http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/low-calorie-diet-not-linked-with-longevity-in-monkeys-study-finds/2012/08/29/294ec174-f1fa-11e1-a612-3cfc842a6d89_story.html?wpisrc=nl_headlines_nonlocal

Low-calorie diet not linked with longevity in monkeys, study finds

By Hristio Boytchev, Thursday, August 30, 4:55 AM 
In a long-awaited study, underfed monkeys didn’t have longer life spans, 
raising doubts that severe calorie restriction could result in extended lives 
for most animals and possibly humans.

In research going back more than 75 years, a sharp reduction in caloric intake 
has been associated with increased longevity. The initial work was done with 
mice and rats but was later corroborated in other laboratory subjects such as 
fruit flies and worms, raising hopes that it would apply to humans. 

But those hopes are being dimmed by the results published Wednesday online by 
the journal Nature. The National Institute on Aging study, begun in 1987, 
involved rhesus monkeys, which are much closer to humans, both genetically and 
in average longevity, than previous test subjects. 

The scientists, led by Julie Mattison, were surprised to find that calorie 
restriction — the treated monkeys ate 30 percent fewer calories than those in 
the control group — didn’t affect life spans. 

It did confer some health benefits, reducing the incidence of cancer and 
diabetes. It slightly raised the incidence of cardiovascular diseases. 

The monkeys were started on their restricted diets either when the animals were 
young or in middle age. Now, more than two decades later, about half the 
monkeys that were underfed from a young age are still alive — the same as in 
the control group. The scientists calculated, with a probability of 99.9 
percent, that the calorie-restricted animals will not survive longer than the 
animals in the control group. The monkeys that were already older when they 
were put on the diet have all died. The oldest died at 40, the same as for the 
corresponding control animals. 

These results conflict with a 2009 study, conducted at the Wisconsin National 
Primate Research Center. Although scientists there did not find that calorie 
restriction had a significant effect on life span, they did report a trend 
toward longer life and healthier aging for some of the treated monkeys. 

Things were going well for the treated monkeys at the beginning of the National 
Institute on Aging study, but around the time the Wisconsin researchers 
published their work, “we noticed that for our monkeys, things were not going 
so well,” Mattison said. The treated animals started dying at the same rate as 
the controls. 

Both Mattison and Ricki Colman, the researcher who was the lead author of the 
2009 paper, stressed that their studies weren’t meant to compete with each 
other and that they had many differences, including diet composition, treatment 
of diseases and ages of the animals at the beginning of the experiments. Both 
studies will keep going until all the animals die. 

But Mattison acknowledged that the primate research hadn’t fulfilled the high 
expectations of the rodent research. In the rodent studies, “you would reduce 
caloric intake by 10 or 20 percent and increase life span by the same amount,” 
she said. “But in primates and probably humans, things seem to be much more 
complicated.” 

The effectiveness of some substances thought to mimic the positive effects of 
caloric restriction has been questioned by scientists such as Matt Kaeberlein 
at the University of Washington. But even with the latest data, Kaeberlein 
thought it was still too early to dismiss calorie restriction entirely. “There 
are still reasons to be optimistic that caloric restriction or drugs mimicking 
its beneficial effects will enhance healthy aging in people,” he said.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Kirim email ke