Fewer calories = longer life? A new primate study says, yes

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

This article was published in Scientific American’s former blog network and reflects the views of the author, not necessarily those of Scientific American



On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Long a subject of debate—and experiments with everything from yeast to mice—the question of whether a lower calorie dietincreases life span while decreasing disease has a new smorgasbord of evidence.

A 20-year-long rhesus monkey study, released today in Science, found that monkeys that consumed 30 percent less calories than average peers were one third as likely to get a age-related disease and were likely to live longer. 

Of the monkeys in the trial, 80 percent of those on the restricted diet are still alive, whereas just half of those that ate as they pleased are still around.

The diet also seemed to improve brain function into old age. “The atrophy or loss of brain mass known to occur with aging is significantly attenuated in several regions of the brain,” lead author Richard Weindruch, a professor at the University of Wisconsin-Maidson School of Medicine and Public Health, said in a statement. “That’s a completely new observation.”

Recent studies have shown that lighter diets can also keep memory wheels spinning into older age.

Weindruch, wrote an article for Scientific American called “Caloric Restriction and Aging” in 1996, in which he discussed early findings from the primate work.

But before you cut out cake entirely, the study authors note that the principle has yet to be proven to be equally effective in humans. 

Image of a rhesus monkey eating an ice cream courtesy of Manuel Millway via Flickr

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe