Senior citizen: Canto, 27, is on a calorie-restricted diet as part of a study examining the effects of diet on aging.
University of Wisconsin Madison / Jeff Miller
The diet delays or prevents diabetes, cancer, heart disease, and brain atrophy.
A 20-year study involving rhesus monkeys has provided the first strong evidence that caloric restriction slows the aging process in primates.
A diet that's nutritionally adequate but provides 30 percent fewer calories than normal has been shown to extend life span and delay the onset of age-related diseases in other animals, including flies, worms, and rodents. But because studies on primates take much longer, the benefits had not yet been demonstrated to extend to them. Now researchers at the National Primate Research Center at the University of Wisconsin-Madison report that in rhesus monkeys, caloric restriction begun in adulthood reduces risk of the most common age-related conditions--diabetes, cancer, heart disease, and brain atrophy--by a third.
"With these results, we have become convinced that aging retardation is happening," says Richard Weindruch, a professor of medicine at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, who began the study in 1989. The research involved 76 monkeys, half of them on the extreme diet. By now, the 33 surviving monkeys have reached old age. Thirty-seven percent of the monkeys on a normal diet have died of age-related diseases, compared with just 13 percent of the monkeys on the restricted diet. It's still unknown whether caloric restriction extends the animals' life span, but the results published today in the journal Science detail the benefits of the diet in preventing the most common such diseases.
The strongest evidence from the study concerns metabolic disorders. While five of the monkeys on a normal diet became diabetic and 11 were prediabetic (having blood glucose levels higher than normal), monkeys on the restricted diet were completely free of the disease. The incidence of both cardiovascular disease and tumors was reduced by 50 percent in the diet group. And magnetic resonance imaging showed that caloric restriction preserved gray-matter volume in the brain as the monkeys aged. In general, the dieting group appeared to be biologically younger: age-related diseases, if they developed, occurred later in life.
The work is significant because rhesus monkeys are more closely related to humans than other animals used so far in studies of caloric restriction. "Monkeys are so closely related to us; it's a much easier jump that this is likely to work in humans," says Ricki Colman, a lead researcher on the study. The Wisconsin researchers also took pains to make the study as applicable to humans as possible. "We treat each animal as an individual patient," Colman says. The animals receive physical exams every six months, along with full dental care and medical interventions as needed. "We treat the diabetes with insulin, and when we identify tumors we remove them," she explains.
Caloric restriction and exercise slow muscle decline in mice.
Monkeys on an extremely low-calorie diet are healthier--and hungrier.
The prospect of an anti-aging pill is not far off. The French who drink 3-5 glasses of red wine a day exhibit profound longevity and unusual heart health. The French have far more centenarians per capita than any other developed nation and exhibit far lower coronary heart disease rates (91 per 100,000) than North America (240 per 100,000). Remove the alcohol from the wine and you have an array of miraculous molecules that Professor Roger Corder, author of The Red Wine Diet, says is responsible for wine's healthy properties. The prevailing myth is that 1000 glasses of red wine are needed to prolong life and increase the human healthspan. The French prove this wrong. Three-to-five glasses of red wine provide ~180-300 mg of small molecules (resveratrol, quercetin, catechin, ferulic acid, kaempferol, malvidin, gallic acid) which work synergistically to promote health. This is the safe and effective range for so-called anti-aging pills.
Such idealistic and false papers will continue to appear to the and of the Ages. Calory restriction has a negative side effect- the brain is not able to perform at its maximum capabilities. For monkeys- this is perhaps not essential, but for humans, who live increasingly in a world dominated by stupidity, a further decrease of the IQ can be something highly undesirable.
Once in our history we had to make a choice: "Should we be vegetarians or humans?" To forget this is dangerous.
Guest (rafael7)
I had a fortunate experience (in retrospect). One day I woke up to the fact that I was 'fat'. I managed to get myself onto a fast. It lasted over a month. The hurdle was getting started. After that, food was repulsive.
The fortunate part... I achieved an amazing clarity of mind. Like an electronic device, the brain requires very little energy to function.
It was very sad when I finally started eating again. It felt like a violation of my body. The food was a foreign object lodged inside of me.
Now I am fat again, and it depresses me that I no longer possess the resolve to right my listing ship.
