Slashdot Mirror


Calorie Restriction May Not Extend Lifespan

sciencehabit writes "Slash your food intake and you can live dramatically longer — at least if you're a mouse or a nematode. But a major study designed to determine whether this regimen, known as caloric restriction, works in primates suggests that it improves monkeys' health but doesn't extend their lives. Researchers not involved with the new paper say the results are still encouraging. Although the monkeys didn't evince an increase in life span, both studies show a major improvement in 'health span,' or the amount of time before age-related diseases set in. 'I certainly wouldn't give up on calorie restriction as a health promoter' based on these findings, says molecular biologist Leonard Guarente of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge."

30 of 251 comments (clear)

  1. Study funded by... by DaTrueDave · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...McDonalds Corporation?

  2. I'll die happy by justdiver · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'd rather be fat and die early having eaten the things I liked, than old, skinny and never enjoyed a triple bacon burger with extra cheese.

    1. Re:I'll die happy by sa666u · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Provided that eating is the only thing that makes you happy. I used to think just like you but at some point your body starts giving up and your life gets miserable despite the feasts.

    2. Re:I'll die happy by Physician · · Score: 5, Informative

      That is not an option according to the research. You will die at the same time as the skinny guy but will acquire age related diseases sooner so the skinny guy will enjoy a larger percentage of his life outside the nursing home, hospital and doctor's office.

      --
      Does God treat us as servants or friends? Check my homepage.
    3. Re:I'll die happy by thePowerOfGrayskull · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'd rather be fat and die early having eaten the things I liked, than old, skinny and never enjoyed a triple bacon burger with extra cheese.

      Is your life about only food? If that's the only thing you enjoy, then by all means yours the philosophy to live by.

      In addition, nothing says you can't enjoy these foods - the key is moderation. Don't glut yourself.

      It seems a common misunderstanding when it comes to "limiting caloric intake" is that you can never eat anything "bad for you"; but I think it's far more important that you don't eat a) nothing *but* 'bad for you', or b) unlimited quantites of the same.

      Have a slice of pizza and a soda. Don't have half a pie and a two liter bottle of soda, and don't eat the pizza every night. Pretty simple.

    4. Re:I'll die happy by crmarvin42 · · Score: 3, Informative

      The sad part is that you don't

      - A Nutritionist

      --
      Bureaucracy expands to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy.-Oscar Wilde
    5. Re:I'll die happy by neorush · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I really hope this is a joke, because the thing is you probably won't die early, instead you'll be propped up by whatever health care system you're under at a ridiculous cost to everyone else. I can also pretty much guarantee you won't want to eat that triple bacon burger with extra cheese after dialysis or chemotherapy because the diet you describe increases your chance of all these problems dramatically. After working with obese folks for years now I can tell you that the last 10 or so years of their lives are not only not enjoyable, they are down right miserable, and expensive as well.
      I didn't read TFA but I wonder if this study consider the quality of those calories, e.g. in America we try and diet by eating one cheeseburger instead of two, of course we could have eaten 5 apples instead, been full and satisfied, and gotten some nutrition as well.

      --
      neorush
    6. Re:I'll die happy by iONiUM · · Score: 4, Informative

      You're quite right. lo carb hi fat diet is also what I use, and I have also had success in lowering my weight, and keeping off mild hypertension. It's extremely sad that people think fat is the what is making them unhealthy.

    7. Re:I'll die happy by crmarvin42 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I think the unstated implication that comes from comparing the two long running studies on this in Rhesus Monkeys is that it's not so much that calorie restriction v maintenance requirement extends your life, but that caloric intake above maintenance shortens it. The key is in the differences between the two "non-restricted" treatments used I the different studies.

      One used ad Libitum access to feed (eat as much as you want) and saw a benefit to restricting by 30% vs maintenance requirement. The other used maintenance v 30% restriction and saw no difference. Seems to me the two Positive Control treatments are what really should be compared (all other things being equal).

      -A Nutritionist

      --
      Bureaucracy expands to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy.-Oscar Wilde
    8. Re:I'll die happy by jedidiah · · Score: 3, Interesting

      An alternative is for him to get off of his fat ass and burn off the junk food. However, that actually requires work and effort and as such will be the last option that any American suggest.

      It's not an easy enough solution. It doesn't shrink wrap well enough.

      Moderation helps too.

      The problem with pizza is mainly cultural. It is perceived as a binge food. Many people with dire fatness issues binge on junk and then are puzzled why they are medically obese.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    9. Re:I'll die happy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's a shortage of protein, an abundance of calories, and most importantly an utter absence of exercise keeping people unhealthy. Your body has vast mechanisms in place to convert fats to sugars and vice versa, which is why too much fat can lead to diabetes just as easily as too much sugar can.

