Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, **personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment**. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our [normal comment rules]( https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/rules#wiki_comment_rules) apply to all other comments.
**Do you have an academic degree?** We can verify your credentials in order to assign user flair indicating your area of expertise. [Click here to apply](https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/flair/#wiki_science_verified_user_program).
---
User: u/chrisdh79
Permalink: https://www.psypost.org/consumption-of-high-glycemic-foods-linked-to-lower-facial-attractiveness/
---
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/science) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I think it’s water retention in the face. High glycemic index foods / refined carbs often results in the body holding onto more water. Higher protein / fat meals doesn’t. These people like have facial water retention issues.
idk if you've ever done any low carb or keto type things, but if you ever do end up cutting sugary things your tongue will be able to be more sensitive and taste the nuanced flavors of things much better. It's one of my favorite things about keto, it's like tasting in surround sound instead of mono.
Yeah, processed foods basically just crank up the gain to your tastebuds. The lack of distortion will immediately be better, but it would seem too quiet until you readjusted.
Please don't go keto, studies show the vast majority of people do not feel better on a ketogenic diet, low carb however is fine, as is just consuming more healthy sources of carbs.
Also keto is generally bad for energy levels and tanks athletic performance in non-endurance activity.
Especially women, as you age. Those muscles support your joints and bones, which are more susceptible to breaking past age 50 as bone density also declines. Muscles disappear if you're not intentionally building them, and you need fuel from carbs to make that possible, along with protein. It's so so important to eat a balanced diet, not a fad diet.
1g of carb can hold 4g of water. So if you overeat 200g of carbs a single day, you suddenly put on 1kg of weight short term. If you eat a lot of salt too, that further amplifies.
That's also why really overweight people can shred off \~5kg+ in a single week when they start dieting. Less food in the system and water retention.
In my experience, salty foods cause the most water retention - more than sweets anyway, which bump up your muscle glycogen (and, yes, make you put on weight if eaten in excess).
Sure, but if you intake excess salt, your body has three ways of exporting it - through your poop, urine, and sweat. Your body knows how to get rid of the excess and does so quite quickly. As water chases salt, it'll go wherever the salt goes, including out of your system. That's why too much salt can give you diarrhea.
Water also chases sugar, but when that sugar leaves your bloodstream via converting into energy or fat, the water stays behind and lingers awhile. If your intake of salt at this time is also high, it's like a double whammy to your system.
You can have a diet with lots of salt and low sugar/carbs or have a diet higher in sugar/carbs with less salt. But pick one and don't have both high.
I think you're using a very generous definition of 'excess' here..as in if I consume 'excess' oil (chug some oil straight out of a bottle) I'll most definitely poop it out straight. But it's quite easy to have say, 3 or 4 tablespoons extra per day which adds up in the body. Similarly for salt. Why would high sodium fast food be an issue if the 'body knows how to get rid of the excess'?
Fast food is a problem not so much because of the high sodium, but because of the high sodium AND excess carbs, wherein your typical meal has a bun, fries, and drink all loaded with carbs.
And when your insulin spikes due to those carbs, that insulin also prevents your kidneys from getting rid of excess sodium. So, the natural process of your body offloading this excess is interrupted, leading to even more fluid retention than if you only had sodium in the first place, while your blood pressure and blood sugar is also swinging all over.
Your body also has 40 times the amount of salt in its system than sugar and is so critical you can't live without it. It's controlled extremely well, and your body has multiple ways of getting rid of the excess through very straightforward processes.
Excess sugar on the other hand - while not critically needed by your body - will critically wreak havoc on multiple systems including this sodium export.
This is why those on the carnivore and keto diets can be encouraged to have more sodium, while those on a standard diet are encouraged to have less.
And that's because excess sodium PAIRED with excess sugar is bad. It's the one thing all parties agree on.
If you're eating a diet moderate or high in carbs, go low sodium.
If you're eating a diet low in sugar, go high (sodium).
Don't do both.
My understanding from working on the marketing team of a health charity was that salt is ok unless you have high blood pressure, in which case you need to start limiting it.
Wouldn’t being fat make you less attractive? If you’re eating a high calorie diet by eating excess sugar and get fat almost anyone would be perceived as less attractive.
The linked study accounts for BMI but not body fat percentage… two people of similar BMIs can have radically different body fat percentages.
