Study shows that fewer calories = longer life

Apparently the latest results of a study are showing that eating fewer calories can lead to living longer (the study was on monkeys)

http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/07/09/caloric. restriction.monkeys/index.html

...unless, of course, you die from the effects of starvation and/or malnutrition, both of which dramatically shorten life expectancy.

come on.

I've read about this kind of stuff too, and the people who do it are miserable because they're hungry all the time.

and they look like ****, too.

The monkeys in the study were fed 30% less than they would have eaten if they could eat anything they want.  Basically, the study found that monkeys will be healthier if they don't stuff themselves.  Also published in the same issue, a new study finds water is wet.

From a past thread....I'll take melkor's word on this one.

Original Post by floggingsully:

The monkeys in the study were fed 30% less than they would have eaten if they could eat anything they want.  Basically, the study found that monkeys will be healthier if they don't stuff themselves.  Also published in the same issue, a new study finds water is wet.

 LOL!

Some people do claim that living in a state of chronic semi-starvation means they live longer.  Or maybe it just feels longer........ 

I had one grandmother who lived to the age of 97... appetite like a small horse, walked everywhere, never a day's illness.  My other grandmother lived to the age of 92... life-long smoker, drank like a fish, had a particular fondness for chocolate and bananas.   97? 92? I'd be very happy if I made it that far.

I love it when people point out some extreme case of reckless behavior and try to use that to prove the obvious wrong.  I'm happy for your grandmother but she's the exception and I think that you know it.  Just consider for a second what you're suggesting (even if it's not explicit), that we all eat like a horse, drink a lot and smoke and we'll be just fine.  Seems like nonsense huh?  That's because it is.

And before people criticize the study and post silly comments, they should read the article.  The MONKEYS that lived longer at 30% less calories than the other monkeys.  BOTH groups ate healthy diets.

I'm not suggesting eating less calories, I just thought that a community devoted to calorie counting may find the article interesting.  Apparently I didn't account for the fact that the same community is chock full of thread crappers.

Original Post by kisteel:

And before people criticize the study and post silly comments, they should read the article.  The MONKEYS that lived longer at 30% less calories than the other monkeys. 

I did read the article, I found this paragraph particularly interesting:

"At the start of the study, the researchers analyzed how much the monkeys were eating and then cut the calories by 10 percent each month for three months in the calorie-restricted group. The other monkeys were allowed to eat as much as they wanted."

In other words, monkey's who's food intake is not limited in any way (unlike how it would be in nature) are less likely to be healthy.  Which seems like a 'duh' conclusion to me.

And, at least according to the article, the study didn't measure lifespan, only mortality rate, which is different.

Original Post by floggingsully:

The monkeys in the study were fed 30% less than they would have eaten if they could eat anything they want.  Basically, the study found that monkeys will be healthier if they don't stuff themselves.  Also published in the same issue, a new study finds water is wet.

Fewer calories = normal weight, + a good fittness level = longer life compared to an overweight sedetary person. Genetics also have a say in that.

Original Post by kisteel:

I love it when people point out some extreme case of reckless behavior and try to use that to prove the obvious wrong.  I'm happy for your grandmother but she's the exception and I think that you know it.  Just consider for a second what you're suggesting (even if it's not explicit), that we all eat like a horse, drink a lot and smoke and we'll be just fine.  Seems like nonsense huh?  That's because it is.

And before people criticize the study and post silly comments, they should read the article.  The MONKEYS that lived longer at 30% less calories than the other monkeys.  BOTH groups ate healthy diets.

I'm not suggesting eating less calories, I just thought that a community devoted to calorie counting may find the article interesting.  Apparently I didn't account for the fact that the same community is chock full of thread crappers.

 I read the article.  Really, this is nothing new.  What this guy is doing is fairly light calorie restricting....similar to what many people do here to lose a few pounds.  Only he is doing it for a lifetime.  He's still eating the minimum calories (just under 2000) that most of us here already agree is necessary.  He's just not overeating.

So, I don't really think that what he is doing is detrimental to his health.  But I'm also not sure if what he is doing has really been proven to increase his life span.  Heck, he also said to cut out sugars and processed crap.  I think cutting out sugars and processed foods (even without cutting the calories drastically) is probably what would increase a persons lifespan the most.

