Energy-based model explains how chronic stress transforms into disease over time

Lets agree for the sake of argument that if the body does not have enough energy to do what it needs that causes harm. Then why not eat more food to deal with the problem?

I think this model is missing a critical component: the bodies ability to use energy effectively is limited by having the proper nutrients available. The easiest example being a deficiency of B vitamins since they are used for energy metabolism. Many other factors can impair energy metabolism and just eating more will not fix the situation.

Whereas with this model we have statements that seem too over-simplified:

> The organism’s energy consumption capacity is biologically limited

This seems overstated- we know that certain athletes can consume 2x or even 3x a resting amount to support physical exertion- the human body seems designed to be able to produce more power for physical exertion when needed by consuming more energy (in addition to making long-term adaptations to make energy usage more efficient).

I also think that readers of this paper may take away an understated understanding of the possible negative effects of energy deficiency. Any physiological problem could be impacted by energy metabolism. For example, even if something is known to be caused by a deficiency in a nutrient that cannot be synthesized by the body, it's still possible that improved energy metabolism might be able to reduce the usage of that nutrient in some pathways to conserve more for where it is needed.

- the human body seems designed to be able to produce more power for physical exertion when needed by consuming more energy (in addition to making long-term adaptations to make energy usage more efficient).

Most top athletes are retiring around 35. Their bodies are ruined like those who need to physically work hardly every day. They look elder as well.

We are not machines that will do more when given more sources without consequences.

Most athletes play for reasons other than health. In a competitive environment with physical contact that rewards over-exertion and playing through injuries. Those that keep pushing their body to their limit will likely find consequences. Just doing so many repetitive movements for sports will damage the body unless the athlete can train those pathways to be strong enough. Most athletes seem to play until they can't play through injury anymore.

In contrast, exercise that keeps good health in mind can require noticeable extra energy consumption and seems like it would fall in line with the huge volume of research showing the benefits of exercise.

In contrast this article seems to point to studies of increased resting metabolic rates being harmful with no evidence about exercise.

> ...retiring around 35. Their bodies are ruined

From what I can find, this is incorrect, unless the athlete is doing a high impact sport like American football, rugby, boxing etc.

If they're doing a non impact sport like swimming, cycling, running, they are likely to live longer and healthier than non athletes.

https://healthland.time.com/2012/12/14/fast-stronger-longer-...

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4534511/

> Most top athletes are retiring around 35. Their bodies are ruined like those who need to physically work hardly every day. They look elder as well.

This isn't a true statement. Just turn on golf or bowling or cycling or marathon running or triathlons for a few hours. People retire from sports early for lots of reasons. The ones whose bodies are wrecked are overwhelmingly the ones in impact sports.

But athletes also retire because they're no longer competitive. A 40 year old, on average, can't jump as high or run as fast as as 27 year old. You're not going to be a successful 50 year old basketball player when you're up against people decades younger than you.

The human body can't be simplified down to a candle, where once you've burned through it, it's done and over.