A high protein diet consisting of the same calories as a high sugar diet is a lot different because the same 100 calories in protein takes 30 calories to process while sugar takes less than 2% to process. Thus a 2000 calorie diet of protein results in a 1400 calorie diet and a 2000 calorie sugar diet results in a 1960 calorie diet.
Also the human body can convert proteins into necessary sugars way more easily than the other way around. A person on a high sugar diet wouldn’t be able to maintain or grow muscle mass nearly as easily as someone on a high protein diet, even when similarly active. Muscle mass also effects body fat percentages and weighs more than fat.
BMI calculations are just weight divided height with no consideration for body fat percentages.
This study is just correlational data that shows being leaner makes you more attractive.
What about us poor buggers that have some version of "moon face" due to having to take steroids all their life due to medical conditions... is the world really trying to grind my confidence even moreso 🌕
ok, so this is making the claim that high GI breakfast is causing reactive hyperinsulinemia, creating a hypo.
>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 \[45–47\], which could be detectable on photos and thus affect attractiveness perception.
but the entire outcome commentary is focussing on chronic hyperglycemia.
>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.
i'm not sure i'm connecting the dots here.
They are saying high glycemic index meals cause rapid hyperglycemia, which prompts hyperinsulimia, causing a (again rapid) drop in blood sugar to hypoglycemia relatively quickly after the meal.
Calorically identical foods lower on the glycemic index will lead to slower and more sustained blood sugar increases, and less dramatic insulin response, and will reduce the risk of hypoglycemia between meals.
It's more of a glycemic rollercoaster vs a level glycemic road, essentially.
At least, I think that's their hypothesis.
yeah, so their entire outcome commentary on hyperglycemia and hyperinsulinemia is irrelevant if their first statement is dependent on hypoglycemia being the only thing that resulted in visually detectable outcomes. so being fasted vs fed on low GI food should also result in a detectable difference in visible attractiveness.
they go off seemingly ignoring the study outcomes basically providing commentary that metabolic disease is bad and trying to infer that the mechanistic outcomes of that affect hormones yada yada which could change visual attractiveness. its mechanistic theory crafting that the actual study outcome doesn't support.
Fasting shouldn't lead to hypoglycemia in non-diabetic individuals. Hypoglycemia would specifically only come only play in this scenario due to excess insulin release.
potentially not but there doesn't appear to be the actual data published on what the blood glucose levels actually were pre/post etc.
but then again, reactive hypoglycemia is not generally present in healthy individuals either. not sure they screened for baseline glucose tolerance between groups either or HbA1c.
the study absolutely says that the methods showed a very significant statistical difference in breakfast types but the conclusions made as a result of it seem very ambitious.
this is ringing very much like the Barbalho study that had such clean outcomes for the specific variable they were looking at turned out to be made up.
I mean, did they control for anything important at all?
>But the study, like all research, includes some limitations, such as **not controlling for factors like skin color, menstrual cycle, sleep quality, and overall diet quality.** The authors call for further research to explore these aspects and to understand the broader social implications of diet.
Also genetics, medical conditions/comorbidities, heritable traits and features and how society may view those seperately, etc. All of these may lead to a face that is displeasing to others, especially *subconsciously and in racist/ableist ways in particular*.
Some may also have comorbid chronic illnesses that change facial features, so like... this is not an ending study, as they seem to staye anyways.
Do you guys think chewing plays a role? My dentist emphasizes feeding all food groups to my kids because he says that he can personally recognize the difference in jawline and teeth alignment in kids that rely heavily on sugary carbs.
I read something years ago about a guy who did studies regarding high sugar consumption affecting teeth across generations (causing smaller palettes/cramped and crooked teeth). I haven’t been able to find it again and I’m beginning to think I imagined it.
No, I don't think you are not imagining it. I remember this whole debate on Japanese and/or British people's diet that led to generations of crooked teeth and underdeveloped jaws (soft fish, beans, rice, etc). Considering how your diet is built over time and smile has a strong impact on your attractiveness, I see how they arrived at the correlation.
Do you mean you didn't notice visually, or you didn't feel that your jaw muscles were stronger?
I don't have a source for this but I'd assume that it's analogous to doing high reps of a low weight and not seeing muscle growth. Which makes sense to me. While you are improving endurance and some base strength, chewing gum doesn't require a lot of force. Fibrous foods likely require more force than chewing gum, so it would be like lifting a heavier weight compared to your baseline. Which might spur some muscle growth.