Your implication of vegetarians being non-human is disturbing not to mention the fact that the article says nothing about vegetarianism. Also it is spelled calorie not calory, for one who is lamenting the ratio between stupidity and intelligence in the world this comes off as a little ironic. I think this study is a step in the right direction and somehow I doubt that they have falsified anything. As what has been said before, I'm sure they have left out a lot of information regarding the specifics of the study, as in what is a normal diet and what is a restricted diet. So one cannot judge a study on such little information given on it. Also I'm sure it is peer reviewed and any inconsistencies will come to light.
Dear Daedalus 108,
Restricted calories and not starving is a symptom (proof)of vegetarianism, I think. I was living in Ceausescu's Romania and during the eighties Food and especially meat was a great problem, We were thin but very unhappy and slow in thinking.
My compassion to the poor monkeys used in this cruel experiment. Otherwise I dare to think that the quality of your life is even more important than its length. The idea is not new, ascets are with us from time immemorial.I do not believe they are good as role models.
Maybe you were "very unhappy and slow in thinking" because you lived in a Stalinist totalitarian state, which would cause anyone to be clinically depressed.
And by the way, Romanians today are not exactly the brightest bulbs around, even though they have plenty of food. (I speak from personal experience...)
I am speaking about the direct effects of the qualitative hunger not about the effects of oppression. Please respect my experience, I respect yours and in case you personally are a vegetarian, I will shut up.
As regarding Romanians- after 1989 I have visited 20 countries including U.S. and U.K. but I ma nota able to tell "who" are the brightest people around. The smartest and the most honest???
As regarding your second messagebin case you will use a vegetarian diet for your own children, bravissimo and my best wishes!
An aphorism by the romanian writer Valeriu Butulescu: " I am a vegetarian, not because I love animals, but because I hate the plants."
I am ready to discuss with you directly, in case you wish.
For peter193710
It has been shown that vegetarianism correlates with higher IQ:
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/334/7587/216
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/bmj.39030.675069.55v1
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6180753.stm
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/59220.php
Just that you know...
Dear Gabrielg01,
Sorry to say, the study shows that intelligent people are attracted by vegetarianism (3 stages of it)NOT that vegetarians become intelligent.
Will you take the risk to give only fruits and vegetables to your small children or grandchildren? In case you want them grow smart?
To your pregnant wife or daughter, to your hard working or thinking son-in-law?
I didn't say that vegetarianism causes people to be smart. I said it correlates with being smart.
Yes, I do know families who grew up their kids on a strict vegetarian diet. They are doing very well, they are high achievers. So, don't worry, because not eating meat does not cause any harm.
"Normal"diet(recommended dietary intake)does not mean healthy,these monkeys went to a early grave.
waste vs wear-Being fit will allow you to quickly return to a resting heartbeat,good muscle mass helps avoid excessive wear on the body,During times of fasting the body takes from the muscles first
Mushrooms vs meat- Protein is the name of the game here,sadly lacking in many vegan diets(for taste considerations),Meat does have bacteria issues though
"I don't demand of my people that they don't eat meat they just follow my example."
(miss worded quote)-Budda
‘Normal’ here just means a statistical norm, not good or bad or desirable. Its unfortunate that the author started out well by saying “A diet that's nutritionally adequate but provides 30 percent fewer calories than normal…” and then lapsed into the usage of ‘normal diet.’
“If you restrict your calories but then because you by definition must restrict your activities drastically, to me this sound like you will become unhealthy due to wasting of muscles, weak heart, weak bones etc. “
This is just ludicrous on the face of it. You must by definition restrict your activity? I defy anyone to show me ‘that’ research.
Please don’t confuse 40+ years of research on CRD with this article. It’s poor but has nothing to do with the quality of the research.
No one mentioned the latest theory: CRD causes the expression of a class of genes known as Sirtuins and these are responsible for the anti-aging phenomena. Too early to tell yet but so far research is proving this to be the best theory to explain all the empirical evidence that has been gained over the years in this research.
“Calory restriction has a negative side effect- the brain is not able to perform at its maximum capabilities.”
Where do people come up with this nonsense?
One of the best, most coherent and sane ways to eat that is also CRD is the Zone Diet as laid out by Barry Sears. Eating is like taking drugs in that it can have a huge positive or negative impact on your health and for the most part, out current culture does an incredibly poor job of equipping people with the knowledge they need to maintain a healthy weight and a healthy state.
Manufacturing in the United States is in trouble. That's bad news not just for the country's economy but for the future of innovation.
On Twitter
Become a Fan on Facebook
Subscribe to the Feed
erbium
340 Comments
Interesting ideas
however having just gone thru on aging books for a final project paper, researchers had problems with the calorie restriction idea.
