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This discussion has been archived.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 Thursday January 19 2017, @05:46AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 19 2017, @05:46AM (#455909)

    Here is something interesting I have been doing in the past 2 months or so.

    I changed 1 meal out. My lunch is now a simple bit of fruit. About the same volume I was eating before. The rest of my meals and junk food are exactly the same (way too many colas and lots of HFC junk food, chips, burgers, etc). I have lost 10 pounds in the past month. My sleeping habits have also changed so it could be a mixture of that too. Not sure what to make of this result yet.

  • (Score: 2) by takyon on Thursday January 19 2017, @05:59AM

    by takyon (881) <takyonNO@SPAMsoylentnews.org> on Thursday January 19 2017, @05:59AM (#455913) Journal

    Maybe just less calories than would be in a burger/etc.? I looked up "pineapple calories" and got a result of 452 calories for an entire 905 gram pineapple. If you are eating just a couple of voluminous apples and pears, you might be getting less than 400 calories in your meal.

    --
    [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 19 2017, @08:13AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 19 2017, @08:13AM (#455947)

      That is my prevailing theory.