做家務能讓人長壽嗎?
報道 2012年12月14日
愛運動的人通常比久坐不動之人活得更久，這已是人盡皆知的事情了。可是深究起來，到底什麼樣、多大量的運動最延年益壽至今尚不清楚。不過，最近有不少新研究正逐漸讓答案清晰——某些類型的運動可能真的在影響死亡風險上更勝一籌。
最讓人印象深刻的，大概要數歐洲研究者依據英國中年公務員健康信息大型數據庫所做的這項新研究了。研究開始時這些公務員的年齡為35至55歲，在其後10年的跟蹤調查期間，他們需不斷完成健康信息問卷。
題目包括每位男性或女性上個月的體育鍛煉狀況。具體來說，問卷要求參與者填上他們在走路、園藝、做家務、運動（游泳、騎車、打高爾夫或足球），以及在房子周圍不停走動進行庭院打理和自己修理物件上所消耗的小時數。
每項運動都標定了“輕微”（像洗碗、做飯一類）、“適度”（包括除雜草和快步走）或者“劇烈”（比如游泳和割草——騎在割草機上這種顯然不算）幾個等級。
研究者還調查了公務員相應的死亡記錄。
他們發現，基本上任何形式的體育運動都能與長壽掛上鉤，不過這種關聯在運動較為劇烈的人身上體現得更為明顯。經常刷牆、修理房屋、快步行走的人比刷盤子的人享受着更好的“防早逝保護”——即使那些從事“輕度”運動的人實際花的總時間更長。
這個結論與今年發表在 《歐洲預防心臟病雜誌》(The European Journal of Preventive Cardiology)上的一項研究是一致的。此研究中，哥本哈根的科學家們利用18年時間跟蹤調查了5106名成年業餘單車手，請他們間或彙報一下自己 騎了幾個小時車和騎得有多劇烈。
研究者同樣也追蹤了參與者的死亡記錄。
結果是無論男女，報告說自己騎得比較猛的（雖然都不是比賽選手）都比騎得輕鬆的人更長壽——即便他們沒有一連騎上好幾個小時。平均而言，經常騎得較劇烈的人比用緩和速度騎車的人多活大概四到五年時間。
“我們給所有成年人的一般建議是：快騎比慢騎好。”作者總結說。
然而，並非所有科學家都信服“想長壽，劇烈運動是關鍵”這一論點。哈佛大學醫學院(Harvard Medical School)醫學教授李艾敏博士（I-Min Lee，音譯）說，大多數鑽研鍛煉與長壽關係的人的普遍共識為：最重要的是“能量消耗總量”，而不是耗能過程中有沒有揮汗如雨大張旗鼓。李博士是一篇新的 運動與壽命關係的重要研究的作者。
這項研究於11月6日發表在《公共科學圖書館·醫學》(PLoS Medicine)上。李博士和來自美國國家癌症研究所(National Cancer Institute)及其他機構的同事們將65萬多名多年來參與着國家癌症研究所的調查的美國成年人作為對象，收集了他們鍛煉、體重與死亡的數據。
研究者將參與者的運動水平與現在政府推薦的“每周150分鐘適度運動（比如快走）”做了比較，發現達到推薦運動量的人比全然不動的人平均長壽3.4 年；而那些嚴格要求自己，每周達到兩倍推薦運動量的人則活得更久一些，但增加量就顯然少多了：基本比達到標準運動量的人長壽10個月左右。
在調查期間，即使是超重或肥胖的人，無論減肥與否，只要適度運動都能活得更長。
有趣的是，運動與長壽間的關聯在稱自己只是偶爾運動的受訪者身上亦有所體現。“相當於每天走10分鐘這樣的很低的運動水平，也能讓人多活將近兩年。”美國國家癌症研究所領導此調查的研究員史蒂文·穆爾(Steven Moore)提到。
事實上，他說：“以每天步行65分鐘這樣的運動量來運動可達最長壽命，沒有證據表明增加運動量會更有裨益。”
綜上所述，李博士說：“只要是運動，哪怕只在最輕微的水平上，也有助於長壽。”
不過也有可能——儘管還沒有被確切證實——她繼續道：“比起消耗了能量這一單一因素而言，劇烈運動在減少死亡風險上或許提供了額外的幫助。”
李博士說，換言之，下次走路、騎車或修理東西的時候鼓勵自己再加把勁，也許還真能增進運動所帶來的長壽效果呢。但如果你不願意或不能再增加鍛煉強度了，那就別蠻幹。
