Are Very Low Calorie Diets Linked to a Long Life?

slkehl
slkehl Posts: 3,801 Member
There's been decades of research to support a link between caloric restriction and longevity. However, new studies are showing that this may not extend to humans. Here's a good article on the research that is coming out by the Wall Street Journal. Here is the link if you want to read it on the website, which includes links to the studies: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444772804577619394017185860.html

Big Calorie Cuts Don't Equal Longer Life, Study Suggests
Monkeys on Severe Diets Get Health Benefits But, Unlike Rodents, No More Years

By GAUTAM NAIK

Calorie restriction confers health benefits on monkeys but doesn't increase their life span, a new study suggests, undermining some people's belief that a sharply restricted diet could help them live longer.

Decades of experiments have shown that the technique, known as calorie restriction, increases longevity by 30% to 40% in lab-bred mice and rats. The idea got a significant boost in 2009 when rhesus monkeys—which are genetically closer to humans than rodents and also live a long time—showed a trend toward longer life when fed a calorie-restricted diet, though that finding wasn't clear-cut.

The findings have promoted the alluring idea that it might be possible to live longer simply by limiting what's on the dinner plate. In an effort to increase their life span, some people today cut their food intake by as much as 30% below the typical diet of 2,200 calories a day that many active adults need to function.

Pharmaceutical companies are seeking drugs that might mimic the salutary effects of a skimpy diet without triggering severe hunger pangs.

Scientists speculate the benefits of cutting back the calories may be linked to an adaptive response: When there's a food shortage, an animal can't reproduce, and its aging process slows down. That buys time until food becomes plentiful again and it can reproduce.

But the latest data, published online by the journal Nature on Wednesday, suggests the theory might not easily extend to people. "One thing that's becoming clear is that calorie restriction is not a Holy Grail for extending the life span of everything that walks on earth," said Rafael de Cabo, an experimental gerontologist at the U.S. National Institute on Aging in Baltimore and lead author of the paper.

In the experiment, two sets of monkeys, one group aged 1 to 14 and another group aged 16 to 23, were fed 30% less than what they usually would eat. Their outcomes were compared with similar outcomes of two control sets of monkeys fed a diet that was closer to normal. The treated monkeys, in both age groups, lived no longer than their untreated counterparts.

The health benefits were mixed. Male animals on a restricted diet had significantly lower cholesterol levels, but not the females. Cutting back the calories appeared to have lowered the incidence of cancer, but it also triggered a slight increase in the incidence of cardiovascular disease.

One promising outcome: Various aging-related diseases appeared slightly later in the food-restricted animals.

The NIA's monkey experiments began in 1987, two years before similar studies got started at the University of Wisconsin. Because rhesus monkeys live nearly 30 years on average, scientists must wait a long time to measure a difference in life span.

A paper published on the Wisconsin study in 2009 showed that calorie restriction extended the lives of monkeys, as long as deaths from non-aging-related causes were excluded in the calculation. Some scientists questioned that methodology. If those deaths were included, the benefit to life span disappeared.

Nonetheless, the Wisconsin data were the first to provide hints that calorie restriction could have an effect on the life span of primates. The mystery is why the NIA study came to a different conclusion about longevity.

One reason may be that the studies were organized differently. The Wisconsin monkeys got a much higher sucrose content in their food than did the NIA animals. Also, the Wisconsin control animals could eat as much as they wanted, while the NIA controls were given a set amount of food.

"Given the constraints, the studies were both done fine," says Steven Austad, a bio-gerontologist at the University of Texas Health Science Center in San Antonio, who wasn't involved in the studies but wrote a commentary on the NIA findings in Nature. "They both raise the question of how you'd translate the findings in human terms."

People may respond differently to calorie restriction depending on their genetic makeup and the composition of their diets. Outcomes will also vary depending on whether people are overweight or already lean when they adopt the practice. When done properly, calorie restriction appears to provide some health benefits for people, such as lowering the risk of heart disease.

In June, scientists at Washington University in St. Louis, published research showing that people on calorie-restricted diets had hearts that function more like those found in people two decades younger.

