This could be very big and very good news. (But there have been touted weight loss drugs before that didn't pan out.)
"Pulse rates have been overlooked as a potentially valuable way of capturing individuals’ wellbeing. The value of pulse rate as a wellbeing metric is that, unlike subjective wellbeing metrics, it is recorded on an objective cardinal scale. This column uses empirical analyses of the English and Scottish Health Surveys and the 1958 National Child Development Study to show pulse is highly correlated with subjective wellbeing, that pulse equations look very similar to those for subjective wellbeing, and that pulse is predictive of subjective wellbeing and labour market outcomes later in life."
But a randomized trial reported in the Lancet doesn't show a statistically significant benefit. However, the Twitterati have a few doubts about the generalizability of the study.
Related: this 20-year-old paper, coauthored by noted Cal-Berkeley statistician, David A. Freedman, "Salt and Blood Pressure: Conventional Wisdom Reconsidered". Years ago when I first read it, I found it impressive, but I haven't kept up with any subsequent developments.
"Immoral" strongly suggest that a philosopher is needed. I am not one, but if they work and they are reasonably safe, I don't understand how they could be immoral. Maybe I need to be a Lefty.
"If the goal of exercise is to maximize health and lifespan, the aim should be to minimize the resting heart rate and preserve aortic elasticity for as long as possible."
Yow! And yow, again. Be careful out there.
The answer given here by BBC Future seems to be "maybe". Note to people who criticize economists for contradicting each other and "not knowing much for certain": economics is far from the only science with that deficiency.
Absolutely not. But it sounds like it would be pretty awesome.