
Low-Calorie Diet Doesn’t Prolong Life, Study of Monkeys Finds - tocomment
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/30/science/low-calorie-diet-doesnt-prolong-life-study-of-monkeys-finds.html
======
gwern
Fulltext: <http://dl.dropbox.com/u/85192141/2012-mattison.pdf>

------
aezell
As someone who recently embarked on a restricted-calorie diet, I can say that
I'm not inclined to live longer in the sense of past the average life-span.
I'm more inclined to have a higher quality of life and live long enough to see
my child into his adulthood.

That said, outside of weightloss and increased energy and stamina, I have
noticed a few things about a reduced-calorie diet (and I'm talking 1000
calories or less most days):

1) I don't think about food as anything but fuel. I no longer think of it as a
way to be social, to pass the time, or to be happy.

2) While it's possible to eat 1000 calories of calorie dense food with almost
no other nutrition (sugar), I find that hunger demands I eat things that have
more mass with less calories (vegetables and some proteins).

3) My day no longer revolves around eating. Pretty simple, but previously, I
would be very concerned with what I had eaten the day before and might eat
tomorrow. Outside of the measurements I'm keeping about caloric intake, I
seldom think about food.

4) I'm saving money. I used to eat out a lot. Eating out, except for maybe a
salad, makes it hard to reduce caloric intake. Now, I eat at home on the
pound-for-pound cheaper food we can get at the farmer's market or grocery
store.

~~~
enraged_camel
Can you elaborate on how a calorie-restricted diet can result in "increased
energy and stamina"? Specifically, if your energy intake is minimal, how do
you end up with more energy than you had in your previous diet?

~~~
gwern
More calories doesn't translate straight into more energy or stamina, or
athletes would just consume big blocks of lard.

~~~
enraged_camel
Your statement strikes me as patently false. Athletes eat a _ton_ of food
while training. Michael Phelps, for example, eats over 10,000 calories per
day.

~~~
gwern
And Phelps is all athletes? And _what_ is he eating? I'd bet it's not
optimized for caloric density.

~~~
enraged_camel
The point was not that Phelps is a representation of all athletes, but rather
that athletes do eat a ton of calories a day in order to build muscle mass and
have enough stamina for their rigorous training. There are certain exceptions,
but generally speaking, if you are training for a sport then you should have a
solid diet.

------
stephengillie
Other article: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4450307>

There was a Univ of Wisconsin study, and an "Barshop Institute for Longevity
and Aging Studies at the University of Texas Health Science Center in San
Antonio" study, and their results contradict.

~~~
crpatino
This is mentioned in the article, as well of some possible explanations why
replication was not possible. My personal favorite is:

"The University of Wisconsin’s control monkeys were allowed to eat as much as
they wanted and were fatter than those in the aging institute’s study, which
were fed in amounts that were considered enough to maintain a healthy weight
but were not unlimited."

~~~
rcthompson
This would seen to suggest that although caloric restriction may not prolong
life, an all-you-can-eat diet may shorten it.

~~~
david_shaw

        > This would seen to suggest that although 
        > caloric restriction may not prolong life, an
        > all-you-can-eat diet may shorten it.
    

This is basically what I came to post. A calorie restricted diet may not
prolong life compared to a healthy, normal weight, but obesity certainly cuts
lifespan short through a plethora of health issues.

~~~
learc83
Yes it can cause all kinds of health problems, but the actual decrease in
average age for a moderately obese person is only about 3 years.

------
rfugger
I don't understand the problem with eating what you feel like when you're
hungry, and stopping when you're full. You'd think a billion years of
evolution would enable us to find a decent equilibrium by listening to our
bodies. Obviously, it's the stopping when you're full part that's hard...

~~~
bunderbunder
I find your dismissiveness to be disheartening. This isn't the usual fad diet
nonsense. This is actually a finding that could be extremely interesting to
researchers who work on longevity.

This study fits in with a large array of similar research on other species of
mammals. Many of them have found that calorie restriction is associated with a
significant extension of lifespan in the model species being used.

