Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Calorie Restriction May Not Extend Lifespan

Posted by timothy on from the not-even-time-for-one-more-cigarette dept.

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."

18 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 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
    5. 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.

    6. 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
    7. 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.

    8. 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!
    9. 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.

    10. 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
    11. 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
  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...