她說，從“完全不動到以最低標準運動”，對壽命提高作用最顯著的。這下，通常讓人鬱悶不已的刷早餐盤子這種事，可就變得相當能讓人接受了。
最讓人印象深刻的，大概要數歐洲研究者依據英國中年公務員健康信息大型數據庫所做的這項新研究了。研究開始時這些公務員的年齡為35至55歲，在其後10年的跟蹤調查期間，他們需不斷完成健康信息問卷。
每項運動都標定了“輕微”（像洗碗、做飯一類）、“適度”（包括除雜草和快步走）或者“劇烈”（比如游泳和割草——騎在割草機上這種顯然不算）幾個等級。
研究者還調查了公務員相應的死亡記錄。
他們發現，基本上任何形式的體育運動都能與長壽掛上鉤，不過這種關聯在運動較為劇烈的人身上體現得更為明顯。經常刷牆、修理房屋、快步行走的人比刷盤子的人享受着更好的“防早逝保護”——即使那些從事“輕度”運動的人實際花的總時間更長。
這個結論與今年發表在 《歐洲預防心臟病雜誌》(The European Journal of Preventive Cardiology)上的一項研究是一致的。此研究中，哥本哈根的科學家們利用18年時間跟蹤調查了5106名成年業餘單車手，請他們間或彙報一下自己 騎了幾個小時車和騎得有多劇烈。
研究者同樣也追蹤了參與者的死亡記錄。
結果是無論男女，報告說自己騎得比較猛的（雖然都不是比賽選手）都比騎得輕鬆的人更長壽——即便他們沒有一連騎上好幾個小時。平均而言，經常騎得較劇烈的人比用緩和速度騎車的人多活大概四到五年時間。
“我們給所有成年人的一般建議是：快騎比慢騎好。”作者總結說。
然而，並非所有科學家都信服“想長壽，劇烈運動是關鍵”這一論點。哈佛大學醫學院(Harvard Medical School)醫學教授李艾敏博士（I-Min Lee，音譯）說，大多數鑽研鍛煉與長壽關係的人的普遍共識為：最重要的是“能量消耗總量”，而不是耗能過程中有沒有揮汗如雨大張旗鼓。李博士是一篇新的 運動與壽命關係的重要研究的作者。
這項研究於11月6日發表在《公共科學圖書館·醫學》(PLoS Medicine)上。李博士和來自美國國家癌症研究所(National Cancer Institute)及其他機構的同事們將65萬多名多年來參與着國家癌症研究所的調查的美國成年人作為對象，收集了他們鍛煉、體重與死亡的數據。
研究者將參與者的運動水平與現在政府推薦的“每周150分鐘適度運動（比如快走）”做了比較，發現達到推薦運動量的人比全然不動的人平均長壽3.4 年；而那些嚴格要求自己，每周達到兩倍推薦運動量的人則活得更久一些，但增加量就顯然少多了：基本比達到標準運動量的人長壽10個月左右。
在調查期間，即使是超重或肥胖的人，無論減肥與否，只要適度運動都能活得更長。
有趣的是，運動與長壽間的關聯在稱自己只是偶爾運動的受訪者身上亦有所體現。“相當於每天走10分鐘這樣的很低的運動水平，也能讓人多活將近兩年。”美國國家癌症研究所領導此調查的研究員史蒂文·穆爾(Steven Moore)提到。
事實上，他說：“以每天步行65分鐘這樣的運動量來運動可達最長壽命，沒有證據表明增加運動量會更有裨益。”
綜上所述，李博士說：“只要是運動，哪怕只在最輕微的水平上，也有助於長壽。”
不過也有可能——儘管還沒有被確切證實——她繼續道：“比起消耗了能量這一單一因素而言，劇烈運動在減少死亡風險上或許提供了額外的幫助。”
李博士說，換言之，下次走路、騎車或修理東西的時候鼓勵自己再加把勁，也許還真能增進運動所帶來的長壽效果呢。但如果你不願意或不能再增加鍛煉強度了，那就別蠻幹。
她說，從“完全不動到以最低標準運動”，對壽命提高作用最顯著的。這下，通常讓人鬱悶不已的刷早餐盤子這種事，可就變得相當能讓人接受了。
本文最初發表於2012年11月14日。
翻譯：孫舒雯
翻譯：孫舒雯
Can Housework Help You Live Longer?