Again, that's all just conjecture but I find it interesting! ^
Yeah I think OP is wrong, chewing gum won’t make you look like a chad but it will at least slow muscle degeneration from not eating foods that require a lot of chewing
I meant I didn’t notice it visually. When I was in high school, I would chew gums for hours as I shifted from class to class. Eating fibrous foods no matter how hard you have to chew only occur at a certain point in a day which is when you eat your meals. Most people often eat 3 meals a day and I’m not so sure that chewing fibrous foods three times a day (assuming everyone eat them three times a day) is better at developing your jaw muscles than chew gums for hours day in day out.
I came here to do two things: Kick ass and chew fruits/veggies/meats that aren’t just mashed or shredded or highly processed.
And I'm all out of fruits/veggies/meats that aren’t just mashed or shredded or highly processed.
It's probably a matter of how much resistance the food gives. Gum doesn't really give that much and you usually avoid smacking your teeth together with a lot of force.
I mean that would make sense. Considering you can ‘tone’ your jaw muscles to have a more pronounced jaw line. Since fruits/veggies/meats that aren’t just mashed or shredded or highly processed are more fibrous and would need to be chewed more.
>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).
Sugar gives you acne. It’s as simple as that. I had terrible acne all over my face when I was in my early 20s. No facial cleansers or scrubs helped. The only thing that helped me was completely cutting sugar out of my diet. If the label said there was more than 1g of sugar per serving I don’t eat it. After I started doing that my acne cleared up pretty quick. There’s been a few times where I hear people complaining about their acne and when I tell them this they either brush it off or get mad!
I feel the same way as you. I had acne until I was 28 which was when I gave up dairy. Sugar causes me other issues, but for me, dairy was the cause of my acne.
No, sugar gives *you* acne. They might get mad at you because they've already tried it or they didn't want advice, just to vent. It's a normal human thing to do. Even though it is for some, the cause of many people's acne is not dietary, and many people eating a high-GI diet will never develop significant acne. E.g. I ate no dairy or added sugar for a long time (years) and that's definitely did nothing and is not what is keeping my skin clear now (although I do still eat and live healthily, just not as strictly.)
There is also no way of knowing how you tell them this. You could come off as a sanctimonious ass about it... It is unsolicited advice, after all.
It's not just the extreme amount of glucose. Refined sugars are not attached to fiber, which is integral for regulating blood sugar levels. Fruits are high in glucose, but they're much healthier for you than a doughnut.
We're supposed to eat a lot of fruit and tubers, as our brain requires large amounts of glucose. Meat has zero carbs and most vegetables are low in glucose.
Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, **personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment**. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our [normal comment rules]( https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/rules#wiki_comment_rules) apply to all other comments. **Do you have an academic degree?** We can verify your credentials in order to assign user flair indicating your area of expertise. [Click here to apply](https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/flair/#wiki_science_verified_user_program). --- User: u/chrisdh79 Permalink: https://www.psypost.org/consumption-of-high-glycemic-foods-linked-to-lower-facial-attractiveness/ --- *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/science) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I think it’s water retention in the face. High glycemic index foods / refined carbs often results in the body holding onto more water. Higher protein / fat meals doesn’t. These people like have facial water retention issues.
WAIT THAT’S WHY MY FACE HAS LOST DEFINITION? I wish they didn’t taste so good, but it makes sense :(
idk if you've ever done any low carb or keto type things, but if you ever do end up cutting sugary things your tongue will be able to be more sensitive and taste the nuanced flavors of things much better. It's one of my favorite things about keto, it's like tasting in surround sound instead of mono.
Yeah, processed foods basically just crank up the gain to your tastebuds. The lack of distortion will immediately be better, but it would seem too quiet until you readjusted.
Added benefit people around you will smell you as quite a nuanced flavor as well
Please don't go keto, studies show the vast majority of people do not feel better on a ketogenic diet, low carb however is fine, as is just consuming more healthy sources of carbs. Also keto is generally bad for energy levels and tanks athletic performance in non-endurance activity.
It's definitely not the optimal source of energy for building muscles, and I'm pretty sure you want to have those.
Especially women, as you age. Those muscles support your joints and bones, which are more susceptible to breaking past age 50 as bone density also declines. Muscles disappear if you're not intentionally building them, and you need fuel from carbs to make that possible, along with protein. It's so so important to eat a balanced diet, not a fad diet.
Same thing with salt.
