.

An overview of what was done and why has been added lines 261 to 264 page 12. A more general heading has also been added above the subsections devoting to raters’ characteristics.

10. It is not clear to me why parental home ownership was assessed. I assume it is a proxy for the participant’s socioeconomic status as these are relatively young individuals. Whatever it is assumed to measure, how is it linked to facial attractiveness (or how is it relevant to the current study)? These could be clarified.

Indeed, parental home ownership was assessed as a proxy of the socioeconomic status of the young participants. Higher socioeconomic status may provide individuals with better access to resources, including healthcare, nutrition or education. This can contribute to overall health and well-being, potentially influencing facial features associated with attractiveness. Moreover, individuals may be attracted to traits associated with higher socioeconomic status due to perceptions of stability, resources and overall fitness. Socioeconomic status is therefore potentially linked to attractiveness and diet. This is now precised line 122 page 5 and a reference has been added page 14 line 313.

11. In the parenthesis that starts at the end of line 310, shouldn’t one of the three modalities be “B2 versus B1” (instead of two of them both being “B1 versus B2”)?

Thank you, it was a mistake. This is now corrected.

12. In the captions for Figures 2 and 3, instead of “women/men to explain their attractiveness,” one could simply write “women’s/men’s attractiveness.”

This has been modified.

13. Line 398: Shouldn’t “total deviance” be “total variance?”

As we have used logistic regression, we must thus speak of deviance rather than variance.

14. Line 462: “influence” should be “influences”. In the same line, as in others, I think it’s better to follow an earlier reviewer’s suggestion of using “persistent” or “chronic” instead of “repeated.”

These points have now been corrected.

15. Lines 464-465: Delete the last “s” in both of these phrases: “men prefers” and “women prefers”

This has been corrected.

16. Line 465: I disagree with the assertion that “women prefers more masculine faces.” For instance, even the review article cited in support of this mentions the many nuances (e.g., contextual moderators) that would qualify such a broad assertion as well as findings in the opposite direction. Thus, I think at least an indication that these caveats are acknowledged should be provided. This is important because it will make the authors’ explanation of some of their effects more tentative, which I think would be more balanced at this stage of our knowledge about the topic.

We agree and this was corrected in the sentence lines 460 to 462 page 20.

17. Line 478: I do not understand the usage of “escalated”. How do these factors escalate (i.e., increase in intensity) to anything? I am not a native speaker but this does not make sense to me.

We have replaced “escalated” by “lead to”.

18. Line 536: I think this heading is not grammatical because of the phrase “evolutionary triggered.” The second paragraph under this heading seems unrelated to the heading.

The second paragraph has been deleted and integrated into the Introduction (see response to the following question).

19. Line 547: If the present study aimed to replicate reference #8, why not mention that in the introduction?

This is now clearly indicated in Introduction, lines 82, 98 to 99, 101 to 103 page 4. This is the paragraph deleted in question 18 which has been incorporated here.

20. Line 574: Was this analysis reported anywhere? If no intention to report, then maybe the authors could add a note that the details are available upon request. Better, it could be added to the supplementary materials.

This analysis is now presented in the new Table S6.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response_to_Reviewers_2.docx

pone.0298984.s008.docx (19.4KB, docx)

Decision Letter 2

Shen Liu

2 Feb 2024

Chronic and immediate refined carbohydrate consumption and facial attractiveness

PONE-D-23-07591R2

Dear Dr. Berticat,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Shen Liu, Ph.D

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Shen Liu

15 Feb 2024

PONE-D-23-07591R2

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Berticat,

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team.

At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following:

* All references, tables, and figures are properly cited

* All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission,

* There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset

If revisions are needed, the production department will contact you directly to resolve them. If no revisions are needed, you will receive an email when the publication date has been set. At this time, we do not offer pre-publication proofs to authors during production of the accepted work. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few weeks to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps.

Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Prof. Shen Liu

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Table. Exhaustive list of the different food items of the diet questionnaire in French and translated.

    (DOCX)

    pone.0298984.s001.docx (17.4KB, docx)
    S2 Table. Effects of rater characteristics and subject age and sex on the subject age perception by raters.

    Raters were instructed to ascribe an age for the photographs they were viewing. The estimate (β), standard error of the mean (se), χ² statistic, and corresponding p-value are given. Bold characters indicate significant (p < 0.05) effects.

    (DOCX)

    pone.0298984.s002.docx (15.6KB, docx)
    S3 Table. Effects of rater characteristics on the subjects’ masculinity/femininity perception by raters.

    The Wilcoxon test statistic (V), Friedman chi-squared (F) and corresponding p-value are given. Bold characters indicate significant (p < 0.05) effects. Median and terciles of age and study level were used for the Wilcoxon signed-rank test and Friedman two-way analysis of variance, respectively.

    (DOCX)

    pone.0298984.s003.docx (15.4KB, docx)
    S4 Table. Effects of rater characteristics on the subjects’ attractiveness perception by raters.

    The Wilcoxon test statistic (V), Friedman chi-squared (F) and corresponding p-value are given. Bold characters indicate significant (p < 0.05) effects. Median and terciles of age and study level were used for the Wilcoxon signed-rank test and Friedman two-way analysis of variance, respectively.

    (DOCX)

    pone.0298984.s004.docx (15.3KB, docx)
    S5 Table. Structural equation analysis.

    The results based on Figs 2 and 3. RC1, RC2 and RC3 are the three variables representing refined carbohydrate consumption. The standardized estimate (β), standard error of the mean (se), z-value, and corresponding p-value are given. Bold characters indicate significant (p < 0.05) effects. Foxing each sex, only variables with a p-value < 0.01 were integrated into the model.

    (DOCX)

    pone.0298984.s005.docx (22.8KB, docx)
    S6 Table. Sensitivity analysis for the test of attractiveness for male or female faces.

    After a random 10% data reduction, p-values are computed and this process is repeated 1000 times, providing a p-value distribution for each variable. RGL1, RGL2 and RGL3 are the three variables representing refined carbohydrate consumption. The mean p-value (mean p), standard deviation (sd), minimum p-value (min) and maximum p-value (max) are given.

    (DOCX)

    pone.0298984.s006.docx (18.1KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: response_to_reviewers.docx

    pone.0298984.s007.docx (25.4KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response_to_Reviewers_2.docx

    pone.0298984.s008.docx (19.4KB, docx)

    Data Availability Statement

    The data and R script associated with this research are available on Zenodo repository 10.5281/zenodo.7708732 but the photos of the participants are not available.


    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES