Setting the baseline to non-urban rats would tell us more about the health of prehistoric humans than modern ones.
This is a scientific study that isn't being accurate about what it's even studying, which makes me instantly dubious of any of its results.
Put into context, your reasoning implies that a rat running around all day looking for food is not exercise.
Humans were hunter gatherers, their level of exercise would be our evolutionary norm, IE the obvious control group. Exercise above or below our evolutionary norm would give us information as to how best increase longevity.
It's a commonly accepted 'fact' that our exercise below this evolutionary norm is detrimental to our health. Exercise above and beyond our social norm is obviously going to beneficial to our health and weight as it is equivalent to moving us towards our hunter gatherer ancestors, but this is only normalizing a wrong we already know about.
For a fair study you would have to find how much a wild non-urban rat "exercises" during a day and then up that to see whether exercise will keep them young.