New publications
Low-calorie diets do not prolong life
Last reviewed: 01.07.2025
All iLive content is medically reviewed or fact checked to ensure as much factual accuracy as possible.
We have strict sourcing guidelines and only link to reputable media sites, academic research institutions and, whenever possible, medically peer reviewed studies. Note that the numbers in parentheses ([1], [2], etc.) are clickable links to these studies.
If you feel that any of our content is inaccurate, out-of-date, or otherwise questionable, please select it and press Ctrl + Enter.
According to the results of a 25-year study published in the journal Nature, cutting calories does not prolong life.
Scientists from Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, tested the theory that a low-calorie diet can improve the lifespan of rhesus macaques, the best-known species of this genus.
Two groups of rhesus macaques were observed by specialists for a quarter of a century, one of which ate normally, while the other followed a diet containing 30% fewer calories.
According to scientists, dietary restrictions had no effect on the life expectancy of the primates - the macaques that were on the diet lived on average as long as their comrades in the control group. Moreover, the causes of death of the monkeys were not much different: the primates died from kidney disease, cardiovascular disease, and simply from old age.
An earlier experiment by Don Ingram, a gerontologist at the National Institute on Aging, showed the positive effects of calorie restriction on short-lived animals such as rats. The animals, who were given fewer calories, had shiny fur and were much more energetic than those who had eaten well.
In addition, a cascade of changes in gene expression was found that is caused by a lower calorie diet and generally slows down the aging process.
And in 2009, the results of 20-year observations of rhesus macaques by biologists from the Wisconsin National Primate Research Center appeared. They contradict the results of scientists from Louisiana and once again confirm the benefits of moderate nutrition. Of the group that was on a diet, only 13% of monkeys died of old age, while 37% of the monkeys in the group with a normal diet died for the same reason.
Don Ingram believes that the problem is not in calories, but in the improperly organized nutrition of primates. No one limited the appetite of the monkeys, they ate as much as they wanted, and 28.5% of their diet was sucrose. The scientist also believes that the genetic differences of the primates played a significant role in the discrepancy in the results of the studies.
The results of studies on the effects of low-calorie diets on humans are not comforting either.
Experts say that longevity depends primarily on good genes and a balanced, healthy diet. So those who live to old age should thank their genes, not their diets, first and foremost.
[