当你觉得每天的时间都不够用,要每周至少进行两个半小时的中等至高强度运动就几乎是不可能实现的。
这个数字来自美国疾病控制与预防中心(CDC)针对所有成年人的建议。该指南建议将150分钟的锻炼时间分散到每周五天、每天30分钟,此外还要对所有主要肌肉群进行两天的力量训练。
对于那些既要兼顾全职工作又要照顾孩子的父母,或是那些需要连续工作12个小时的轮班工作者来说,每周锻炼五天可能并不现实。许多人在漫长的一天结束后几乎没有精力做饭。
这些人可能倾向于成为“周末战士”——把锻炼留到周末。对于这些周末战士来说,有一个好消息:发表在《循环》杂志(Circulation)上的一项新研究表明,如果你仍能达到总体体育锻炼指南的要求,那么锻炼一到两天可能与一周每天锻炼一样有益。
成为“周末战士"的理由
这项研究的主要作者、麻省总医院德莫拉斯心律失常中心(Demoulas Center for Cardiac Arrhythmias at Massachusetts General Hospital)的教员沙恩·胡尔希德(Shaan Khurshid)博士说:"如果需要投入大量时间或分散时间,就很难让人每周进行多次锻炼。”
胡尔希德告诉《财富》杂志,据他观察,随着忙碌的生活方式越来越普遍,越来越多的人把锻炼集中在一两天内进行。这促使他和他的团队着手研究这个问题:那些每天锻炼20-30分钟的人是否比那些每周只在一到两天进行较长时间锻炼的人获得更多的健康益处?
似乎未必如此。
周末战士和规律运动的人患264种疾病的风险几乎同样降低,尤其是高血压、糖尿病、肥胖症和睡眠呼吸暂停症。
胡尔希德和他的同事们研究了89573名手腕上佩戴运动追踪器(为期一周)的人的运动数据。30228名参与者被归入不运动组(每周运动时间少于150分钟),37872名参与者被归入周末战士组(每周运动至少150分钟,每周运动一到两天),21473名参与者被归入规律运动组(每周至少运动150分钟,分散在一周内进行)。
所有的参与者都进行了中等至高强度运动——胡尔希德把将其定义为能使心率达到说话困难、几乎无法唱歌的程度的运动。他说,这包括慢跑或进行体育运动等活动。
在所有测试疾病类别中,与不运动组相比,周末战士和规律运动组都显示出相似的降低健康风险的效果,包括:心脏病发作(风险分别降低27%和35%)、中风(风险分别降低21%和17%)和糖尿病(风险分别降低43%和46%)。
胡尔希德告诉《财富》杂志:"就预防疾病而言,我们没有发现哪种(锻炼)方式比另一种更好。”
150分钟的锻炼时间仍然是魔法数字
如果你每周只锻炼两天,你可能需要把大部分的运动集中在那两天内完成。周末战士和规律运动的人得到的益处相似,因为参与者在一周内的运动总量相当。
每周定期锻炼的人的中度至高强度运动时间中位数为418分钟,而周末战士的中位数为288分钟。最重要的是,他们的运动时间都远高于美国疾病控制与预防中心规定的每周150 分钟的指导标准。
胡尔希德说,底线是“找到最适合你的方法,以达到指南建议的水平”。
他承认,这项研究的局限性在于他们只对参与者进行了为期一周的跟踪调查;不过,胡尔希德说,为期一周的跟踪调查似乎仍能反映人们的常规活动习惯。
增强锻炼者的能力
胡尔希德说,那些努力每周锻炼超过一两天的人可以把这项研究看作是对他们选择的日常生活和繁忙日程的认可。
“能够说'达到你需要的运动量,但如何运动并不重要,重要的是进行锻炼,这能赋予人们力量。"胡尔希德说。
胡尔希德说:“我们没必要对人们应该如何进行锻炼施加不必要的限制或是增加某个人的锻炼难度,比如说‘你必须每周锻炼五天,每次锻炼30分钟’。找到适合自己的习惯并坚持下去更能赋予你力量。”
胡尔希德希望这些发现能推动他就这一主题开展更多研究,比如一年中需要多少周达到150分钟的阈值才能对健康有益。他说,理想情况下,参与者将佩戴活动追踪器数年,以便有更多的长期数据可供分析。(财富中文网)
译者:中慧言-王芳
当你觉得每天的时间都不够用,要每周至少进行两个半小时的中等至高强度运动就几乎是不可能实现的。
这个数字来自美国疾病控制与预防中心(CDC)针对所有成年人的建议。该指南建议将150分钟的锻炼时间分散到每周五天、每天30分钟,此外还要对所有主要肌肉群进行两天的力量训练。