There's also some theoretical underpinnings that render the idea plausible.
Free radicals are the cause of a number of processes that we collectively
refer to as 'aging'. Since free radicals are a product of metabolizing, the
reasoning goes that if you eat less you might produce less free radical in the
first place, which in turn might lead to less aging.

If this study is accurate, then it suggests that the aging process in primates
may not work quite the same way it does in rodents. And who knows where
further research into something like that might go; at the very least learning
more about primate biochemistry is a good way to figure out potential new
treatments for human diseases.

~~~
billswift
In fact, calorie restriction doesn't even work well in rodents. One of the
articles points out that whether calorie restriction "works" in mice depends
on the lineage, some breeds it works and some it doesn't.

------
dfxm12
I would argue that the point of a low-calorie diet isn't to live longer, but
to look "better" (this, I guess depends on just how low the calorie count is).

A lot of the things we do "look healthy" doesn't make us live longer.

~~~
herval
"looking better" also includes being able to walk without a segway, fitting on
the airplane seat, not breaking the plastic chairs at the barbecue party, not
dying with clogged arteries when you're 30, not dying with a liver full of fat
when you're 20...

I'm curious: what things that "look healthy" don't make us live longer?

~~~
tdfx
While I do agree that most attempts to "look better" will lead to better
overall health, there's some ugly sides to that, as well: bulimia, anorexia,
stimulant appetite suppressants, etc.

~~~
inkyoto
Undeserved FUD of dubious origin.

I have practiced calorie restriction for several years, and neither myself nor
any other CRONies I know, personally or impersonally, are subjected to any of
the dreadful symptoms you prescribe to - supposedly - us. I am also physically
active and exercise regularly at the gym. Yes, I am slim and lean but nowhere
near to being anorexic.

Human mind is quite amazing at painting dreadful pictures of starvation and
all sorts of miseries and suffering when it comes to depriving one of their
favourite food(s). Food as reward (or addiction), a subconscious concept, is
what drives many people into the misconceptions of calorie restriction.

~~~
tdfx
> neither myself nor any other CRONies I know, personally or impersonally, are
> subjected to any of the dreadful symptoms you prescribe to - supposedly - us

Well, there's your problem. I didn't prescribe them to you or your friends. In
fact, you seem to be confused as to what it means to be anorexic. Anorexia is
not a state of low body fat; it is "an eating disorder characterized by
immoderate food restriction and irrational fear of gaining weight, as well as
a distorted body self-perception" [1] and a serious mental health issue.

[1] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anorexia_nervosa>

------
manfredz
Check out the recent BBC Horizon documentary on this very subject
<http://youtu.be/Pfna7nV7WaM>

------
snogglethorpe
"... if you're a monkey."

------
goggles99
They should have fed these monkeys Highly processed, sugary foods and fast
foods. Foods containing pesticides, low fiber and containing preservatives,
antibiotics and growth hormones(a typical poor American diet). Then see which
group loves longer.

This would have had far more value since it is truer to life at least for
Westerners.

The less food you eat, the less wear on your organs right? the less toxins
your body accumulates.

~~~
gwern
Why? That is of no scientific interest. Testing the specific phenomenon of
caloric restriction - substantial lifespan increases from cuts in high quality
diets - is of interest.

------
delinka
I didn't know anyone claimed longevity as a benefit of a low-calorie diet. I'd
always heard "low-calorie" used to combat obesity. And less obesity == more
longevity. But never "love longer on fewer calories." Whether this is
scientific demonstrable is another matter entirely.

My personal theory is that avoiding gluttonous behavior will do you just fine.
Stop when you're full. If you can do that, then you probably have the
sensibilities to eat a well-rounded variety of foods. And you're done. That's
it. Self-control & variety, Live Forever®

~~~
herval
If it were really that simple, we'd have no fat people (me included).
Compulsions are a hard thing to control, and if you add it to the fact that a
lot of addicting substances are the basis of everyone's diets (sugar, salt,
loads of carbs), then you see a compounding issue: personal/psychological
issues + chemical stimulation from the food you eat = hopeless obesity...

