Caloric Restriction May Extend Life But Not Youth

Super-low calorie diets may extend lifespan, but new evidence suggests that age-related declines continue. Karen Hopkin reports.

Illustration of a Bohr atom model spinning around the words Science Quickly with various science and medicine related icons around the text

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!


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.



For decades scientists have known that animals on a severely restricted diet live longer than their gluttonous cousins. If you cut the number of calories you consume by a third you can add about 30 percent to your lifespan—at least if you’re a rat, a worm, or a fly.  Sounds easy. But there’s a catch. Well, a bunch of ‘em, actually. For starters, cutting that many calories—without becoming malnourished—is a trick that few of us would be able to pull off.

And if that’s not enough, scientists at Virginia Commonweath University in Richmond have discovered that fruit flies on a restricted diet do live longer—but, unfortunately, they continue to act their age. As flies grow older, they lose their memory, as well as their ability to walk and to smell things. And eating less banana mash doesn’t make their lives any sweeter.  In the Virginia researchers’ hands, the calorically challenged, longer-lived flies continued to show age-related declines in their ability to climb walls and to avoid bad smells, results that appear in the October issue of the journal Aging Cell.  Just something to keep in mind before you decide to pass on the apple pie a la mode…and pretty much everything else you might be thinking about eating today.

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