Face Yoga Research: The Key Studies on Facial Exercise, Summarised

Is face yoga scientifically proven? No. A handful of small studies suggest face yoga and facial exercise may bring modest changes, such as slightly fuller-looking cheeks, but most had no control group, and systematic reviews still judge the evidence insufficient. This page is a study-by-study roundup of the face yoga research: who took part, what they did, what was measured, what was found and what each study can’t tell you. If you’d rather have the short, plain-English version, read does face yoga work first.

Summary for busy readers

The face yoga scientific evidence is small, mixed and mostly low quality, and as of October 2026 we found no large randomised controlled trial of face yoga.

• Few studies, few people. The face yoga and facial exercise studies in this roundup each involved between 12 and 50 people.
• Mostly no comparison group. Only one study in the table (De Vos, 2013) compared people who exercised with people who didn’t, and it found almost no difference.
• Uncontrolled studies tend to report benefits. Fuller-looking cheeks, a lower estimated age in photos, thicker cheek muscles on ultrasound and changes in muscle tone and stiffness.
• Reviews agree the evidence is weak. A 2014 systematic review and a 2025 systematic review both concluded the evidence was insufficient to establish that these techniques work.
• No harms reported so far. The 2025 review noted that no adverse events were reported in the studies it included, which fits the general view that gentle facial exercise is low-risk.

So is face yoga effective? It may help a little. Is it proven? Not yet.

How we selected studies

This is a structured roundup, not a formal systematic review. In October 2026 we searched for published research on face yoga, facial exercise and facial muscle training for appearance, and on facial massage tools, using web searches that surface PubMed, PubMed Central (PMC) and journal records.

• Search terms included “face yoga study”, “facial exercise facial rejuvenation”, “facial muscle exercise”, “facial exercises systematic review” and “facial massage roller”.
• We included primary studies and systematic reviews published in peer-reviewed journals that tested facial exercise (with or without a simple device) on the appearance of the face or on facial muscles in healthy adults.
• We only cite papers we could match to a PubMed, PMC or DOI record, and we only report numbers we could confirm from the paper’s abstract or record.
• We left out studies on medical conditions such as facial palsy, studies of electrical muscle stimulation devices (a different intervention from exercise), and papers we could not match to a verifiable record or whose results we could not confirm.

Because we didn’t run a full database search with two independent reviewers, we may have missed studies. If you know of one, the update log below is where it will show up once it’s checked.

The evidence table

Here is every primary study and review in this roundup at a glance, oldest first. “n” is the number of participants; “no control” means there was no group of similar people who didn’t do the exercises.

Study	Design	n	What they did, and for how long	What was measured	Main finding	Key limitations
De Vos et al., 2013, Folia Phoniatrica et Logopaedica	Controlled study	18 (9 exercise, 9 control)	Daily facial exercises for 7 weeks	Lay raters compared before-and-after photos of five face areas	Only the upper lip area showed a significant difference; authors said effectiveness could not be concluded	Very small; short; lay raters judged photos
Van Borsel et al., 2014, Aesthetic Surgery Journal	Systematic review	9 reports	Reviewed published facial exercise research	Quality and results of included studies	All nine reported positive results, but evidence judged insufficient	None of the studies used randomisation with a control group; most assessments subjective and not blinded
Alam et al., 2018, JAMA Dermatology	Uncontrolled pilot study	27 enrolled, 16 completed (women aged 40–65)	30 minutes a day for 8 weeks, then every other day to week 20	Dermatologists rated standardised photos	Improved upper and lower cheek fullness; mean estimated age 50.8 to 48.1 years	No control group; 11 dropouts; self-selected volunteers
Hwang et al., 2018, Aesthetic Surgery Journal	Uncontrolled before-and-after study	50 women	Exercises with a handheld facial exercise device, 30 seconds twice a day for 8 weeks	Ultrasound of facial muscles; 3D surface scanning	Larger cross-sectional area in the zygomaticus major (cheek) and digastric (under-jaw) muscles; smaller midface and jawline surface measurements	No control group; one specific device; graded Level of Evidence 4
Güzel et al., 2025, Medicina	Pre-experimental trial	12 women (mean age about 50)	Face yoga for 8 weeks: 2 supervised days and 5 home days a week	Muscle tone, stiffness and elasticity with a handheld device	Tone and stiffness fell in forehead, brow, eye and mouth muscles, rose in buccinator and digastric; elasticity rose in all muscles measured	No control group; very small; measured muscles, not appearance
Systematic review, 2025, Aesthetic Surgery Journal Open Forum	Systematic review	12 studies, 321 women aged 30–70	Facial exercises (6 studies), myofunctional therapy (4), manual massage (2)	Appearance and muscle outcomes across studies	Improvements limited to local areas such as cheeks, jawline and around the eyes; no adverse events reported	Authors judged evidence insufficient; small samples, mixed methods, no men

Evidence quality at a glance

A simple way to read the table: the further down this list a study design sits, the more weight its findings can carry.

