This is crap because of how misleading it is. For example yes a correlation exists between metabolic activity and lifespan across a wide range of life forms, but humans just like most birds are at the extreme edge.
So, as humans already have rather extreme lifespans relative to most organisms meaning our bodies are likely already using the low hanging fruit in terms of extending lifespans. But, without that context it seems like birds have some advantages we could copy.
This then hidden by first referencing a U shaped curve and ‘our place’ on it without clarifying it’s a metabolic curve not a lifespan curve.
Finally “In a 2007 analysis it was shown that, when modern statistical methods for correcting for the effects of body size and phylogeny are employed, metabolic rate does not correlate with longevity in mammals or birds.”
>“In a 2007 analysis it was shown that, when modern statistical methods for correcting for the effects of body size and phylogeny are employed, metabolic rate does not correlate with longevity in mammals or birds.”
So, as humans already have rather extreme lifespans relative to most organisms meaning our bodies are likely already using the low hanging fruit in terms of extending lifespans. But, without that context it seems like birds have some advantages we could copy.
This then hidden by first referencing a U shaped curve and ‘our place’ on it without clarifying it’s a metabolic curve not a lifespan curve.
Finally “In a 2007 analysis it was shown that, when modern statistical methods for correcting for the effects of body size and phylogeny are employed, metabolic rate does not correlate with longevity in mammals or birds.”