On the downside, said Dr. Austad, male subjects on severely restricted diets can show low testosterone levels and have problems maintaining bone density.

The latest data on longevity may not deter many from giving up low-calorie diets.

"They see their blood pressure go down, their fasting glucose go down, their cholesterol go down, and they feel better," says Brian Delaney, president of Calorie Restriction Society International, based in Sweden and the U.S., which currently claims 500 paid-up members. "They believe it will enable them to live youthfully into their 70s, 80s and even 90s."

Replies

  • MinimalistShoeAddict
    MinimalistShoeAddict Posts: 1,946 Member
    Very interesting! Thanks for sharing
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    Ya, plus it's about impossible to lose weight on them, and you better not splurge or have a vacation week of higher eating. Your reduced metabolism can't handle the variance as well as a full burning one.

    Also, you'll find that many doing it are not involved in much exercise, basic walking.
    Because your body would be hard pressed if even possible to make improvements from exercise.

    Interesting better long term study on the monkeys though, thanks for finding it.
  • onyxgirl17
    onyxgirl17 Posts: 1,722 Member
    TL; DR

    Can you summarize?
  • SteelySunshine
    SteelySunshine Posts: 1,092 Member
    I have wondered about this for a while. I know there are people that really believe lower calories equal a longer life. Perhaps, if the lower calories are in an effort to lose weight and when successful leads to actual improvements in a persons health. But, VLC I don't think that works at all. It really doesn't work in cases where it leads to an ED.
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    TL; DR

    Can you summarize?

    Eating less than needed to slow metabolism down for the purpose of hopefully living longer doesn't appear to be everything it was cracked up to be.
  • slkehl
    slkehl Posts: 3,801 Member
    I can see how there could be an adaptive response in individual cells, or smaller units, like bacteria. This is referenced in the article: "When there's a food shortage, an animal can't reproduce, and its aging process slows down. That buys time until food becomes plentiful again and it can reproduce." That could happen, based on what I've learned about checkpoints in the cell cycle. However, there is a BIG difference between extending the life of a cell and extending the life of a human. Even if caloric restriction can slow down oxidation damage for whole organs, it's probably not enough to slow down the aging process of the entire complex human body.
  • mistesh
    mistesh Posts: 243 Member
    Eating less than needed to slow metabolism down for the purpose of hopefully living longer doesn't appear to be everything it was cracked up to be.

    Still, how many overweight one hundred year olds do you know?
  • melindasuefritz
    melindasuefritz Posts: 3,509 Member
    geez ....................... yes diet and exercis e will get the fat of f u and help u liv e longer
    losing 10 oercent of body weight does that....................
  • melindasuefritz
    melindasuefritz Posts: 3,509 Member
    TL; DR

    Can you summarize?
  • neanderthin
    neanderthin Posts: 10,257 Member
    I can see how there could be an adaptive response in individual cells, or smaller units, like bacteria. This is referenced in the article: "When there's a food shortage, an animal can't reproduce, and its aging process slows down. That buys time until food becomes plentiful again and it can reproduce." That could happen, based on what I've learned about checkpoints in the cell cycle. However, there is a BIG difference between extending the life of a cell and extending the life of a human. Even if caloric restriction can slow down oxidation damage for whole organs, it's probably not enough to slow down the aging process of the entire complex human body.
    What about body mass and longevity. Basically does fat mass hinder lifespan. Okinawans have a tenet that reads Hara Hachi Bu which is eat until 80% full.
  • wooly66
    wooly66 Posts: 2
    Enjoy the article very much, but things sure do change from year to year on health. Nothing stays the same...But I will stick with MFP. I know it will help my health, get my weight down, and see what life holds......
  • AmberleyAngel
    AmberleyAngel Posts: 160 Member
    Interesting information. Thanks for sharing it.

    VLCDs DO WORK ... they work for weight loss, but I can't testify to long life - get back to me in 60 years ... lol.