      Get off your lazy ass, get sufficient protein, keep your other calories under control, and it doesn't matter much if they come from carbs or fat.

    10. Re:I'll die happy by PPalmgren · · Score: 5, Informative

      Most of the other fun things in life do not favor the restricted calorie intake, so its kind of a moot point unless you enjoy a sedentary lifestyle. As someone whose experienced how the body feels on the level of restricted calories required to trigger the effect that's been studied, its a life of lethargy and lack of energy. I used to eat twice a day, under 1000 calories, and my bodily functions followed (don't have a bowel movement but once every couple days, don't get hungry, etc). The side effects were I could barely work out hard for 20 minutes and couldn't enjoy outdoor activities because I simply didn't have the energy, wanting to sleep upwards of 12 hours a day when feasible. Now that I eat 5 times a day, my body is fully rested on 7 hours and I can enjoy a full day of activity.

      Granted, I loved the low calorie method when I was getting all my giggles from gaming and relaxing, but now that I've had the drive to do more it just doesn't work for me. I expect this is the same for parents as well, the key factor being time. To have the energy needed to be active and function on lesser amounts of sleep, a higher metabolism lifestyle is almost a requirement.

    11. Re:I'll die happy by Hatta · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Eating well is no guarantee. My dad ate almost nothing but vegetables, chicken, and fish for his entire adult life, and still died of a heart attack at age 53. He didn't do it for heart disease though, he did it for MS which remained in remission for the rest of his life.(whether the diet actually had anything to do with that, who knows?) But I think the point stands. If you can avoid saturated fats for 30 years and keel over from a heart attack, what's the point of avoiding saturated fats?

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    12. Re:I'll die happy by NettiWelho · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Congratulations on having spotted a statistical trend armed with whopping total of 2 data points.

    13. Re:I'll die happy by BStroms · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I didn't read TFA but I wonder if this study consider the quality of those calories, e.g. in America we try and diet by eating one cheeseburger instead of two, of course we could have eaten 5 apples instead, been full and satisfied, and gotten some nutrition as well.

      Who would want to eat five apples in one sitting? Even if I were hungry, I'd probably just stop at one and wait till the next meal. At least pick a more appealing fruit like an orange.

      But seriously, I dropped from 205 pounds to 170 and have kept it off for years with virtually exercise and with the only change to what I'm consuming being that I never buy any beverages with calories. Mostly stick to water with some diet pop on occasion. Other than that, I just cut back portions and eliminated snacking between meals.

      Funny thing is, I motivate myself to diet with food. I have a very strict rule that I never eat out/order in unless I'm below 170 pounds. Then I'll get whatever food I want and have one meal where I eat without restraint. After that, I have to diet off whatever I gained and repeat the process. Keeps me happy, and sure beats going vegetarian and/or spending hours a week in the gym.

    14. Re:I'll die happy by avandesande · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Not to mention that like alcohol, smoking or pretty much anything else there are diminishing returns on enjoyment. Moderation actually improves most experiences.

      --
      love is just extroverted narcissism
    15. Re:I'll die happy by stupid_pygmy · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The (left-leaning, liberal, etc.) nytimes has an interesting article on this. A recent study comparing the Hazda people that follow a hunter-gatherer lifestyle with a lot of exercise, show that they burned similar amounts of calories to many more sedentary people. It's unclear that just increasing exercise will reduce someone's weight. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/26/opinion/sunday/debunking-the-hunter-gatherer-workout.html

    16. Re:I'll die happy by crmarvin42 · · Score: 5, Informative
      Cooked bacon is about 38-40% fat and 38% protein, and Wendy's Baconator still provides almost half of its calories from carbohydrates.
      Most of the fat in cheap ground beef it lost during the cooking process so that even 70% lean beef is only 15-18% fat after cooking
      A 1 ounce serving (28g) of Velveeta contains less than 0.01 g of trans fat (the lower threshold for listing)
      Most americans are not diabetic

      As someone who is professionally employed as a nutritionist and has a Ph.D. in the science, I have to say that this:

      There's pretty much something there to sabotage everyone's digestive system and metabolic balance.

      is completely meaningless.

      There is a lot of FUD being spread around about various types of food, and a lot of misinformation about nutrition in general. Eating at a fast-food joint every day is probably going to be unhealthy depending on what you order, assuming you have a daily caloric expenditure that is close to the 2,000/d that the government bases its recommendations on. However, it is more important that your diet match your activity level, than that you avoid specific foods or food groups. As an illustrative example, Michael Phelps consumes 12,000 calories/d when training. He is obviously a statistical outlier, but that is partially my point. The maintenance energy requirement for every person is different, and very much dependent upon that persons activity level. Their is nothing inherently bad about any of the ingredients in a triple bacon cheeseburger, nor with the final product. It is when such calorie dense meals are consumed in excess of your calorie expenditure that they start to cause problems.

