Possibly, but this pattern has been shifted at such a dramatical rate since the last 10k years and the advent of agriculture that evolution and genetic selection may not had time to catch up. It's even possible that some forms of applied science (via medical care) is introducing a bias against natural selection by relieving some pressure bu it's possibly too short a timespan to judge that, although evolution sometimes can operate at very short timescales. (Short term I'm OK with that but lacking data I can't decide if long term this is good for us humans... Well we'll end up merging with our metal overlords anyway!).
> This seems exactly what human civilisation has traditionally done: conserve physical energy until it's the right time to hunt, do some very intensive hunting, spend a lot of mental energy figuring out better tools and systems.
Civilization is pretty young when you compare it to the evolution of humans. I think you're also missing out the difference of energy spent when comparing hunting versus agriculture. Even when you're not hunting, there is still a lot of physical activity around it. Not to mention automation.
I disagree strongly with this part of what you're saying.
This seems exactly what human civilisation has traditionally done: conserve physical energy until it's the right time to hunt, do some very intensive hunting, spend a lot of mental energy figuring out better tools and systems.
The article measures activity as: cycling, running, swimming, etc. That's intensive activity. Missing that out had a higher risk of death.