Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by CoolHand on Wednesday January 18 2017, @07:39PM   Printer-friendly
from the monkey-business dept.

Settling a persistent scientific controversy, a long-awaited report shows that restricting calories does indeed help rhesus monkeys live longer, healthier lives.
...
First, the animals in the two studies had their diets restricted at different ages. Comparative analysis reveals that eating less is beneficial in adult and older primates but is not beneficial for younger animals. This is a major departure from prior studies in rodents, where starting at an earlier age is better in achieving the benefits of a low-calorie diet.

Second, in the old-onset group of monkeys at NIA, the control monkeys ate less than the Wisconsin control group. This lower food intake was associated with improved survival compared to the Wisconsin controls. The previously reported lack of difference in survival between control and restricted groups for older-onset monkeys within NIA emerges as beneficial differences when compared to the UW-Madison data. In this way, it seems that small differences in food intake in primates could meaningfully affect aging and health.

Third, diet composition was substantially different between studies. The NIA monkeys ate naturally sourced foods and the UW-Madison monkeys, part of the colony at the Wisconsin National Primate Research Center, ate processed food with higher sugar content. The UW-Madison control animals were fatter than the control monkeys at NIA, indicating that at nonrestricted levels of food intake, what is eaten can make a big difference for fat mass and body composition.

The study says nothing about whether the monkeys lived happier lives.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 18 2017, @11:58PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 18 2017, @11:58PM (#455786)

    The problem is that we can't agree on what those healthy foods are.
    For the longest time, in the US we were told it was "carbs", esp. ones like whole grains.
    Then Americans got fat as shit off this new carb-heavy, low fat, low protein diet.
    Now the pendulum is swinging back to protein like it had been before that carb-heavy B.S.

    I say go easy on the carbs and you will feel full for much longer. Protein, fat, and carbs must be eaten in the correct proportions. Go protein!

  • (Score: 2) by takyon on Thursday January 19 2017, @02:10AM

    by takyon (881) <takyonNO@SPAMsoylentnews.org> on Thursday January 19 2017, @02:10AM (#455845) Journal

    That's true. To muddy the carb waters, there's also digestion of simple vs. complex carbs, and high fructose corn syrup claimed to be more easily metabolized than sucrose even given the similar composition, and fruit juice being more easily metabolized than fruits. Fruit juice is also widely regarded as healthy even though it is very questionable "No sugar added" label? It must be healthy!

    Caloric restriction could assume that you have already got the right balance of carbs, proteins, and fat, and you are merely scaling down the calorie count. Kinda like how the formula for Soylent has a certain ratio of carbs, proteins, and fat, and you just have to drink a certain volume of the goop.

    --
    [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]