      --
      Bureaucracy expands to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy.-Oscar Wilde
    17. Re:I'll die happy by Hatta · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I certainly believe in science, but I'd suggest that my fathers medical history is a lot more relevant to my future health than reasearch done on the population level.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    18. Re:I'll die happy by pepty · · Score: 3, Informative

      Their is nothing inherently bad about any of the ingredients in a triple bacon cheeseburger, nor with the final product.

      nitrosopyrrolidine and dimethylnitrosamine?

      I'll agree that there is an ever changing crest of FUD and hype surrounding some basic food types and superfoods repectively. On the other hand, the evidence over the past 40 years between increased intake of nitrate preserved meat ( especially when subsequently cooked at high temperature) and CHD, diabetes, and all cause mortality has not been reverting to the mean. Instead the correlation has been getting tighter and tighter, with better mechanistic studies at the biological chemistry end and better data at the epidemiological end.

      I'm not saying BAN ALL BACON; I'm saying there is evidence that eating a lot may cause you harm.

    19. Re:I'll die happy by Jaytan · · Score: 3, Informative

      Cooked bacon is about 38-40% fat and 38% protein, and Wendy's Baconator still provides almost half of its calories from carbohydrates.

      You provided a link to the nutrition facts, but this statement is false. The Baconator has 970 calories, and the website lists 570 of those as being from fat. 400 is close to half sure, but you're ignoring the sources of the calories.

      The website says a Baconator has 63 grams of fat, 40 grams carbs and 60 grams protein. 1 gram of protein or carbs is worth 4 calories, and 1g of fat is 9 calories.

      Using that a Baconator's gets it calories from the following sources:
      567 calories from fat. (~58.5%)
      240 calories from protein. (~24.7%)
      160 calories from carbohydrates. (~16.5%)

      So carbs aren't anywhere near almost half of the calories in a Baconator.

  3. Misleading by joh · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This study proves that further calorie restriction doesn't extend the lifespan compared to an already healthy diet. *Both* though extend the lifespan compared to eating enough to become obese.

    I'm just saying this because there'll be enough people who will take this as a prove that over-eating is fine. It isn't.

    By the way, a diet consisting of all the fruits, vegetables and meat you can eat is totally fine. It's very hard to become obese when you avoid sugars, starch and other carbohydrates. Sadly, almost everything ready-made you can buy is full to the brim of these.

    1. Re:Misleading by crmarvin42 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Very True! Wish I had mod points.

      There are two longitudinal monkey trials on calorie restriction, and they differ in what exactly the CR diet is compared to. One is verses a diet formulated to meet, but not exceed maintenance energy requirement, but the other is versus free-choice (which allows over eating). The first (the one cited above) shows no benefit, but the other shows remarkable benefit. Seems clear to me that it's the over eating that shortens life, not restriction that elongates it, at least in Rhesus monkeys.

      Fat is more energy dense than starch, but it is also more energy intensive to absorb and transport in the body. Starch is absorbed almost energy free, but fat needs to be broken down every time it crosses a membrane and that takes energy. However, I've seen some pretty fat pigs in research trials as a result of feeding 30% fat (oil, lard, choice white grease, etc.) in the diet. So it CAN be done, but who really wants to essentially be drinking bacon grease.

      -A Nutritionist

      --
      Bureaucracy expands to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy.-Oscar Wilde
  4. the definition of calories by robbie73 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Calories (noun) - Tiny creatures that live in your closet and sew your clothes a little bit tighter every night.

  5. intermittent fasting by rfischer · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It might turn out that it's not caloric restriction that's important, but periodic fasting.

    There is research showing that even if you keep your overall food intake (and body weight) constant, but **fast on alternate days**, you can improve blood glucose and insulin levels

    Check it:
    http://www.pnas.org/content/100/10/6216.full

  6. The following is a joke, FYI by gman003 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Stupid Apple fanboy...

  7. Ah, the joys of a good obesity argument... by Havenwar · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'm stuffed! No really, I'm so full I feel like rolling off this chair. I just had half a pizza and half a bottle of coke, and I'm not entirely sure I won't finish at least one of those two when this settles down!

    And with that said, I've lost about 160lbs over the last year and a half. I eat pizza, noddles, burgers, I have ice cream, candy... I eat chips, dip, sauces... Oh man, do I ever... So how did I lose that weight?

    I stopped eating so god damn much.

    That's it. No exercise, no mysticism, no fad diets. I don't pay particular attention to what food is healthy and what isn't, I just look at how many calories it is, and I eat less of it than I expend in a day. This pizza feast? Oh man, at a guesstimate I binged a good 2000 calories tonight, that's more than I usually eat in an entire day! And that's okay, because I don't do this every day. Tomorrow I won't even feel like eating much for the first half of the day, I'll probably end up eating a pear or two for breakfast just to wake up the system, and then lunch will be something light again. All in all it's not the day that counts, but the average over time.