Certainly overeating is very bad. But overeating means gaining weight or maintaining excess weight. If you don't restrict your calories but don't gain weight, is this the same?
If you restrict your calories but then because you by definition must restrict your activities drastically, to me this sound like you will become unhealthy due to wasting of muscles, weak heart, weak bones etc. I.e. exercise has been shown to be very good for your heart, brain muscles.
In humans being slightly overweight, and active has advantages in that you have a pool of energy you can draw on in case of serious sickness. I got cholera from tainted food and lost 12 pounds in 4 days. If I had no fat it would eat into muscles, some of which are critical to the body.
Of course being more than a tiny bit overweight is the root of many health problems.
secondly the article mentions 'normal diet'. Is this a normal diet for monkeys? For people? I defy someone to say what a 'normal diet' is for people. To me a normal diet for humans varies by country, and in the US includes twice as much protein as is needed. Excess protein wears on the body to eliminate. Meat is considered part of a 'normal diet' in the US but has health problems, including changing the route of calcium excretion, tendency to gout from mineral crystals building up in tissue, fatty deposits in arteries, etc.
Even vegetarian diets can be vary greatly. Refined sugars make blood sugars swing wildly which is a major cause of aging, diabetes and eye problems. Tight blood sugar control is the most important thing a diabetic can do to preserve their vision for example.
So if I switch to a diet of mostly complex carbs, nutrient dense, as mentioned in the article, is this a 'normal diet' or am I already prolonging my life such that I don't need to restrict calories (presuming I exercise, avoid industrial or household toxins, etc)..
To me this article just creates new questions to ask about this research and new questions for future research.
Reply
Adrian Zolkover
22 Comments
Re: Interesting ideas
I wonder if Bourzac had a word limit in her paper? She might have included more details that would answer your questions if more words were allowed. I have a hunch this was the case.
Reply
Guest (rafael7)
Re: Interesting ideas
This comment section is as entertaining as the articles. Why do people have to resist every concept? I see the possibility clearly. The body is a furnace. The more fuel a furnace burns, the sooner it deteriorates. Simple, direct analogy.
Not to mention the body's organs are filters, and have a natural lifespan as well. How hard is it to accept that gluttonous, overindulgence is a ticket to an early grave?
Now imagine a frail, healthy 96 year-old grandma. She spent her whole life caring for others. Her self-denial gifted her with a long, if severe life.
The secret to long life... use, not abuse. Forget tweaking your telomeres, just live a spartan existence, and avoid lavish indulgences.
Reply
bpertum
11 Comments
Re: Interesting ideas
The objections to caloric restriction have been addressed very well in books by Roy Walford. I would recommend "Beyond the 120 Year Diet."
You've said that:
"If you restrict your calories but then because you by definition must restrict your activities drastically,"
You are already burning many of your calories in futile cycles so that in time your metabolism will become much more efficient which will allow you to reduce your weight set point while maintaining the healthy exercise program which is advocated in the book.
"In humans being slightly overweight, and active has advantages in that you have a pool of energy you can draw on in case of serious sickness."
Normally thin people (people not thin because of diet or preexisting disease) do quite well when ill as compared with obese individuals while enjoying the benefit of a lower incidence of diabetes and heart disease. I live in the USA where heart disease, cancer and dementia are much more of a threat than cholera, but I understand your concern.
"secondly the article mentions 'normal diet'. Is this a normal diet for monkeys? For people? I defy someone to say what a 'normal diet' is for people."
Good point! You are astute to notice that it is unclear in the article what is meant by a "normal diet." Of what I've read about caloric restriction; the goal is to provide a nutritionally complete diet while reducing caloric intake according to an individuals set-point weight. Most people will not be "rail thin" as a result. The nutritional requirements for humans and monkeys has been well established by reliable peer reviewed studies for decades. Meeting your nutritional requirements while reducing caloric intake requires a nutritionally dense diet such as the CRON diet. I've found it not to be difficult to adhere to.
"So if I switch to a diet of mostly complex carbs, nutrient dense, as mentioned in the article, is this a 'normal diet' or am I already prolonging my life such that I don't need to restrict calories (presuming I exercise, avoid industrial or household toxins, etc)"
You should forget about the notion of a "normal diet" and pursue a nutritionally adequate diet while restricting your caloric intake.
Caloric restriction with adequate nutrition is the ONLY way yet to increase maximum life span although other diets may contribute to increases in average life span.
Reply