I agree with high a lot of this. I also think most people in general excise too little.
At the same time, to understand where you are coming from do you by and large agree with the longevity literature that there seems to be two states for mammals:
A. growth/build/resources are abundant (generally good for near term health)
B. resources are scarce/go into protect/recycle mode (generally good for longevity and health at the very end time one’s life)
Different top scientists use different terms, but generally seems to agree on roughly those two states
Things like extra calories and all the nutrient sensing pathways are revved up in the first state above. We can build, good for wound healing, mTOR, IGF-1, GH, testosterone, etc are higher
Things like fasting, calories down/restricted, autophagy, mitophagy, general recycling of less optimal cells, and also stress tolerance, etc kick in when in the second state.
Spending a meaningful amount of time in the second state is optimal to avoid cancer, dementia and other age related disease and to maximize healthy longevity as we age. Through evolution humans and other mammals spent a lot of time in this second state. But people in the modern world rarely are in that state if they don’t intentionally take steps to enter it.
To have enough of the second state over the decades of our lives it seems that meaningful amount excise is fine and for other reasons good. But if we were to maximize amounts of exercise needed and be at the upper edge of the curves in the two recent papers you shared one would have to sacrifice how much one is the second state above.
Does this framework sketch jive with your interpretation of the science and medicine of aging and longevity?