科学美国人(翻译):每周锻炼两小时身心更健康 2019.08.10

cathy0301 2019-08-21 329 阅读
分享

By now it's almost common knowledge that spending time in nature is good for you. Areas with more trees tend to be less polluted, so spending time there allows you to breathe easier. Spending time outdoors has been linked with reduced blood pressure and stress, and seems to motivate people to exercise more.

到目前为止,花时间在大自然中对你有好处几乎是常识。树木较多的地区污染较轻,所以在那里呆上一段时间可以让你呼吸更轻松。花时间在户外与降低血压和压力有关,而且似乎能激励人们更多地锻炼。

“So it'll come as no surprise that there's research showing that spending time in nature is good. I mean, that's been known for millennia. There's dozens of papers showing that."University of Exeter Medical School researcher Mathew P. White."We get this idea, patients are coming to us and they're saying, 'doctor, how long should I spend?' and the doctor is saying, 'I don't really know.'"

所以,有研究表明,花时间在大自然中是有益的,这并不令人惊讶。我的意思是,这已经知道几千年了。有几十篇论文证明了这一点。”埃克塞特大学医学院研究员马修·p·怀特。“我们有这样的想法,病人来找我们,他们说,‘医生,我应该花多长时间?’医生说,‘我真的不知道。’”

So White and his team decided to find out by using data collected from nearly 20,000 people in England through the Monitor of Engagement with the Natural Environment Survey.And their answer? Two hours a week. People who spent at least that much time amid nature—either all at once or totaled over several shorter visits—were more likely to report good health and psychological well-being than those with no nature exposure.

因此,怀特和他的团队决定利用英国近2万人通过“参与自然环境监测调查”收集的数据来找出答案。和他们的答案?每周两个小时。与那些没有接触过自然环境的人相比,那些至少在自然环境中待了那么长时间的人——要么是同时去一次自然环境,要么是在几次较短的访问中总共待了那么长时间——更有可能报告身体健康和心理健康状况良好。

Remarkably, the researchers found that less than two hours offered no significant benefits. So what's so special about two hours?"I have absolutely no idea. Really. We didn't have an a priori guess at what this would be, this threshold. It emerged. And I'd be lying if I said we predicted this, I don't know."

值得注意的是,研究人员发现,不到两小时的睡眠并没有明显的益处。那么两个小时有什么特别之处呢?

“我完全不知道。真的。我们没有对这个阈值有一个先验的猜测。它出现了。如果我说我们预测到了这一点,那我就是在撒谎,我不知道。”

Even more noteworthy, the two-hour benchmark applied to men and women, to older and younger folks, to people from different ethnic backgrounds, occupational groups, socioeconomic levels, and so on. Even people with long term illnesses or disabilities benefited from time spent in nature—as long as it was at least 120 minutes per week. The study is in the journal Scientific Reports.

更值得注意的是,两个小时的基准测试适用于男性和女性、老年人和年轻人、来自不同种族背景、职业群体、社会经济水平等的人。即使是患有长期疾病或残疾的人,也能从花在大自然上的时间中获益——只要每周至少120分钟。这项研究发表在《科学报告》杂志上。

While the findings are based on a tremendous number of people, White cautions that it’s really just a correlation. Nobody knows why or how nature has this benefit, or even if the findings will stand up to more rigorous investigation.

虽然这些发现是基于大量的人,但怀特警告说,这实际上只是一种相关性。没有人知道自然为什么或如何有这种好处,甚至这些发现是否经得起更严格的调查。

"I want to be really clear about this. This is very early stages. We're not saying everybody has to do 120. This is really to start the conversation, saying, what would a threshold look like? What research do we need to take this to the next step before doctors can have the true confidence to work with their patients? But it's certainly a starting point."

