生物谷援引香港大公报消息,对于一想到剧烈运动造成满身大汗就感到不舒服的人,这可是个好消息。研究显示只要在家里附近闲逛就能保持好身材。
英国《每日邮报》报道,人体站着时的新陈代谢反应与坐着时有很大不同,也更能够燃烧脂肪,而非储存。站立足以让新陈代谢率以及燃烧卡路里数量倍增。
研究人员现在更指出,温和活动至少与激烈运动一样重要,例如讲电话时四处走动,看电视时收拾橱柜。
报道引述密苏里大学韩米尔顿教授话说,只要你站起身,接下来四处踱步走动,就会有很大不同。
韩米尔顿教授进行一系列试验,显示相较于站着,坐着时人体内负责分解脂肪的酵素受到压制,导致脂肪储存,无法进行燃烧。
韩米尔顿说,几小时不站起来,肌肉血管内负责燃烧脂肪的酵素便会停止运作。
他说,站立并从事温和活动,可以让酵素重新运作。但由于人一天有十六个小时醒着,理所当然大多时间都是坐着,因此一天下来也失去了获得理想新陈代谢的机会。
他说,既然我们很少有人会每天从事激烈运动,四处闲逛就很重要,有助于减轻体重。
他说,要让一百七十磅重的身体保持站立,肌肉需要消耗相当的能量。
他说,每天有许多的能量与站立有关,就算在健身房运动三十至六十分钟也无法轻易消耗这些能量。
韩米尔顿教授的这项研究刊登在《糖尿病》(Diabetes)上。他说,他的研究为那些认为运动鲜少帮助或不常运动的人带来希望。
韩米尔顿说,我们所研究的生活型态改变,与运动迥异,因为无需要求人们每天拨时间上健身房运动流汗,仅需改善他们日常从事活动的质量。(生物谷援引中新网)
(《糖尿病》(Diabetes),56:2655-2667, 2007,Marc T. Hamilton,Theodore W. Zderic)
生物谷推荐英文与原文:
Diabetes Publish Ahead of Print published online ahead of print September 7, 2007
DOI: 10.2337/db07-0882
Published online September 7, 2007
Diabetes 56:2655-2667, 2007
DOI: 10.2337/db07-0882
Role of Low Energy Expenditure and Sitting in Obesity, Metabolic Syndrome, Type 2 Diabetes, and Cardiovascular Disease
Marc T. Hamilton1,2, Deborah G. Hamilton1, and Theodore W. Zderic1
1 Department of Biomedical Sciences, University of Missouri-Columbia, Columbia, Missouri
2 Dalton Cardiovascular Research Center, University of Missouri-Columbia, Columbia, Missouri
Address correspondence and reprint requests to Dr. Marc T. Hamilton, E102 VMB 1600 E. Rollins Rd., Department of Biomedical Sciences, University of Missouri-Columbia, Columbia, MO 65211. E-mail: hamiltonm@missouri.edu
Abbreviations: CVD, cardiovascular disease; DVT, deep venous thrombosis; FTW, fast-twitch white; LPL, lipoprotein lipase; NEAT, nonexercise activity thermogenesis; PAL, physical activity level
It is not uncommon for people to spend one-half of their waking day sitting, with relatively idle muscles. The other half of the day includes the often large volume of nonexercise physical activity. Given the increasing pace of technological change in domestic, community, and workplace environments, modern humans may still not have reached the historical pinnacle of physical inactivity, even in cohorts where people already do not perform exercise. Our purpose here is to examine the role of sedentary behaviors, especially sitting, on mortality, cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, metabolic syndrome risk factors, and obesity. Recent observational epidemiological studies strongly suggest that daily sitting time or low nonexercise activity levels may have a significant direct relationship with each of these medical concerns. There is now a need for studies to differentiate between the potentially unique molecular, physiologic, and clinical effects of too much sitting (inactivity physiology) separate from the responses caused by structured exercise (exercise physiology). In theory, this may be in part because nonexercise activity thermogenesis is generally a much greater component of total energy expenditure than exercise or because any type of brief, yet frequent, muscular contraction throughout the day may be necessary to short-circuit unhealthy molecular signals causing metabolic diseases. One of the first series of controlled laboratory studies providing translational evidence for a molecular reason to maintain high levels of daily low-intensity and intermittent activity came from examinations of the cellular regulation of skeletal muscle lipoprotein lipase (LPL) (a protein important for controlling plasma triglyceride catabolism, HDL cholesterol, and other metabolic risk factors). Experimentally reducing normal spontaneous standing and ambulatory time had a much greater effect on LPL regulation than adding vigorous exercise training on top of the normal level of nonexercise activity. Those studies also found that inactivity initiated unique cellular processes that were qualitatively different from the exercise responses. In summary, there is an emergence of inactivity physiology studies. These are beginning to raise a new concern with potentially major clinical and public health significance: the average nonexercising person may become even more metabolically unfit in the coming years if they sit too much, thereby limiting the normally high volume of intermittent nonexercise physical activity in everyday life. Thus, if the inactivity physiology paradigm is proven to be true, the dire concern for the future may rest with growing numbers of people unaware of the potential insidious dangers of sitting too much and who are not taking advantage of the benefits of maintaining nonexercise activity throughout much of the day.