Over the past few years, you may have heard the buzz about the potential for a low-calorie diet to prolong life and prevent chronic medical conditions like heart disease and cancer.
While the concept of restricting calories has been around for decades, a longitudinal study of monkeys published in 2009 seemed to provide definitive evidence that eating less was good for you. The study by researchers at the University of Wisconsin found a diet of moderate caloric restrictions over 20 years lowered the incidence of aging-related deaths and reduced the incidence of diabetes, cancer, cardiovascular disease, and brain atrophy.
But last week, a new longitudinal study of different species of monkey raised questions about the idea of restricting calories to improve health. The study included 121 monkeys split into two groups. The experimental group was fed 30 percent fewer calories than the control group.
In the study published last week, which was sponsored by the National Institute on Aging, the monkeys on restricted diets did not live any longer than those with normal diets. Rates of cancer and heart disease were the same for monkeys on restricted diets and normal diets. While some groups of monkeys on restricted diets had lower levels of cholesterol, blood sugar and triglycerides, they still did not live longer than the monkeys who ate normally.
The study is interesting from a health perspective because it raises questions about the notion of restricting calories to improve health. But it’s also a prime example of why it’s important to collect data from more than one study.
“This shows the importance of replication in science,” Steven Austad, interim director of the Barshop Institute for Longevity and Aging Studies at the University of Texas Health Science Center, told the New York Times. Austad, who was not involved in either study, also explained that the first study was not as conclusive as portrayed in the media.
The take home message: It’s important to collect evidence from multiple studies before drawing conclusions, even when the data seems extremely convincing.
Wow. Someone actually questioning the calories in- Calories out paradigm that has obviously failed us so badly over the past 70 plus years. Good work. New evidence offers much more plausible potentials to impact the obesity pandemic.
I think the way to prevent heart disease and cancer is to get rid of GMO products. I believe its because of that and the prescribing of medication for every little thing is the reason those conditions are high today. Dieting, eating fruits, and vegetables and exercising is what will prevent those medical conditions and improve your overall health.
Besides your own thoughts, do you have any university type research that is conclusive in any sense for your “Think.”
Not being sarcastic here, I would like to consider real evidence.
George
Ok, having been a scientist earlier in my career I can see the obvious benefit of first asking the right question in a bid to find the right answer, then designing the research effectively.
But I have to say what was the point of the research – I see it was sponsored by the national institute of aging – but I have always believed that the priority for research into aging and the variation of the rate of aging should be based on activity first and diet second. I mean the adage “If you don’t use it you will lose it” is so true, and we need hard based evidence to show that activity is vital, closely coupled with a healthy diet and life style.
Cheers,
Mike FD