December 14, 2012
It's well known by now
that active people typically live longer than those who are sedentary.
But precisely what types or amounts of exercise most affect life span
has not been clear. Several new studies, though, are beginning to
provide some clarity, suggesting that certain activities may be better
than others in terms of affecting mortality risk.
Perhaps the most memorable of the new studies was conducted by researchers in Europe who turned to a large database of health information about middle-aged British civil servants. The workers, ages 35 to 55 at the start, were followed for a decade or so, during which time they filled out repeated health questionnaires.
The topics
included each man or woman's physical activity during the previous
month. Specifically, the questionnaires asked about the number of hours
that the volunteers had spent walking, gardening, performing housework,
playing sports (swimming, cycling, golf or soccer) and puttering around
the house completing yardwork and do-it-yourself repair projects.
Each activity was designated as "mild," like washing the dishes and cooking; "moderate," encompassing weeding and brisk walking; or "vigorous," which here included swimming and mowing the yard. (Riding mowers apparently didn't factor in.)
The researchers also checked death records for the civil servants.
They found that in general, physical activity of any kind was associated with longer life. But the association was much stronger among those people whose activities were relatively intense. Those who regularly painted and repaired their houses or walked briskly enjoyed more protection against premature death than those who washed dishes, even if people spent more overall hours engaged in "mild" activities.
That finding agrees with those of a study published this year in The European Journal of Preventive Cardiology, in which scientists in Copenhagen followed 5,106 adult recreational cyclists for about 18 years, asking their volunteers to occasionally report how many hours and how strenuously they were riding their bikes.
The researchers also tracked deaths among the group.
It turned out that the men and women who reported riding relatively hard (although none were racers) lived longer than those who rode at an easy pace, even if they weren't pedaling for as many hours. On average, cyclists who regularly rode hard lived about four or five years longer than those who went at a more leisurely pace.
"Our general recommendations to all adults would be that brisk cycling is preferable to slow," the authors conclude.
But not all researchers are convinced that intense exercise is essential, if your goal is a longer life. The general consensus among most researchers studying exercise and longevity "is that it is the total amount of energy expended that is important," and not whether you huff and strain during that expenditure, says Dr. I-Min Lee, a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, an author of a major new examination of exercise and life expectancy.
In that study, published last week in PLoS Medicine, Dr. Lee and colleagues from the National Cancer Institute and other institutions compiled physical activity, body mass and mortality data for more than 650,000 American adults who'd participated in National Cancer Institute studies over the years.
The researchers compared the volunteers' activity levels against the current governmental recommendation of 150 minutes of moderate activity (like brisk walking) per week. They found that those who met the recommendation lived on average 3.4 years longer than people who didn't exercise. Those who ambitiously doubled the recommended amount of weekly exercise enjoyed additional gains in life span, but at a noticeably diminishing rate, typically living 10 months or so longer than those who just met the guidelines.
Even people who were overweight or obese lived longer if they exercised moderately, whether or not they lost weight during the study period.
Interestingly, the association between physical activity and longer life held true also for those volunteers who reported exercising only occasionally. "A very low level of activity, equivalent to 10 minutes per day of walking, was associated with a gain of almost two years of life expectancy," says Steven Moore, a research fellow with the National Cancer Institute, who led the study.
In fact, he says, "maximum longevity was reached at a physical activity level equivalent to 65 minutes per day of walking, with no evidence for gains above this level of activity."
What all of this suggests, Dr. Lee says, is "that physical activity, even at a modest level, can increase life expectancy."