• Weakest: uncontrolled before-and-after studies (Alam, Hwang, Güzel). Useful for generating ideas, but they can’t separate the effect of the exercises from other changes during the study.
• Stronger: controlled studies (De Vos). A comparison group helps, but with 18 people the study can only detect large effects.
• Strongest: large randomised controlled trials. We found none for face yoga.
• Systematic reviews (Van Borsel, 2025 review) summarise the field. They are only as strong as the studies they include, which is why both concluded the evidence was insufficient.

The key studies in more detail

The table gives you the headlines; here is the context that changes how you should read them.

Alam et al., 2018: the study everyone cites

This Northwestern University pilot is the source of most “face yoga makes you look three years younger” headlines. Twenty-seven women aged 40 to 65 enrolled and 16 completed it. They did 30 minutes of facial exercises every day for 8 weeks, then every other day until week 20. Dermatologists rated standardised photos and saw improved fullness in the upper and lower cheeks. Their estimates of each woman’s age fell from an average of 50.8 years at the start to 48.1 years at the end.

The authors suggested that the cheek muscles may have grown slightly, making the mid-face look fuller. But there was no control group, so you can’t rule out other explanations, such as better sleep or skincare during the study. Larger controlled studies are needed before anyone can say this result holds. Our face yoga before and after guide explains why photo comparisons are so easy to skew.

De Vos et al., 2013: the controlled study

This is one of the few studies to include a comparison group. Nine people did daily facial exercises for 7 weeks and nine did not. Lay raters compared photos of five areas of the face. Only one area, the upper lip, showed a significant difference, with the exercise group’s after photo more often picked as younger-looking. The authors concluded that it could not be said facial exercises are effective.

Hwang et al., 2018: a device study with ultrasound

Fifty women used a handheld facial exercise device for 30 seconds twice a day for 8 weeks. Unlike most studies, this one measured muscles directly with ultrasound and the face’s surface with 3D scanning, rather than asking people to judge photos. The researchers reported larger cross-sectional areas in the zygomaticus major (a smile muscle in the cheek) and the digastric muscle under the jaw, and smaller surface measurements across the midface and jawline.

Two cautions. The study had no control group, and it tested one specific device, so the results don’t automatically apply to device-free face yoga. It was also graded Level of Evidence 4, a low level on the usual scale.

Güzel et al., 2025: what happens inside the muscles

This small Medicina study looked at muscle properties, not appearance. Twelve women with an average age of about 50 did face yoga for 8 weeks, twice a week with a supervisor and five days a week at home. A handheld device measured muscle tone, stiffness and elasticity before and after.

• Tone and stiffness decreased in the frontalis (forehead), corrugator supercilii (between the brows), orbicularis oculi (around the eyes) and orbicularis oris (around the mouth).
• Tone and stiffness increased in the buccinator (cheek) and digastric (under the jaw).
• Elasticity increased in all the muscles measured.

That pattern, with expression muscles relaxing and some deeper muscles firming, is interesting and fits how face yoga is usually taught. But with 12 people and no control group, it’s a first look, and it can’t tell you whether any of these changes are visible.

The two systematic reviews

The 2014 review led by Van Borsel found nine reports on facial exercises for facial rejuvenation. All nine described positive results, yet none used randomisation with a control group and most relied on subjective, unblinded ratings. The authors called the evidence insufficient and asked for large randomised trials.

More than a decade later, a 2025 systematic review in Aesthetic Surgery Journal Open Forum widened the net to conservative “mechanical” techniques. It included 12 studies with 321 women aged 30 to 70: six on facial exercises, four on myofunctional therapy and two on manual massage. Reported improvements were limited to local areas, such as the cheeks, jawline and around the eyes. No adverse events were reported. Its conclusion was much the same as in 2014: the evidence is still insufficient to establish that these techniques work with confidence.

What the studies agree on

Across very different designs, the face yoga research points the same way on three things.

• It appears low-risk. The 2025 review found that no adverse events were reported in the studies it included. That doesn’t make it risk-free for everyone: stop anything that hurts, and check with a doctor, dentist or physiotherapist first if you have jaw or neck problems or recent facial treatments.
• Effects, where found, are modest and local. Fuller cheeks, small shifts in surface measurements, changes in muscle tone. Nothing in this research suggests face yoga erases wrinkles, reshapes bone or reduces fat. Spot reduction of fat isn’t supported by evidence in general, so there’s no reason to expect it in the face.
• The evidence is weak. Small samples, missing control groups, high dropout and subjective ratings are repeated across the field, and every review says better trials are needed.

What we still do not know

The biggest open questions are about who face yoga works for, how long effects last and whether it beats simpler options.

• Long-term effects. The longest study here ran for 20 weeks. Nobody has followed people for years, so it isn’t known whether any changes last or keep building.
• Men. Almost every participant in this research has been a woman, and the 2025 review flagged the lack of men as a limit. If you’re a man considering it, our guide to facial exercises for men covers what’s realistic.
• Younger and older adults. Most participants were middle-aged. Results may differ in people in their 20s or over 65. For readers over 50, the face yoga over 50 guide adapts routines for mature skin and joints.
• How much is enough. The Alam study used 30 minutes a day, far more than most people do. It isn’t known whether 5 to 10 minutes a day produces any measurable change. Our guide to how often to do face yoga explains the practical trade-offs.
• Exercise versus massage or attention alone. No study has compared face yoga with facial massage alone, or with a “sham” routine, which is what you’d need to know what is actually doing the work.
• Visible versus measured change. The studies that measure muscles don’t measure appearance, and the studies that judge appearance don’t measure muscles.