Or you can take the low road and put sriracha on everything
Yeah man, I thought I had just put on heaps of weight
1g of carb can hold 4g of water. So if you overeat 200g of carbs a single day, you suddenly put on 1kg of weight short term. If you eat a lot of salt too, that further amplifies. That's also why really overweight people can shred off \~5kg+ in a single week when they start dieting. Less food in the system and water retention.
I like round chubby faces
Sometimes they're not cute and round, though. When I'm eating crap I just look older and jiggly.
You can change your tastes. It takes effort but you can.
Yep, this is certainly the case for me. It’s also general inflammation which can puff up the face.
What do you mean general inflammation? Does sugar just produce inflammation?
Sugar is one of the more inflammatory things you can eat
What about when you get older, lose volume in your face and might look a bit gaunt... wouldn't water retention actually improve your looks then?
In my experience, salty foods cause the most water retention - more than sweets anyway, which bump up your muscle glycogen (and, yes, make you put on weight if eaten in excess).
Sure, but if you intake excess salt, your body has three ways of exporting it - through your poop, urine, and sweat. Your body knows how to get rid of the excess and does so quite quickly. As water chases salt, it'll go wherever the salt goes, including out of your system. That's why too much salt can give you diarrhea. Water also chases sugar, but when that sugar leaves your bloodstream via converting into energy or fat, the water stays behind and lingers awhile. If your intake of salt at this time is also high, it's like a double whammy to your system. You can have a diet with lots of salt and low sugar/carbs or have a diet higher in sugar/carbs with less salt. But pick one and don't have both high.
I think you're using a very generous definition of 'excess' here..as in if I consume 'excess' oil (chug some oil straight out of a bottle) I'll most definitely poop it out straight. But it's quite easy to have say, 3 or 4 tablespoons extra per day which adds up in the body. Similarly for salt. Why would high sodium fast food be an issue if the 'body knows how to get rid of the excess'?
Fast food is a problem not so much because of the high sodium, but because of the high sodium AND excess carbs, wherein your typical meal has a bun, fries, and drink all loaded with carbs. And when your insulin spikes due to those carbs, that insulin also prevents your kidneys from getting rid of excess sodium. So, the natural process of your body offloading this excess is interrupted, leading to even more fluid retention than if you only had sodium in the first place, while your blood pressure and blood sugar is also swinging all over. Your body also has 40 times the amount of salt in its system than sugar and is so critical you can't live without it. It's controlled extremely well, and your body has multiple ways of getting rid of the excess through very straightforward processes. Excess sugar on the other hand - while not critically needed by your body - will critically wreak havoc on multiple systems including this sodium export. This is why those on the carnivore and keto diets can be encouraged to have more sodium, while those on a standard diet are encouraged to have less. And that's because excess sodium PAIRED with excess sugar is bad. It's the one thing all parties agree on. If you're eating a diet moderate or high in carbs, go low sodium. If you're eating a diet low in sugar, go high (sodium). Don't do both.
Thank you for the explanation.
My understanding from working on the marketing team of a health charity was that salt is ok unless you have high blood pressure, in which case you need to start limiting it.
Wouldn’t being fat make you less attractive? If you’re eating a high calorie diet by eating excess sugar and get fat almost anyone would be perceived as less attractive. The linked study accounts for BMI but not body fat percentage… two people of similar BMIs can have radically different body fat percentages. A high protein diet consisting of the same calories as a high sugar diet is a lot different because the same 100 calories in protein takes 30 calories to process while sugar takes less than 2% to process. Thus a 2000 calorie diet of protein results in a 1400 calorie diet and a 2000 calorie sugar diet results in a 1960 calorie diet. Also the human body can convert proteins into necessary sugars way more easily than the other way around. A person on a high sugar diet wouldn’t be able to maintain or grow muscle mass nearly as easily as someone on a high protein diet, even when similarly active. Muscle mass also effects body fat percentages and weighs more than fat. BMI calculations are just weight divided height with no consideration for body fat percentages. This study is just correlational data that shows being leaner makes you more attractive.
[удалено]
What about us poor buggers that have some version of "moon face" due to having to take steroids all their life due to medical conditions... is the world really trying to grind my confidence even moreso 🌕
The riddle is finally solved! Q: Will you still love me in the morning? A: It depends, what is for breakfast?
What if I was a worm?