In conclusion, I'm not convinced that the calorie restricting is necessarily what causes increased life span.  I think it might be more due to the "healthy eating" that they added to the monkey's diets.  Basically, they changed more than one variable in the monkey study, so we can't really tell what it was that did the trick.

I am 14 years old and very active. I need 3,000 calories a day and if I dropped as low as 2,000 (about 30%) then I would probobly lose several pounds every week. That would mean by the end of the year I would be NOTHING.

I think the point here is, overeating is bad. Not calories. Just eating too many for what your body needs.

Actually I remember reading other studies similar to this one, in mice I think.  It's been like a year though so my memory is quite fuzzy.  I think they were discussing a hormone which is released into the body when going long periods of time with not "quite" "enough" food. 

Just from general attitudes here I think a lot of people might be blowing the study off because they don't like it. 

This one study is obviously inconclusive at best though.  Give me more controlled studies which agree and I'll start becoming convinced.

I don't have time or patience at the moment but here's the first thing that came up on google:

http://www.calorierestriction.org/

A link from there leads to here:

http://www.iangoddard.com/cr.htm

Which at first glance seems to be a compilation of studies.  The references are listed at the bottom of the page.

OK-OK now seriously, I don't have time atm, g2g!

From that "calorierestriction" website, take a look at the "risks".

http://www.calorierestriction.org/Risks

Looks an awful lot like the risks from ANOREXIA and being UNDERWEIGHT.

Original Post by zebulancherry:

From that "calorierestriction" website, take a look at the "risks".

http://www.calorierestriction.org/Risks

Looks an awful lot like the risks from ANOREXIA and being UNDERWEIGHT.

Well ya, that much should be obvious.  This CR stuff looks like, for the hardcore.  I mean I could never do that, and it is so specific and exacting that you have to have all your food intake mapped out to make sure you are getting an exact amount of calories with an exact amount of nutrition.

What I'm saying is that the theory behind it may not be wrong and that before you claim that it is you should research the subject.  Which I'll probably do later.

Original Post by zebulancherry:

I am 14 years old and very active. I need 3,000 calories a day and if I dropped as low as 2,000 (about 30%) then I would probobly lose several pounds every week. That would mean by the end of the year I would be NOTHING.

I think the point here is, overeating is bad. Not calories. Just eating too many for what your body needs.

You're forgetting that as your weight decreases, so does your required calorie intake.

I'm only 5'1", 95 pounds and I still eat that much.

It sounds like they are recommending that you live on a diet that is 25% less than your burn.  Actually, I suspect that most of the people on this site are trying to do that.  It wouldn't even require that most people go below the calorie intake recommended on this site.  However, for us it is temporary until we can lose weight.  They stay this way.  We can all see how this might be difficult to do, but we do know it is possible to do this in a healthy manner.  Basically, they are recommending that you spend your adult life in starvation mode.  I think people are overreacting a bit.

The science behind it has a long history.  It has been proven to extend life in several different animals, monkeys just being the latest species.  No one is sure WHY it seems slow aging, but it does seem to work.  Note, no one is recommending this to people under 21 or pregnant or lactating women.  It is simply not enough food to get your body through high stress situations.

Original Post by clharr:

It sounds like they are recommending that you live on a diet that is 25% less than your burn. 

I didn't see any recommendations in the article, they talked about the diet one of the researchers follows where he eats about 25% fewer calories than the average man but doens't make any reference to how his consumption relates to his burn.

Original Post by clharr:

The science behind it has a long history.  It has been proven to extend life in several different animals, monkeys just being the latest species. 

If the article the OP posted is an acurate representation of the study, then it hasn't shown the extend life in monkeys, it's been shown (not proven) to reduce mortality rate (not extend life).

Original Post by clharr:

No one is sure WHY it seems slow aging, but it does seem to work. 

Melkors old post (linked to in #5 here) explains why, it drastically delays the onset of puberty (and reduces life expectancy after puberty).

Original Post by clharr:

Note, no one is recommending this to people under 21 or pregnant or lactating women. 

If someone was recommending this type of diet, which works by delaying puberty, then it would have to be recommended to people under 21 because you can't delay the onset of puberty after you've been through it.