    So yeah, from one former fatass to all the fatasses out there... keep fooling yourself if you want, keep telling yourself that you don't want to lose weight because you'll have to stop eating tasty shit... it's not true, not even remotely. You are using it as an excuse and you know it. It just means you'll have to stop eating twice as much as you need. And no, you won't be constantly hungry if you eat less, people aren't built to eat the amounts you do, it's just your body that has gotten used to it. Once you've stopped that in it's tracks, the body quickly adjusts, and you'll once more only be hungry before meals and so on.

    There's no magic. You can keep eating whatever the fuck you want. Just a lot less of it. If you want to eat a LOT, then sure, salad is the way to go... but if you want to eat deliciously greasy... some moderation is key. And it's not harder than that. It's not even much of an effort. No need to go on a diet, no need to even decide to lose weight... just decide to eat less. That's it. Eat less. Weight will fall off, at an unbelievable rate, and you'll still be eating your pizza and chugging that coke... just not for every meal any more.

  8. Re:I'll die happy .. wrong ... vitamin D by scharkalvin · · Score: 3, Informative

    Wrong. You body DOES make vitamin D when you are exposed to the sun.

  9. oh my god! a chemical! by circletimessquare · · Score: 3, Interesting

    you're worried about nitirites and nitrates in your diet? celery has a lot of nitrites and nitrates. so does spinach. so does lettuce

    fruit juice has formaldehyde

    chocolate has theobromine

    peanuts have aflatoxin, a potent carcinogen

    parsley has plyacetylenes

    do you want a couple hundred more scary chemicals in your food listed from plant sources?

    guess what: the plants ARE TRYING TO KILL YOU. the absolute worst chemicals for you in your diet ARE NATURAL, FROM PLANTS

    have been since dinosaurs began munching on them. so herbivores and omnivores like us respond with an organ called "the liver". which breaks down the toxic, carcinogenic, teratogenic, and otherwise lethal brew of noxious chemicals that plants have firing at us for millions of years. it's chemical warfare, us versus them, an arms race

    do you know what morning sickness is? do you know why newly pregnant women vomit at the scent or sight or taste of plants?

    because evolution has taught women's bodies to stick with THE SAFE MEAT FOOD SOURCES to avoid the noxious alkaloids in plants that will mutate her fetus at the sensitive stage of early pregnancy

    just because you can string together a bunch of chemicals doesn't mean you understand what the greatest toxic danger to your body is that is out there: PLANTS

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:oh my god! a chemical! by pepty · · Score: 3, Informative

      oh my god! a chemical!

      Oh My God! I'm a Chemist!

      you're worried about nitirites and nitrates in your diet? celery has a lot of nitrites and nitrates. so does spinach. so does lettuce

      So what?

      1. ascorbic acid in vegetables tends to scavenge nitrites, so you don't end up with nitrosamines.

      2. Vegetables have a very low amine content, so again you don't end up with nitrosamines.

      3. Meats preserved with nitrates (especially the ones subsequently cooked at hi temp - that's when many nitrosamines are formed ) are the ones associated with cancer, etc. Vegetables aren't. I just named the two nitrosamines most prevalent in cooked bacon.

      do you want a couple hundred more scary chemicals in your food listed from plant sources?

      Are the food sources (when properly prepared and not contaminated) linked by epidemiological data to excess morbidity or mortality?

      so herbivores and omnivores like us respond with an organ called "the liver". which breaks down the toxic, carcinogenic, teratogenic, and otherwise lethal brew of noxious chemicals that plants have firing at us for millions of years.

      Nitrosamines are hepatotoxins, even in rats. Rats are sometimes referred to as "livers wrapped in fur" in toxicity testing because they are so proficient at dealing with various toxins. Plenty of other toxins aren't really even toxic until they get activated in the liver. The liver isn't some magic suit of armor; it just hydroxylates the shit out of everything until it's water soluble enough for the kidneys to get rid of.

      just because you can string together a bunch of chemicals doesn't mean you understand what the greatest toxic danger to your body is that is out there: PLANTS

      Actually, stringing together a bunch of chemicals (and then identifying and purifying the resultant polymer) is something I'm pretty good at. The greatest toxic danger to my body personally is probably the neat hydrofluoric acid I work with daily, but whatever.

      I get that there are a lot of people freaking out about "the evil of chemicals" - I'm not one of them. It's worse than ever now, since improved mass spec techniques make it cheap and easy to find parts per trillion/parts per billion of just about anything anywhere. On the other hand it hasn't gotten any easier to determine safe exposure levels, especially in long lived mammals. In the end we need good epidemiological data to figure it out, and for nitrosamines we're getting it.