对于那些既要兼顾全职工作又要照顾孩子的父母,或是那些需要连续工作12个小时的轮班工作者来说,每周锻炼五天可能并不现实。许多人在漫长的一天结束后几乎没有精力做饭。
这些人可能倾向于成为“周末战士”——把锻炼留到周末。对于这些周末战士来说,有一个好消息:发表在《循环》杂志(Circulation)上的一项新研究表明,如果你仍能达到总体体育锻炼指南的要求,那么锻炼一到两天可能与一周每天锻炼一样有益。
成为“周末战士"的理由
这项研究的主要作者、麻省总医院德莫拉斯心律失常中心(Demoulas Center for Cardiac Arrhythmias at Massachusetts General Hospital)的教员沙恩·胡尔希德(Shaan Khurshid)博士说:"如果需要投入大量时间或分散时间,就很难让人每周进行多次锻炼。”
胡尔希德告诉《财富》杂志,据他观察,随着忙碌的生活方式越来越普遍,越来越多的人把锻炼集中在一两天内进行。这促使他和他的团队着手研究这个问题:那些每天锻炼20-30分钟的人是否比那些每周只在一到两天进行较长时间锻炼的人获得更多的健康益处?
似乎未必如此。
周末战士和规律运动的人患264种疾病的风险几乎同样降低,尤其是高血压、糖尿病、肥胖症和睡眠呼吸暂停症。
胡尔希德和他的同事们研究了89573名手腕上佩戴运动追踪器(为期一周)的人的运动数据。30228名参与者被归入不运动组(每周运动时间少于150分钟),37872名参与者被归入周末战士组(每周运动至少150分钟,每周运动一到两天),21473名参与者被归入规律运动组(每周至少运动150分钟,分散在一周内进行)。
所有的参与者都进行了中等至高强度运动——胡尔希德把将其定义为能使心率达到说话困难、几乎无法唱歌的程度的运动。他说,这包括慢跑或进行体育运动等活动。
在所有测试疾病类别中,与不运动组相比,周末战士和规律运动组都显示出相似的降低健康风险的效果,包括:心脏病发作(风险分别降低27%和35%)、中风(风险分别降低21%和17%)和糖尿病(风险分别降低43%和46%)。
胡尔希德告诉《财富》杂志:"就预防疾病而言,我们没有发现哪种(锻炼)方式比另一种更好。”
150分钟的锻炼时间仍然是魔法数字
如果你每周只锻炼两天,你可能需要把大部分的运动集中在那两天内完成。周末战士和规律运动的人得到的益处相似,因为参与者在一周内的运动总量相当。
每周定期锻炼的人的中度至高强度运动时间中位数为418分钟,而周末战士的中位数为288分钟。最重要的是,他们的运动时间都远高于美国疾病控制与预防中心规定的每周150 分钟的指导标准。
胡尔希德说,底线是“找到最适合你的方法,以达到指南建议的水平”。
他承认,这项研究的局限性在于他们只对参与者进行了为期一周的跟踪调查;不过,胡尔希德说,为期一周的跟踪调查似乎仍能反映人们的常规活动习惯。
增强锻炼者的能力
胡尔希德说,那些努力每周锻炼超过一两天的人可以把这项研究看作是对他们选择的日常生活和繁忙日程的认可。
“能够说'达到你需要的运动量,但如何运动并不重要,重要的是进行锻炼,这能赋予人们力量。"胡尔希德说。
胡尔希德说:“我们没必要对人们应该如何进行锻炼施加不必要的限制或是增加某个人的锻炼难度,比如说‘你必须每周锻炼五天,每次锻炼30分钟’。找到适合自己的习惯并坚持下去更能赋予你力量。”
胡尔希德希望这些发现能推动他就这一主题开展更多研究,比如一年中需要多少周达到150分钟的阈值才能对健康有益。他说,理想情况下,参与者将佩戴活动追踪器数年,以便有更多的长期数据可供分析。(财富中文网)
译者:中慧言-王芳
When you feel like you’ve barely got enough time in the day as it is, getting at least two and a half hours of moderate-to-vigorous physical activity per week can feel almost impossible.