“我想把这件事说清楚。这是非常早期的阶段。我们不是说每个人都必须做120。这是真正的开始对话,说,一个门槛应该是什么样的?在医生有真正的信心和病人一起工作之前,我们需要做哪些研究来把这个问题推进下一步?但这肯定是一个起点。”



By now it's almost common knowledge that spending time in nature is good for you. Areas with more trees tend to be less polluted, so spending time there allows you to breathe easier. Spending time outdoors has been linked with reduced blood pressure and stress, and seems to motivate people to exercise more.

到目前为止,花时间在大自然中对你有好处几乎是常识。树木较多的地区污染较轻,所以在那里呆上一段时间可以让你呼吸更轻松。花时间在户外与降低血压和压力有关,而且似乎能激励人们更多地锻炼。

“So it'll come as no surprise that there's research showing that spending time in nature is good. I mean, that's been known for millennia. There's dozens of papers showing that."University of Exeter Medical School researcher Mathew P. White."We get this idea, patients are coming to us and they're saying, 'doctor, how long should I spend?' and the doctor is saying, 'I don't really know.'"

所以,有研究表明,花时间在大自然中是有益的,这并不令人惊讶。我的意思是,这已经知道几千年了。有几十篇论文证明了这一点。”埃克塞特大学医学院研究员马修·p·怀特。“我们有这样的想法,病人来找我们,他们说,‘医生,我应该花多长时间?’医生说,‘我真的不知道。’”

So White and his team decided to find out by using data collected from nearly 20,000 people in England through the Monitor of Engagement with the Natural Environment Survey.And their answer? Two hours a week. People who spent at least that much time amid nature—either all at once or totaled over several shorter visits—were more likely to report good health and psychological well-being than those with no nature exposure.

因此,怀特和他的团队决定利用英国近2万人通过“参与自然环境监测调查”收集的数据来找出答案。和他们的答案?每周两个小时。与那些没有接触过自然环境的人相比,那些至少在自然环境中待了那么长时间的人——要么是同时去一次自然环境,要么是在几次较短的访问中总共待了那么长时间——更有可能报告身体健康和心理健康状况良好。

Remarkably, the researchers found that less than two hours offered no significant benefits. So what's so special about two hours?"I have absolutely no idea. Really. We didn't have an a priori guess at what this would be, this threshold. It emerged. And I'd be lying if I said we predicted this, I don't know."

值得注意的是,研究人员发现,不到两小时的睡眠并没有明显的益处。那么两个小时有什么特别之处呢?

“我完全不知道。真的。我们没有对这个阈值有一个先验的猜测。它出现了。如果我说我们预测到了这一点,那我就是在撒谎,我不知道。”

Even more noteworthy, the two-hour benchmark applied to men and women, to older and younger folks, to people from different ethnic backgrounds, occupational groups, socioeconomic levels, and so on. Even people with long term illnesses or disabilities benefited from time spent in nature—as long as it was at least 120 minutes per week. The study is in the journal Scientific Reports.

更值得注意的是,两个小时的基准测试适用于男性和女性、老年人和年轻人、来自不同种族背景、职业群体、社会经济水平等的人。即使是患有长期疾病或残疾的人,也能从花在大自然上的时间中获益——只要每周至少120分钟。这项研究发表在《科学报告》杂志上。

While the findings are based on a tremendous number of people, White cautions that it’s really just a correlation. Nobody knows why or how nature has this benefit, or even if the findings will stand up to more rigorous investigation.

虽然这些发现是基于大量的人,但怀特警告说,这实际上只是一种相关性。没有人知道自然为什么或如何有这种好处,甚至这些发现是否经得起更严格的调查。

"I want to be really clear about this. This is very early stages. We're not saying everybody has to do 120. This is really to start the conversation, saying, what would a threshold look like? What research do we need to take this to the next step before doctors can have the true confidence to work with their patients? But it's certainly a starting point."

“我想把这件事说清楚。这是非常早期的阶段。我们不是说每个人都必须做120。这是真正的开始对话,说,一个门槛应该是什么样的?在医生有真正的信心和病人一起工作之前,我们需要做哪些研究来把这个问题推进下一步?但这肯定是一个起点。”



3g.bigear.cn 用手机随时随地学英语
分享