Or is the life extension effect too subtle to be relevant at all outside a flat mousecage?
This guy[0] studies total average energy expenditure over time and demonstrates that an athlete undertaking intense regular exercise uses marginally more energy over time than someone sitting on a couch all day. The hypothesis being that the athlete is conserving energy by down-regulating baseline metabolic and inflammatory processes when at rest.
Disappointing news for "exercise causes dramatic weight loss" but encouraging news for "exercise is anti-cancer" (a correlation demonstrated many times I believe).
[0] https://www.science.org/content/article/scientist-busts-myth...
I think it points to an interesting insight, something we have yet to uncover perhaps, but I don't think it disproves that exercise spends energy. Maybe all it's really proving is that we are very efficient at the chosen type of exercise in the study.
As a lifelong runner I know I only burn 80 calories or less per mile, that's nothing.
However exercise does things that no supplement or drug can do, proper AMPK and cAMP activation, endorphin and endocannabinoid release.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8789153/
The problem with a lot of these longevity approaches is they "solve the problem" by reducing energy conversion, like acarbose, pulling people to a baseline and preventing stress adaptations.
Great for sitting around. The opposite of that for doing anything athletic, you'd never improve.