It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Caloric Restriction May Not Increase Longevity In Primates/Humans

page: 1

log in


posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 04:12 PM
Study of monkeys shows cutting calories could prevent disease but doesn't increase longevity

For 75 years, scientists have documented a curious fact: If rats and mice eat 30%-40% fewer calories than usual, they live 15%-40% longer than is typical for their species. The observation has offered humans hope that our own maximum life-span could one day be extended, permitting people to live well past their 100th birthday.

A new study in monkeys pours cold water on that notion -- while at the same time offering some heartening health news.

Among a colony of rhesus monkeys tracked for more than 20 years, animals whose calories were restricted to 30% below normal lived no longer on average than monkeys whose eating was unrestricted, scientists found. But the diet did offer clear benefits, notably in warding off cancer.

I've been rather cautious when referring to the efficacy of caloric restriction on extending longevity for the reason above. As the article mentions, there was a previous study, the only other testing the hypothesis on primates, which yielded supporting evidence for the hypothesis; however, in light of the latest study, perhaps we should pump the brakes before jumping to conclusions.

On the bright side, caloric restriction in primates certainly does seem to promote health in general. So, while eating less may not make primates--including humans--live longer, it may help retard the development and progression of cancer, obesity, diabetes and cardiovascular disease... which, of course, would lead to a better quality of life.

For instance, in the latest study, there has been no diagnoses of cancer in the calorically restricted monkeys vs. 6 confirmed cases in the ad libitum monkeys.

Personally, I'd like to get my hands on the full articles to get more details on both studies. Specifically, I'd like to know exactly what these guys were eating and exactly how much; if there were different habits observed between the two groups; what the difference in metabolic rates were between the two group; et cetera.

Anyway, let the recent study be a reminder that data on nutrition science can't always be transferred from insect and rodent models to primates and humans.

posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 05:05 PM
reply to post by DevolutionEvolvd

I am curious if the environmental factor might be overlooked here. For instance, if there is bad weather and poor environmental conditions, could that lead to type of roof placed on the subjects life span? For instance if I conduct that study and temperature variations are allowed to progress to detrimental levels could that not hedge all the subjects to die in similar time frames. Although, the article implies they took this into consideration.

Its rather perplexing to me...if they are healthier and can be more active and happy, how could this not lead to increased longevity? On a side note...I will take drastically lower cancer rates, cardiovascular benefits and youthful appearance for now...longevity aside

In case you are totally insane like myself no

....since all souls are all immortal, it's kind of redundant argument anyway
...hold on to that Cocoon...never leave the womb sorta thing...

edit on 9/9/2012 by Drala because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 07:06 PM
Hi, all.

Hmmmmmmmm ". . .no use to cut calories. . ."

? Somebody, somebusinesses wants us to eat more ?

WHERE does the money, used for that srudy, COME$ FROM ???
. . .And we will have the **answer** for that kind of results (desinformation?) !

Blue skies.

posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 12:36 PM
reply to post by C-JEAN

I wouldn't go that far. The study showed that there is a clear health benefit for caloric restriction, regardless of longevity. But, I wanna know what they were EATING!

posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 12:42 PM
reply to post by C-JEAN

I have to say that my mind just went to that same thought, taking into consideration that America is a nation for profits, the food industry specially the fast food one will pay very well to make sure that you do not stop eating more than you body needs because that means cutting on profits.

With the growing evidence on shaky reports and studies paid by the same people promoting their goods everything should be scrutinized.

I smell corporate money on this one.

posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 12:49 PM
who cares about living passed 100

i'm good with many more healthy years from eating lean and clean

posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 12:54 PM
reply to post by DevolutionEvolvd

Explanation: S&F!

Maybe this ...

CRON diet [wiki]

The CRON-diet (Calorie Restriction with Optimal Nutrition) is a nutrient-rich, very low calorie diet developed by Roy Walford, Lisa Walford, and Brian M. Delaney. The CRON-diet involves calorie restriction in the hope that the practice will improve health and retard aging, while still attempting to supply in the recommended daily amounts of various nutrients. Other names include CR-diet, Longevity diet, and Anti-Aging Plan. Several people including the Walfords, Delaney and others founded the CR Society International to promote the CRON-diet.

Walford's website []

Recipes []

Hint: Try the Super Salad!

Personal Disclosure: May Dr Roy Walford RIP.

Obituary: Dr Roy Walford []

posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 12:58 PM
Nutritionists keep flopping back and forth on what is healthy and what isnt.

If you recell, Eggs are once again considered really bad for your health.

There are so many diets out there promoting better health. I am operating on the impression that one diet will not work for all and you food consumption is unique to each persons different needs.

Everyones bodies metabolize food differently. Some may be able to digest and process fruit better, while others can consume dairy without resulting into a symphony of bodily noises.

Everything in moderations and listen to what your body tells you. There is no one right answer here.

edit on 10-9-2012 by MDDoxs because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 14 2012 @ 11:49 AM

Originally posted by MDDoxs
Nutritionists keep flopping back and forth on what is healthy and what isnt.

If you recell, Eggs are once again considered really bad for your health.

There's a reason for that. It's not that one day they're good and one day they're bad. The real data on eggs have never shown detrimental health effects from consuming them. It's the observational studies that "suggest" that eggs could be harmful. And it's the journalists who perpetuate the myth that dietary cholesterol/fat is harmful.

Everything in moderations and listen to what your body tells you. There is no one right answer here.

Listening to your body isn't always very sound advice.

top topics


log in