生物谷援引香港大公報(bào)消息,，對(duì)于一想到劇烈運(yùn)動(dòng)造成滿(mǎn)身大汗就感到不舒服的人，這可是個(gè)好消息,。研究顯示只要在家里附近閑逛就能保持好身材,。
英國(guó)《每日郵報(bào)》報(bào)道，人體站著時(shí)的新陳代謝反應(yīng)與坐著時(shí)有很大不同,，也更能夠燃燒脂肪,，而非儲(chǔ)存。站立足以讓新陳代謝率以及燃燒卡路里數(shù)量倍增。
研究人員現(xiàn)在更指出,，溫和活動(dòng)至少與激烈運(yùn)動(dòng)一樣重要,，例如講電話時(shí)四處走動(dòng)，看電視時(shí)收拾櫥柜,。
報(bào)道引述密蘇里大學(xué)韓米爾頓教授話說(shuō),，只要你站起身，接下來(lái)四處踱步走動(dòng),，就會(huì)有很大不同,。
韓米爾頓教授進(jìn)行一系列試驗(yàn)，顯示相較于站著,，坐著時(shí)人體內(nèi)負(fù)責(zé)分解脂肪的酵素受到壓制,，導(dǎo)致脂肪儲(chǔ)存，無(wú)法進(jìn)行燃燒,。
韓米爾頓說(shuō),，幾小時(shí)不站起來(lái)，肌肉血管內(nèi)負(fù)責(zé)燃燒脂肪的酵素便會(huì)停止運(yùn)作,。
他說(shuō),，站立并從事溫和活動(dòng)，可以讓酵素重新運(yùn)作,。但由于人一天有十六個(gè)小時(shí)醒著,，理所當(dāng)然大多時(shí)間都是坐著，因此一天下來(lái)也失去了獲得理想新陳代謝的機(jī)會(huì),。
他說(shuō),，既然我們很少有人會(huì)每天從事激烈運(yùn)動(dòng)，四處閑逛就很重要,，有助于減輕體重,。
他說(shuō)，要讓一百七十磅重的身體保持站立,，肌肉需要消耗相當(dāng)?shù)哪芰俊?br />
他說(shuō),，每天有許多的能量與站立有關(guān)，就算在健身房運(yùn)動(dòng)三十至六十分鐘也無(wú)法輕易消耗這些能量,。
韓米爾頓教授的這項(xiàng)研究刊登在《糖尿病》（Diabetes）上,。他說(shuō)，他的研究為那些認(rèn)為運(yùn)動(dòng)鮮少幫助或不常運(yùn)動(dòng)的人帶來(lái)希望,。
韓米爾頓說(shuō),，我們所研究的生活型態(tài)改變，與運(yùn)動(dòng)迥異,，因?yàn)闊o(wú)需要求人們每天撥時(shí)間上健身房運(yùn)動(dòng)流汗,，僅需改善他們?nèi)粘氖禄顒?dòng)的質(zhì)量,。（生物谷援引中新網(wǎng)）
（《糖尿病》（Diabetes），56:2655-2667, 2007,，Marc T. Hamilton,，Theodore W. Zderic）
生物谷推薦英文與原文：
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: [email protected]
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.
