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This discussion has been archived.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: 2) by butthurt on Thursday January 19 2017, @02:59AM

    by butthurt (6141) on Thursday January 19 2017, @02:59AM (#455856) Journal

    The radical knowledge that eating less causes weight loss or stabilization is widely available. [...]

    But metabolism is hard [...]

    Yes. A small group (n = 14) of people drastically reduced their caloric intake temporarily, for the reality television show The Biggest Loser. Six years later, it was found that their resting metabolic rates were lower than just after they appeared on the show. They did, however, weigh less than before the crash diet.

    /article.pl?sid=16/05/04/037259 [soylentnews.org]
    /article.pl?sid=16/05/23/1214237 [soylentnews.org]

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2) by takyon on Thursday January 19 2017, @05:25AM

    by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Thursday January 19 2017, @05:25AM (#455899) Journal

    From my own summary:

    Following a controversial study that claims to explain why almost all "Biggest Loser" contestants regain massive amounts of weight, numerous ex-"Losers" reached out to the New York Post to dispute its findings — exclusively revealing that the show encouraged contestants to take street drugs while starving themselves and to lie about how much weight they were losing.

    I think we can safely throw that n=14 group's results into the garbage.

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