Re: [新聞] 1周快跑4次 死亡率比慢跑增9倍

看板FITNESS作者 (洛晴)時間9年前 (2015/02/04 13:27), 編輯推噓19(1909)
留言28則, 22人參與, 最新討論串2/4 (看更多)
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/288871.php 這是英文新聞的原文,中文的內容根本亂拼亂湊 Numerous studies have associated physical activity with reduced mortality, with some suggesting that just small amounts of exercise can do the job. A recent study reported by Medical News Today, for example, claims that a daily 20-minute brisk walk could reduce the risk of early death by 16-30%. 許多研究表示身體活動可降低死亡率 今日醫學新聞報導最近的一項研究,例如每日快走可減少16~30%的早死風險 原文連結 http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/288042.php The link between lower levels of exercise and reduced mortality is supported with this latest study, which suggests light jogging is most beneficial for lowering the risk of premature death. 這研究中證實低強度運動和降低死亡率是有關連性的 慢跑是最有利減少早死率的運動 To reach their findings, Dr. Schnohr and colleagues analyzed 5,048 healthy individuals who were a part of the Copenhagen City Heart Study. Of these, 1,098 were joggers and 3,950 were sedentary non-joggers. 分析對象1098個跑者跟3950個久坐不跑者 (最後研究統計跑者是878 久坐不跑者是413) Jogging more than a few times a week at a strenuous pace 'may be harmful' 高強度慢跑超過幾次"可能有害" During the study, there were 28 deaths among joggers and 128 among non-joggers. The team notes that overall, the joggers were younger, had a lower prevalence of diabetes and smoking, and had lower blood pressure and body mass index (BMI). 研究過程中有28個跑者死亡(我去找paper看圖表是寫17人) 128個不跑者死亡 該團隊指出,整體而言,有跑步的人會較年輕,低糖尿病患病率和較少抽菸, 而且血壓跟身體質量指數都較低 Dr. Schnohr notes that light jogging in this study represents vigorous exercise , while strenuous jogging represents very vigorous exercise. "When performed for decades, this activity level could pose health risks, especially to the cardiovascular system," he adds. Dr. Schnohr指出輕度慢跑在這項研究是屬於劇烈運動, 而更高強度的慢跑是非常劇烈的運動 他補充說,當此活動進行了幾十年,可能會造成健康風險,尤其是心血管系統。 http://content.onlinejacc.org/article.aspx?articleID=2108914 Conclusions: The findings suggest a U-shaped association between all-cause mortality and dose of jogging as calibrated by pace, quantity, and frequency of jogging. Light and moderate joggers have lower mortality than sedentary nonjoggers, whereas "strenuous joggers have a mortality rate not statistically different from that of the sedentary group." 請看最後一句 "劇烈運動跟久坐不動者的死亡率在統計學上無明顯差異" Perspectives COMPETENCY IN MEDICAL KNOWLEDGE: Compared with more sedentary people, people who jog regularly exhibit a significantly lower all-cause mortality rate. Those who jog lightly or moderately appear to benefit more than strenuous joggers, whose long-term mortality rate is similar to that of sedentary people. COMPETENCY IN PATIENT CARE: When prescribing exercise to improve longevity, strenuous exercise is not necessary and might reduce the health benefits of light to moderate physical activity. TRANSLATIONAL OUTLOOK: Further studies are needed to explore the mechanisms by which excessively strenuous exercise adversely affects longevity before the pattern of association between exercise intensity and long-term mortality can be incorporated into physical activity recommendations for the general public. 最後一段說,在探討過度強烈運動的不利影響之前, 還需要先研究探討運動強度跟長期死亡率的關聯性。 ※ 引述《eatpeanut (嚕殺殺西~~~嚕殺殺!! )》之銘言: : 1周快跑4次 死亡率比慢跑增9倍 統計數據上,快跑死亡率跟慢跑死亡率比較,快跑較高 但研究中無法證實快跑會增加死亡率 : 丹麥最新研究指出,快跑等激烈運動長期有損健康,增加死亡風險,速度適中的慢跑才是 : 長壽最佳秘訣。 研究中沒有說會"增加"死亡風險,是數據比較的高低而已 記者自己斷章取義加油添醋還蠻厲害的 : 哥本哈根腓特烈斯貝醫院的團隊,研究1098名健康跑者與413名健康但不運動者,追蹤期 : 達12年。結果發現,每周跑共逾2.5小時或逾4次、跑步時速達11.3公里以上者,死亡率竟 : 然與不運動的「沙發馬鈴薯」相當,比每周跑1至2.4小時、跑速約時速8公里的跑者,死 是統計數據上死亡率相當 : 亡率高出9倍。這份研究報告發表在前天最新一期《美國心臟病學會期刊》。 : 研究人員史諾爾(Peter Schnohr)指出,跑步屬劇烈運動,長期下來可能對健康造成危 : 害,尤其是心血管系統。如果跑步目的是為降低死亡風險且延年益壽,建議每周2至3次以 : 適中速度慢跑為最佳;跑步頻率太高或太劇烈不僅沒必要,更可能傷身。 研究中沒有任何數據證實快跑"傷身" -- 總結,就記者自己加了幾筆混淆視聽 -- ※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc), 來自: 220.142.7.113 ※ 文章網址: https://www.ptt.cc/bbs/FITNESS/M.1423027651.A.92E.html

