That&#x27;s not quite what I meant.<p>My point is that, if only a small fraction of the population survived past, say, 65 for 8000 generations, we&#x27;re unlikely to be genetically pre-disposed to anything much that optimises for long term health. It just wouldn&#x27;t make genetic sense.<p>So a regimen that focuses on what is good for our paleolithic selves strikes me as being probably only coincidentally helpful for anything much beyond a healthy 20s or 30s.<p>TBH it&#x27;s not obvious why we would be genetically optimised to survive much beyond child rearing age, say, mid 30s to early 40s but, again, I don&#x27;t know enough about paleolithic society to make anything other than a superficial case.<p>I&#x27;m also not arguing against the likely health benefits of daily exercise etc. Long term or otherwise. Just against the genetic case that uses the &quot;what was good for our ancestors&quot; argument.