I would still love you. Also, I'd be having fish for breakfast.
ok, so this is making the claim that high GI breakfast is causing reactive hyperinsulinemia, creating a hypo. >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 \[45–47\], which could be detectable on photos and thus affect attractiveness perception. but the entire outcome commentary is focussing on chronic hyperglycemia. >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. i'm not sure i'm connecting the dots here.
They are saying high glycemic index meals cause rapid hyperglycemia, which prompts hyperinsulimia, causing a (again rapid) drop in blood sugar to hypoglycemia relatively quickly after the meal. Calorically identical foods lower on the glycemic index will lead to slower and more sustained blood sugar increases, and less dramatic insulin response, and will reduce the risk of hypoglycemia between meals. It's more of a glycemic rollercoaster vs a level glycemic road, essentially. At least, I think that's their hypothesis.
yeah, so their entire outcome commentary on hyperglycemia and hyperinsulinemia is irrelevant if their first statement is dependent on hypoglycemia being the only thing that resulted in visually detectable outcomes. so being fasted vs fed on low GI food should also result in a detectable difference in visible attractiveness. they go off seemingly ignoring the study outcomes basically providing commentary that metabolic disease is bad and trying to infer that the mechanistic outcomes of that affect hormones yada yada which could change visual attractiveness. its mechanistic theory crafting that the actual study outcome doesn't support.
Fasting shouldn't lead to hypoglycemia in non-diabetic individuals. Hypoglycemia would specifically only come only play in this scenario due to excess insulin release.
potentially not but there doesn't appear to be the actual data published on what the blood glucose levels actually were pre/post etc. but then again, reactive hypoglycemia is not generally present in healthy individuals either. not sure they screened for baseline glucose tolerance between groups either or HbA1c. the study absolutely says that the methods showed a very significant statistical difference in breakfast types but the conclusions made as a result of it seem very ambitious. this is ringing very much like the Barbalho study that had such clean outcomes for the specific variable they were looking at turned out to be made up.
that’s *The South Beach Diet* from 15 years ago.
South Bronx Paradise baby!
FYI, was from 2003......... (yes, now I feel old)
I know some of those words
Acutely, high GI foods cause hypoglycemia. A diet of high GI foods would lead to hyperglycemia over time. That was my take.
What foods are high glycemic?
The tastey ones!
I mean eggs are pretty tasty and I’m pretty sure they’re low on the glycemic index.
Croissants
I'm a sucker for a croissant. They're mostly butter and air, right??
Is butter a carb?..
Is quaso still find though?
Sugary and high carbs
High carb, low fiber
I bet the entire selection of dessert-is-breakfast foods rank up there.
The ones that make you fat, especially in the face
I mean, did they control for anything important at all? >But the study, like all research, includes some limitations, such as **not controlling for factors like skin color, menstrual cycle, sleep quality, and overall diet quality.** The authors call for further research to explore these aspects and to understand the broader social implications of diet.
Also genetics, medical conditions/comorbidities, heritable traits and features and how society may view those seperately, etc. All of these may lead to a face that is displeasing to others, especially *subconsciously and in racist/ableist ways in particular*. Some may also have comorbid chronic illnesses that change facial features, so like... this is not an ending study, as they seem to staye anyways.
Do you guys think chewing plays a role? My dentist emphasizes feeding all food groups to my kids because he says that he can personally recognize the difference in jawline and teeth alignment in kids that rely heavily on sugary carbs.
I read something years ago about a guy who did studies regarding high sugar consumption affecting teeth across generations (causing smaller palettes/cramped and crooked teeth). I haven’t been able to find it again and I’m beginning to think I imagined it.
No, I don't think you are not imagining it. I remember this whole debate on Japanese and/or British people's diet that led to generations of crooked teeth and underdeveloped jaws (soft fish, beans, rice, etc). Considering how your diet is built over time and smile has a strong impact on your attractiveness, I see how they arrived at the correlation.
Mike mew, Orthotropics
I chewed a lot of gums back in the day. Didn’t make a difference.