Related evidence: gua sha and facial massage

Facial massage is often combined with face yoga, and its evidence is similarly early-stage. Our does gua sha work guide covers it in full; here are the two studies most relevant to faces and skin.

• Nielsen et al., 2007: a pilot study in 11 healthy volunteers found that traditional gua sha on the back temporarily increased microcirculation in the surface tissue, which returned to baseline by the follow-up two days later. It was done on the body, with firmer pressure than facial gua sha, so it says little directly about the face.
• Ahn et al., 2025: a randomised trial of 34 women aged 20 to 50, split into a facial roller group and a gua sha group of 17 each. Both did 10 minutes of massage five days a week for 8 weeks, and both groups showed small reductions in facial surface distances (about 2 to 3 millimetres). It compared two tools against each other, with no no-massage control group and no blinding, so it can’t tell you how much either beats doing nothing.

For a side-by-side look at the two practices, see face yoga vs gua sha.

How to read face yoga claims

You can judge any face yoga claim, from an app, a coach or a headline, with a short checklist.

1. How many people took part? A study of 12 or 16 people can hint at an effect but can’t prove one.
2. Was there a control group? Without people who didn’t do the exercises, you can’t separate the routine from the passage of time, better sleep or new skincare.
3. Who rated the results, and did they know who exercised? Blinded experts or objective measurements carry more weight than self-ratings or unblinded judges.
4. How many people dropped out? In the Alam study, 11 of 27 didn’t finish. Those who stay may differ from those who leave.
5. What exactly was measured? “Muscle stiffness changed” is not the same as “you’ll look younger”.
6. How long, and how much? Results from 30 minutes a day don’t automatically apply to 5 minutes a day.
7. Who funded it, and what do the authors disclose? Check the funding and conflict-of-interest sections. For example, published coverage of the Alam study reports that it was supported by research funds from Northwestern University’s department of dermatology.
8. Does the claim match the study? “Clinically proven”, “facelift” or results by a set date go beyond anything in this research.

If a claim fails several of these checks, treat it as marketing rather than evidence. For the basics of the practice itself, our face yoga guide is a good place to start.

How Gluvy uses this evidence

This research shapes how Gluvy talks about face yoga: as a routine, not a treatment. Gluvy’s plans are built around 5 to 10 minutes a day rather than the 30 minutes used in the Alam study, so we don’t promise the results that study reported, or any results at all. What the evidence supports is a low-risk practice that may bring modest changes for some people, and that’s how we describe it. Our FAQ covers how plans and the app work.

Practise and track honestly with Gluvy

If you’re practising anyway, the best thing you can do is practise consistently and track honestly. Gluvy’s face yoga video workouts offer more than 200 guided exercises across the forehead, eyes, cheeks, jawline and neck, organised into 3-week plans of about 5 to 10 minutes a day, with a timer on every step. A progress journal with selfies keeps your photos in one place, and reminders help you stay steady, so you can run your own fair comparison. When you’re ready, download Gluvy for iPhone.

Update log

• 11 October 2026: Page first published, covering De Vos 2013, Van Borsel 2014, Alam 2018, Hwang 2018, Güzel 2025 and the 2025 Aesthetic Surgery Journal Open Forum review, plus related gua sha and facial massage studies (Nielsen 2007, Ahn 2025).

Sources

• De Vos MC, et al. Facial exercises for facial rejuvenation: a control group study. Folia Phoniatrica et Logopaedica, 2013.
• Van Borsel J, et al. The effectiveness of facial exercises for facial rejuvenation: a systematic review. Aesthetic Surgery Journal, 2014.
• Alam M, et al. Association of Facial Exercise With the Appearance of Aging. JAMA Dermatology, 2018.
• Hwang UJ, et al. Effect of a Facial Muscle Exercise Device on Facial Rejuvenation. Aesthetic Surgery Journal, 2018.
• Güzel, et al. Effect of Intensive Face Yoga on Facial Muscles Tonus, Stiffness, and Elasticity in Middle-Aged Women: A Pre-Experimental Clinical Trial. Medicina, 2025.
• Efficacy of Conservative Techniques for Mechanical Facial Rejuvenation: A Systematic Review. Aesthetic Surgery Journal Open Forum, 2025.
• Nielsen A, et al. The effect of Gua Sha treatment on the microcirculation of surface tissue: a pilot study in healthy subjects. Explore, 2007.
• Ahn, et al. Comparative Effects of Facial Roller and Gua Sha Massage on Facial Contour, Muscle Tone, and Skin Elasticity: Randomized Controlled Trial. Journal of Cosmetic Dermatology, 2025.
• MDedge. Facial exercises improved appearance in small study of middle-aged women. News coverage of Alam et al., 2018.