But it's also probable, although not yet definitively proven, she continues, that "intense exercise gives additional benefit above the risk reduction afforded by energy expenditure alone."
In other words, pushing yourself during your next walk, bike ride or home-repair project might amplify the activity's longevity-enhancing benefits, Dr. Lee says. But if you don't wish to or cannot increase the intensity of your exercise, don't sweat it.
The largest gain in terms of adding years to someone's life, she says, comes in that space between "doing nothing to achieving the lower end of the activity scale," which makes even the usually tedious prospect of washing this morning's breakfast dishes more palatable.
Perhaps the most memorable of the new studies was conducted by researchers in Europe who turned to a large database of health information about middle-aged British civil servants. The workers, ages 35 to 55 at the start, were followed for a decade or so, during which time they filled out repeated health questionnaires.
Each activity was designated as "mild," like washing the dishes and cooking; "moderate," encompassing weeding and brisk walking; or "vigorous," which here included swimming and mowing the yard. (Riding mowers apparently didn't factor in.)
The researchers also checked death records for the civil servants.
They found that in general, physical activity of any kind was associated with longer life. But the association was much stronger among those people whose activities were relatively intense. Those who regularly painted and repaired their houses or walked briskly enjoyed more protection against premature death than those who washed dishes, even if people spent more overall hours engaged in "mild" activities.
That finding agrees with those of a study published this year in The European Journal of Preventive Cardiology, in which scientists in Copenhagen followed 5,106 adult recreational cyclists for about 18 years, asking their volunteers to occasionally report how many hours and how strenuously they were riding their bikes.
The researchers also tracked deaths among the group.
It turned out that the men and women who reported riding relatively hard (although none were racers) lived longer than those who rode at an easy pace, even if they weren't pedaling for as many hours. On average, cyclists who regularly rode hard lived about four or five years longer than those who went at a more leisurely pace.
"Our general recommendations to all adults would be that brisk cycling is preferable to slow," the authors conclude.
But not all researchers are convinced that intense exercise is essential, if your goal is a longer life. The general consensus among most researchers studying exercise and longevity "is that it is the total amount of energy expended that is important," and not whether you huff and strain during that expenditure, says Dr. I-Min Lee, a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, an author of a major new examination of exercise and life expectancy.
In that study, published last week in PLoS Medicine, Dr. Lee and colleagues from the National Cancer Institute and other institutions compiled physical activity, body mass and mortality data for more than 650,000 American adults who'd participated in National Cancer Institute studies over the years.
The researchers compared the volunteers' activity levels against the current governmental recommendation of 150 minutes of moderate activity (like brisk walking) per week. They found that those who met the recommendation lived on average 3.4 years longer than people who didn't exercise. Those who ambitiously doubled the recommended amount of weekly exercise enjoyed additional gains in life span, but at a noticeably diminishing rate, typically living 10 months or so longer than those who just met the guidelines.
Even people who were overweight or obese lived longer if they exercised moderately, whether or not they lost weight during the study period.
Interestingly, the association between physical activity and longer life held true also for those volunteers who reported exercising only occasionally. "A very low level of activity, equivalent to 10 minutes per day of walking, was associated with a gain of almost two years of life expectancy," says Steven Moore, a research fellow with the National Cancer Institute, who led the study.
In fact, he says, "maximum longevity was reached at a physical activity level equivalent to 65 minutes per day of walking, with no evidence for gains above this level of activity."
What all of this suggests, Dr. Lee says, is "that physical activity, even at a modest level, can increase life expectancy."
But it's also probable, although not yet definitively proven, she continues, that "intense exercise gives additional benefit above the risk reduction afforded by energy expenditure alone."
In other words, pushing yourself during your next walk, bike ride or home-repair project might amplify the activity's longevity-enhancing benefits, Dr. Lee says. But if you don't wish to or cannot increase the intensity of your exercise, don't sweat it.
The largest gain in terms of adding years to someone's life, she says, comes in that space between "doing nothing to achieving the lower end of the activity scale," which makes even the usually tedious prospect of washing this morning's breakfast dishes more palatable.
沒有留言:
張貼留言