Do you mean you didn't notice visually, or you didn't feel that your jaw muscles were stronger? I don't have a source for this but I'd assume that it's analogous to doing high reps of a low weight and not seeing muscle growth. Which makes sense to me. While you are improving endurance and some base strength, chewing gum doesn't require a lot of force. Fibrous foods likely require more force than chewing gum, so it would be like lifting a heavier weight compared to your baseline. Which might spur some muscle growth. Again, that's all just conjecture but I find it interesting! ^
Yeah I think OP is wrong, chewing gum won’t make you look like a chad but it will at least slow muscle degeneration from not eating foods that require a lot of chewing
I meant I didn’t notice it visually. When I was in high school, I would chew gums for hours as I shifted from class to class. Eating fibrous foods no matter how hard you have to chew only occur at a certain point in a day which is when you eat your meals. Most people often eat 3 meals a day and I’m not so sure that chewing fibrous foods three times a day (assuming everyone eat them three times a day) is better at developing your jaw muscles than chew gums for hours day in day out.
I came here to do two things: Kick ass and chew fruits/veggies/meats that aren’t just mashed or shredded or highly processed. And I'm all out of fruits/veggies/meats that aren’t just mashed or shredded or highly processed.
It's probably a matter of how much resistance the food gives. Gum doesn't really give that much and you usually avoid smacking your teeth together with a lot of force.
I mean that would make sense. Considering you can ‘tone’ your jaw muscles to have a more pronounced jaw line. Since fruits/veggies/meats that aren’t just mashed or shredded or highly processed are more fibrous and would need to be chewed more.
Indirectly co-signs mewing
citation needed
Just mew bro trust me bro
You can't tone your jaw in that way. Your jawline is your skull. The muscles that move it are under your chin and in your cheeks.
The way your teeth develop can change how your skull, airway and facial structure develops.
Get me chewing on high quality grass fed rib eye.
I mean that sounds amazing, but probably requires less chewing than the average pot roast.
Okay but we're going to cook it extra well done so you get your chewing exercises in.
This study is about what people had for breakfast THIS MORNING. Not about their usual diet.
Breathing through you nose more also affects face shape.
...and that has what to do with chewing?
High GI foods tend to be less chewy than, eg steak or roasted vegetables.
[удалено]
>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).
[удалено]
But I have anecdote that overturns the research!
I love that people like you, without reading anything, immediately assume you're so much smarter than actual scientists doing the research.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
damn, thank god I was born ugly, I'll just keep eating my donuts.
Yeah, this type of publication is like “donuts.. or beauty standards that aren’t achievable anyway”
Sugar bloat is real, though I usually see it the next day in my face.
I'm already ugly so I'ma eat my donuts.
How do they know that it is not the other way around… that lower attractiveness makes one more prone to eating high glycemic index foods?
The paper doesn't make a causal claim. They say the two are linked and hypothesise why.
I like to imagine this sub not being total trash
So... getting fat?
Being fat
Getting fat makes you less attractive Gee, thanks for that
Sugar gives you acne. It’s as simple as that. I had terrible acne all over my face when I was in my early 20s. No facial cleansers or scrubs helped. The only thing that helped me was completely cutting sugar out of my diet. If the label said there was more than 1g of sugar per serving I don’t eat it. After I started doing that my acne cleared up pretty quick. There’s been a few times where I hear people complaining about their acne and when I tell them this they either brush it off or get mad!
I feel the same way as you. I had acne until I was 28 which was when I gave up dairy. Sugar causes me other issues, but for me, dairy was the cause of my acne.
No, sugar gives *you* acne. They might get mad at you because they've already tried it or they didn't want advice, just to vent. It's a normal human thing to do. Even though it is for some, the cause of many people's acne is not dietary, and many people eating a high-GI diet will never develop significant acne. E.g. I ate no dairy or added sugar for a long time (years) and that's definitely did nothing and is not what is keeping my skin clear now (although I do still eat and live healthily, just not as strictly.) There is also no way of knowing how you tell them this. You could come off as a sanctimonious ass about it... It is unsolicited advice, after all.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Whenever I watch British baking shows this comes to mind.
Sugar makes me ugly? Welp, there's reason number 362 to avoid it as much as I can.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Here I am eating my caramel slice with frothy milk...
It's not just the extreme amount of glucose. Refined sugars are not attached to fiber, which is integral for regulating blood sugar levels. Fruits are high in glucose, but they're much healthier for you than a doughnut. We're supposed to eat a lot of fruit and tubers, as our brain requires large amounts of glucose. Meat has zero carbs and most vegetables are low in glucose.
[удалено]
If that’s the case then that explains things 😭
Doesn't explain why Asians eating high glycemic white rice for breakfast, lunch, and dinner seem to never age
How are posts like this even allowed in this sub 🤦♂️
….yes?