That number comes from the CDC’s recommendations for all adults, which suggests breaking up the 150 minutes into 30 minutes a day, five days a week, in addition to two days of strength training for all major muscle groups.
Working out five days a week might not be realistic for parents juggling full-time jobs and kids’ busy schedules, or people working shifts demanding 12 hours at a time. Many barely have the energy to cook dinner at the end of a long day.
Those people might be inclined to become “weekend warriors”—people who save their workouts for the weekend. And there’s good news for those weekend warriors: A new study published in Circulation journal indicates one to two days of exercise might be just as beneficial as exercising throughout the week, if you are still hitting those overall physical activity guidelines.
A case for ‘weekend warriors’
“It’s hard to get somebody to engage multiple times per week, if it’s a large time commitment or a spread out time commitment,” says Dr. Shaan Khurshid, lead author of the study and a faculty member in the Demoulas Center for Cardiac Arrhythmias at Massachusetts General Hospital.
Khurshid tells Fortune that he observed as busy lifestyles are becoming more common, more people are concentrating their exercise into one or two days. That set him and his team out to answer the question: Do those who exercise 20–30 minutes most days reap more health benefits than those who opt for longer exercise sessions on one or two days of the week?
Not necessarily, it seems.
Weekend warriors and regular exercisers had an almost equally lowered risk of developing 264 diseases, especially hypertension, diabetes, obesity, and sleep apnea.
Khurshid and his colleagues examined data on 89,573 individuals wearing physical activity trackers on their wrists for a full week. 30,228 participants were classified as the inactive group (exercising less than 150 minutes per week), 37,872 were in the weekend warrior group (exercising for at least 150 minutes, one to two days per week), and 21,473 were in the regular group (exercising for at least 150 minutes dispersed throughout the week).
All participants were engaging in moderate-to-vigorous exercise—what Khurshid defines as activity that gets your heart rate up to the point where speaking is hard, and singing is almost impossible. That includes activities like jogging or playing a sport, he says.
Both weekend warrior and regular activity patterns had similarly reduced health risks compared to the inactive group for all disease categories tested, including: heart attack (27% and 35% reduced risk respectively), stroke (21% and 17% lower risk), and diabetes (43% and 46% lower risks, respectively).
“We didn’t see any diseases where one [workout] pattern was better than the other,” Khurshid tells Fortune.
150 minutes of exercise is still the magic number
If you’re working out just two days out of the week, you’ll probably have to concentrate a good amount of exercise into that short period. Weekend warrior and regular activity patterns had similar benefits because the participants exercised for a similar total volume during the week.
The regular during-the-week exercisers had a median volume of 418 minutes of moderate-to-vigorous physical activity, while the weekend warriors had a median volume of 288 minutes. What’s most important here is they all were well above the 150 minutes per week guideline from the CDC.
Khurshid says the bottom line is “however works for you best to get those guideline recommended levels.”
He acknowledged that a limitation of the study was that they only tracked participants for one week; however, Khurshid says, one week of tracking still seems to be indicative of people’s regular activity habits.
Empowered exercisers
Khurshid says people who are struggling to work out more than a day or two per week can see this study as validating their chosen routines and busy schedules.
“It’s empowering to be able to say, ‘Get the volume that you need to get, but it doesn’t matter how you do it. It’s important that you do it,’” Khurshid says.
“We don’t need to unnecessarily put constraints on how somebody should get their activity or make it harder for somebody to get their activity by saying, ‘You’ve got to do five days a week, you’ve got to do 30 minutes at a time,’” Khusrhid says. “It empowers you to find a routine that works for you and stick with it.”
Khurshid is hoping that these findings will catapult him into more research on the topic, such as how many weeks in a year you need to hit that 150-minute threshold to see health benefits. Ideally, participants will wear activity trackers for years, he says, to have more long-term data to analyze.