02/04 13:43, , 1F
推原PO研究精神!
02/04 13:43, 1F

02/04 13:45, , 2F
必推
02/04 13:45, 2F

02/04 13:51, , 3F
02/04 13:51, 3F

02/04 14:02, , 4F
上一篇的k板友來看看喔 XD
02/04 14:02, 4F

02/04 14:20, , 5F
臺灣的記者真的很可惡
02/04 14:20, 5F

02/04 14:24, , 6F
心安了XDDDD
02/04 14:24, 6F

02/04 14:28, , 7F
台灣媒體的外電編譯水準實在很難讓人信任...
02/04 14:28, 7F

02/04 14:33, , 8F
推 這不作好事就算了 還淨添亂…XD
02/04 14:33, 8F

02/04 15:12, , 9F
台灣記者就是這樣啊 拿個聳動標題移花接木就有點閱數了
02/04 15:12, 9F

02/04 15:23, , 10F
02/04 15:23, 10F

02/04 16:08, , 11F
謝謝!!
02/04 16:08, 11F

02/04 16:11, , 12F
大推!
02/04 16:11, 12F

02/04 16:12, , 13F
02/04 16:12, 13F

02/04 17:21, , 14F
02/04 17:21, 14F

02/04 21:45, , 15F
記者水準果然優秀
02/04 21:45, 15F

02/04 22:42, , 16F
02/04 22:42, 16F

02/05 00:05, , 17F
驚!長期有良好運動習慣者,以及從來不運動者,竟然最後都一
02/05 00:05, 17F

02/05 00:05, , 18F
樣死了!
02/05 00:05, 18F

02/05 00:48, , 19F
樓上他是說劇烈運動者.... 劇烈運動=/=良好運動習慣
02/05 00:48, 19F

02/05 00:51, , 20F
有人不會死的嗎????
02/05 00:51, 20F

02/05 01:17, , 21F
樓上死人不會再死,因為怎運動不運動都死了
02/05 01:17, 21F

02/05 09:29, , 22F
滿想看這篇paper 全文的,因為受測者的選擇在這裡有很大
02/05 09:29, 22F

02/05 09:29, , 23F
的影響,包括年紀、飲食習慣、還有從什麼時候開始有運
02/05 09:29, 23F

02/05 09:29, , 24F
動習慣的,再來就是如果沒有排除受測者本身underlying d
02/05 09:29, 24F

02/05 09:29, , 25F
isease,那這死亡率就有點問題 。而且從死亡率來看劇烈
02/05 09:29, 25F

02/05 09:29, , 26F
運動者和久坐者雖然無顯著差異,但死因的比例多寡有沒
02/05 09:29, 26F

02/05 09:29, , 27F
有不同也是一個問題。
02/05 09:29, 27F

02/09 20:48, , 28F
看的懂英文的人是沒有資格進入新聞製造業的
02/09 20:48, 28F
文章代碼(AID): #1KqQt3ak (FITNESS)
討論串 (同標題文章)
文章代碼(AID): #1KqQt3ak (FITNESS)