Caloric restriction improves health and survival of rhesus monkeys

Mattison JA et al. · 2017 · Nature Communications · Atlas ID MAT2017

What this study shows

Direct comparison of two long-term primate CR studies (NIA, Wisconsin) supports consistent health benefits; the survival effect depended on study design and control-diet composition.

Abstract

ShowHide

Caloric restriction (CR) without malnutrition extends lifespan and delays the onset of age-related disorders in most species but its impact in nonhuman primates has been controversial. In the late 1980s two parallel studies were initiated to determine the effect of CR in rhesus monkeys. The University of Wisconsin study reported a significant positive impact of CR on survival, but the National Institute on Aging study detected no significant survival effect.

Read the full abstract on PubMed →

At a glance

Evidence type	A Animal model Marked A because it is an animal intervention or observation study measuring an organismal outcome (model: Rhesus macaque (2 independent cohorts)); the code names the system studied -- animal work can be rigorous and still not be human data.
Study type	4 - Animal Study
Model system	Rhesus macaque (2 independent cohorts)
Journal	Nature Communications
Year	2017
Peer reviewed	Yes
Record last updated	2026-07-29
Source	DOI 10.1038/ncomms14063 · PMID 28094793 · Free full text (PMC5247583)

Extracted findings

Intervention	Caloric restriction
Target	Nutrient-sensing / mTOR (indirect)
Model	Rhesus macaque (2 independent cohorts)
Effect	Caloric restriction improved health and (in the Wisconsin cohort) survival in rhesus monkeys
Dose	CR monkeys received 30% less food than height-, age- and sex-matched control monkeys (NIA); CR was implemented on a per-individual basis after establishing baseline food intake (UW).
Sample size	NIA study: 121 monkeys; UW study: 76 monkeys.
Effect size	UW study: statistically significant effect of CR in increasing survival (Cox regression P =0.017); NIA study: no significant impact of CR on survival.
Limitations	Fundamental differences in study design and implementation between NIA and UW studies (e.g., age of onset, genetic origin, diet composition, feeding practices); NIA study's wide age of onset precluded grouping for analysis; UW study likely lacked statistical power for longevity.

In the Atlas

Cite this paper

ShowHide

Mattison, J. A., et al. (2017). Caloric restriction improves health and survival of rhesus monkeys. Nature Communications. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms14063

@article{MAT2017,
  author       = {Mattison, J. A. and others},
  title        = {{Caloric restriction improves health and survival of rhesus monkeys}},
  journal      = {Nature Communications},
  year         = {2017},
  doi          = {10.1038/ncomms14063},
  note         = {PMID: 28094793},
}

Cite this Atlas record

The record is the Atlas's own work — the evidence label, the extracted findings and the links. It is cited as part of the dataset, not as the paper.

Barton, O. (2026). Oliver's mTOR Atlas (record MAT2017) [Data set]. https://mtor-atlas.org/study/MAT2017/ · Dataset DOI 10.5281/zenodo.22059963

@misc{atlas_MAT2017,
  author       = {Barton, Oliver},
  title        = {{Oliver's mTOR Atlas}, record MAT2017},
  howpublished = {Data set},
  year         = {2026},
  url          = {https://mtor-atlas.org/study/MAT2017/},
  doi          = {10.5281/zenodo.22059963}
}