Calorie Restriction Leads to Longer, Healthier Life

Results from a 20 year study on monkeys and their diets show that eating fewer calories can help you live longer. Animals with a restricted diet of 30% were shown to outlive those that were given the freedom to eat what when and how much they wanted. The monkeys also had improved chances of avoiding age related diseases, cancer, diabetes and brain atrophy.

In terms of overall animal health, Weindruch notes, the restricted diet leads to longer lifespan and improved quality of life in old age. "There is a major effect of caloric restriction in increasing survival if you look at deaths due to the diseases of aging," he says.

The incidence of cancerous tumors and cardiovascular disease in animals on a restricted diet was less than half that seen in animals permitted to eat freely. Remarkably, while diabetes or impaired glucose regulation is common in monkeys that can eat all they want, it has yet to be observed in any animal on a restricted diet. "So far, we've seen the complete prevention of diabetes," says Weindruch.


From the Upcoming ueue, submitted by coconutnut.

Newest 5
Newest 5 Comments

Obviously, this is a controversial topic. People who struggle with blood sugar control and weight management, whether they have prediabetes or already have developed type 2 diabetes, generally do best with a healthy eating plan that emphasizes vegetables, grains and legumes that are low on the glycemic index plus lean proteins, coupled with regular moderate physical activity.

We write extensively about related issues at, especially the links between elevated blood sugar and gum disease that can interfere with diabetes control and significantly increase risk of serious health events such as heart attack, stroke and blindness.

- Charles Martin, DDS
Founder, Dentistry For Diabetics
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
Found this on one of the caloric restriction discussion groups:

As I suspected, Ms. Szwarc (junkscience) writes for a lobbying firm that denies global
warming, etc and is funded by McDonalds, among other conglomerates.  (If you
know who is paying for an opinion, you can generally figure out what it will

She is identified here as an "obesity crank" and for misinterpreting studies
and other sophistry here:
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
Hm, sorry. I was wrong about his heart attack, and the young-ish age. Still, 79 is not worth giving up food for me. ALS is rare, but accidents and homicides are not. I'm all for preventive medicine but a prescription involving giving up something as universally fetishized as food seems unlikely to catch on. Ice cream is just worth it now and then if that's what you love, and you're a fatalist like me. We're fat storing creatures. Just because too much is bad for us doesn't mean we've evolved a mechanism to make us stop eating when we've covered all the nutritional bases. There was a time when we had to store all the fat we could. It's just mind over matter to use moderation and exercise regularly for some of us. CR seems to be for those who don't miss it and those who really, really love life. I'm sure it will benefit some people, but could also appeal to people with eating disorders as a label for the disease. I hope that if it does, they'll be careful to get the nutrition they need. In that case it might actually be beneficial, though not a cure for the psychological issues that underlie it.

Resveratrol is supposed to make you live longer, too. Ashkenazi Jews have a mutation that make them live longer, healthier lives under the right circumstances. That's my problem with life extending research. My 90 year old ashkenazi grandmother who is in perfect health aside from Alzheimer's. I know I don't want to live that long when I haven't seen a single suggestion of preserved cognitive functioning to go along with that old age. 110 and counting with dementia? No, thanks. People on CR must be betting on a cure within their lifetime. There's something to be said for advancing one part and expecting the other to catch up, I'm just not an optimist. (I am, however, verbose)
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
So, the CR diet caused the monkeys to die of age related factors less, but still lived the same age on average due to being unhealthy and violent.

This doesn't sound appealing at all.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
@#9: Saith Wikipedia: "Research in various countries has found the all-cause mortality rates range from 16 to 28% lower among moderate drinkers (1–2 drinks per day) than among abstainers."

Also, Re:
"If caloric restriction can delay aging, then there should have been significantly fewer deaths in the dieting group of monkeys than in the normally fed comparison group. But this is not the case. Though a smaller number of dieting monkeys have died, the difference is not statistically significant, the Wisconsin team reports."

That doesn't specifically disprove the theory behind CR. It means the study was null and we can't draw any conclusions from it. However, they _did_ see qualitative effects that were interesting and probably should be investigated further.

It's hardly junk science...just junk reporting.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
Login to comment.

Email This Post to a Friend
"Calorie Restriction Leads to Longer, Healthier Life"

Separate multiple emails with a comma. Limit 5.


Success! Your email has been sent!

close window

This website uses cookies.

This website uses cookies to improve user experience. By using this website you consent to all cookies in accordance with our Privacy Policy.

I agree
Learn More