4.7 Review

Calorie restriction in humans: An update

期刊

AGEING RESEARCH REVIEWS
卷 39, 期 -, 页码 36-45

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.arr.2016.08.005

关键词

Calorie restriction; Aging; Energy metabolism; Metabolic adaptation; CALERIE; Age-associated diseases

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [U01-AG-020487, U01-AG-020480, U01-AG-022132 R01, AG029914, U01 AG020478]
  2. Bakewell Foundation
  3. Longer Life Foundation (an RGA/Washington University Partnership)
  4. National Center for Research Resources [UL1 RR024992]
  5. European Union's Seventh Framework Programme MOPACT (Mobilising the Potential of Active Ageing in Europe) [320333]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Calorie restriction (CR), a nutritional intervention of reduced energy intake but with adequate nutrition, has been shown to extend healthspan and lifespan in rodent and primate models. Accumulating data from observational and randomized clinical trials indicate that CR in humans results in some of the same metabolic and molecular adaptations that have been shown to improve health and retard the accumulation of molecular damage in animal models of longevity. In particular, moderate CR in humans ameliorates multiple metabolic and hormonal factors that are implicated in the pathogenesis of type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular diseases, and cancer, the leading causes of morbidity, disability and mortality. In this paper, we will discuss the effects of CR in non-obese humans on these physiological parameters. Special emphasis is committed to recent clinical intervention trials that have investigated the feasibility and effects of CR in young and middle-aged men and women on parameters of energy metabolism and metabolic risk factors of age-associated disease in great detail. Additionally, data from individuals who are either naturally exposed to CR or those who are self-practicing this dietary intervention allows us to speculate on longer-term effects of more severe CR in humans. (C) 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据