That's not quite what I meant.
My point is that, if only a small fraction of the population survived past, say, 65 for 8000 generations, we're unlikely to be genetically pre-disposed to anything much that optimises for long term health. It just wouldn't make genetic sense.
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.
TBH it'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't know enough about paleolithic society to make anything other than a superficial case.
I'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 "what was good for our ancestors" argument.