    VLCD are great for quick weight loss where it is imperative for health or surgical reasons. It's extreme, but it is effective. Those who are not successful on it are ones who don't follow it correctly and who don't learn to change their lifelong eating and exercise habits. From October 2012 to joining MFP near the end of January, I lost 44kg on a VLCD. Since joining MFP I've lost a further 18kg. This week I progress from the VLCD program I've been on to a 1500 calorie day. Woohoo. Whether I live longer or not will be attributed to the improvement in overall health and not by how I got there. ;)
  • meshashesha2012
    meshashesha2012 Posts: 8,329 Member
    Eating less than needed to slow metabolism down for the purpose of hopefully living longer doesn't appear to be everything it was cracked up to be.

    Still, how many overweight one hundred year olds do you know?

    1) how many 100 years olds you know in general?

    2) just because someone isnt overweight doesnt mean they are underweight.

    my great granddad just recently passed at 105 and he wasnt overweight, but he also wasnt eating a VLCD diet either. he was eating what he needed to eat.
  • slkehl
    slkehl Posts: 3,801 Member
    Eating less than needed to slow metabolism down for the purpose of hopefully living longer doesn't appear to be everything it was cracked up to be.

    Still, how many overweight one hundred year olds do you know?
    geez ....................... yes diet and exercis e will get the fat of f u and help u liv e longer
    losing 10 oercent of body weight does that....................

    Those on Very Low Calorie Dietss consume 800 calories or less daily. You don't have to be on a VLCD to be a normal weight.
  • slkehl
    slkehl Posts: 3,801 Member
    Interesting information. Thanks for sharing it.

    VLCDs DO WORK ... they work for weight loss, but I can't testify to long life - get back to me in 60 years ... lol.

    VLCD are great for quick weight loss where it is imperative for health or surgical reasons. It's extreme, but it is effective. Those who are not successful on it are ones who don't follow it correctly and who don't learn to change their lifelong eating and exercise habits. From October 2012 to joining MFP near the end of January, I lost 44kg on a VLCD. Since joining MFP I've lost a further 18kg. This week I progress from the VLCD program I've been on to a 1500 calorie day. Woohoo. Whether I live longer or not will be attributed to the improvement in overall health and not by how I got there. ;)

    I think most of the claims about VLCDs being linked to longevity consider only those who are on an indefinite VLCD, rather than on a temporary program. Someone please correct me if I am wrong. I think VLCDs can be quite beneficial for the morbidly obese, whose weight puts them at a much higher risk than the VLCD diet, when accompanied by proper nutrition counseling and a eventual transition to a higher calorie consumption.
  • PezAzul
    PezAzul Posts: 42
    BMR decreases with age. A 100 yr old healthy weight female may have a BMR less than 1000.
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    Interesting information. Thanks for sharing it.

    VLCDs DO WORK ... they work for weight loss, but I can't testify to long life - get back to me in 60 years ... lol.

    VLCD are great for quick weight loss where it is imperative for health or surgical reasons. It's extreme, but it is effective. Those who are not successful on it are ones who don't follow it correctly and who don't learn to change their lifelong eating and exercise habits. From October 2012 to joining MFP near the end of January, I lost 44kg on a VLCD. Since joining MFP I've lost a further 18kg. This week I progress from the VLCD program I've been on to a 1500 calorie day. Woohoo. Whether I live longer or not will be attributed to the improvement in overall health and not by how I got there. ;)

    I think most of the claims about VLCDs being linked to longevity consider only those who are on an indefinite VLCD, rather than on a temporary program. Someone please correct me if I am wrong. I think VLCDs are excellent if they are temporary and accompanied by proper nutrition counseling and a gradual transition to a higher calorie diet as you describe.

    I didn't think it was VLCD though, just greatly reduced from where it could be.

    And if you don't need muscle mass for anything and you eventually lose what you don't use, which isn't much when you age, you kind of get there anyway.

    But there have been some studies that have shown that even for equal LBM and muscle mass, when older, the body on other functions of life is just slowing down what it burns, so muscle or not, you'll need to eat less to not gain weight.

    But up until very close to the end, those BMR's based on LBM hold pretty good to tested values. But then it seems no matter how much exercise you are doing, it takes a nose dive.

    I guess on a mainly weight loss site, the question is, does the slower forced metabolism lengthen your life more than carrying extra fat around shorten it, since it would be very difficult to burn it off.