According to US scientists from the US National Institute on Aging, a diet that restricts caloric intake does not extend life, according to 23 years of research on monkeys.
A finding by researchers from Maryland, published in Nature, seems to confirm that drastically reducing caloric intake may not be as effective as previously thought.
The research looked at the health benefits of a low-calorie diet and also investigated the aging process in monkeys.
The researchers participating in the study hoped that a restrictive diet could also have an impact on life expectancy and improved health in humans. The research on the amount of calories consumed and life expectancy, initiated in the 30s, on various species of mice, rats and even fruit flies, clearly indicated that a low-calorie diet has an impact on the length and quality of life of these animals. A study by scientists from the University of Wisconsin, published in Science in 2009, who conducted them on monkeys (rhesus monkeys) also provided positive results. Strict diets of primates lived longer and had fewer diseases than monkeys fed normally.
While it seemed that restricting the calories in the monkeys’ diet could affect their lifespan, an American study from the US National Institute on Aging found no such correlation. However, they confirmed that rhesus monkeys consuming less food were healthier, less likely to suffer from diabetes, cancer and heart disease.
NIA’s Julie Mattison team regularly measured glucose, cholesterol, and triglyceride levels to assess the potential benefits of a healthy diet. The conflicting results from NIA and Wisconsin may be due to the difference in the diets of the monkeys studied, Mattison said. The diets were similar, containing carbohydrates, proteins and fats, but they differed in the amount of consumed ingredients – for example, 28,5 percent. Wisconsin monkeys had sucrose in their diets, and the NIA monkeys had only 3,9 percent of their diets. sugar.
Animal species can also influence the results, says Ricki Colman, a scientist at the Wisconsin National Primate Research Center. Her team was researching Indian rhesus monkeys while scientists at NIA used Indian and Chinese rhesus monkeys. All Wisconsin monkeys were born in the laboratory, while the birthplace of the NIA animals was not always known. Another reason that may explain the contradictions in the two institutes’ results is that the monkeys tested at NIA were given specific amounts of food, while the Wisconsin rhesus monkeys were allowed to eat as much as they wanted.
Each of these factors could contribute to the differences in the arrangements. It will be valuable to compare the two studies on a low-calorie diet and its effect on improving health and life expectancy, US scientists say in Nature.
The Wisconsin and NIA researchers plan to work together to compare information and understand the differences in the tests performed. (PAP)
bep/ agt/