• <span id="wf50j"><output id="wf50j"></output></span>

    <span id="wf50j"></span>

    1. <optgroup id="wf50j"></optgroup>

      <acronym id="wf50j"></acronym>
      <optgroup id="wf50j"><em id="wf50j"><del id="wf50j"></del></em></optgroup><optgroup id="wf50j"></optgroup>
    2. VOA英語學習網 > 科學美國人 > 2019年科學美國人 > 科學美國人60秒科學系列 >
      縮小放大

      科學美國人60秒: 每周兩小時的自然活動有益于身心健康

      關注 聽力課堂微信 (tingclass123),回復voa,加入voa學習微信交流群。
      [提示:]雙擊單詞,即可查看詞義!如果生詞較多,請先學習:VOA慢速英語1500基礎詞匯
      中英對照 聽力原文

      Mind and Body Benefit from Two Hours in Nature Each Week

      每周兩小時的自然活動有益于身心健康

      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.

      到目前為止,花時間在大自然中對你有好處幾乎是常識。樹木較多的地區污染較輕,所以在那里呆上一段時間可以讓你呼吸更輕松。花時間在戶外與降低血壓和壓力有關,而且似乎能激勵人們更多地鍛煉。

      “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,花時間在大自然中是有益的,這并不令人驚訝。我的意思是,這已經知道幾千年了。有幾十篇論文證明了這一點。”埃克塞特大學醫學院研究員馬修·p·懷特。“我們有這樣的想法,病人來找我們,他們說,‘醫生,我應該花多長時間?’醫生說,‘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,懷特和他的團隊決定利用英國近2萬人通過“參與自然環境監測調查”收集的數據來找出答案。和他們的答案?每周兩個小時。與那些沒有接觸過自然環境的人相比,那些至少在自然環境中待了那么長時間的人——要么是同時去一次自然環境,要么是在幾次較短的訪問中總共待了那么長時間——更有可能報告身體健康和心理健康狀況良好。

      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,研究人員發現,不到兩小時的睡眠并沒有明顯的益處。那么兩個小時有什么特別之處呢?

      “我完全不知道。真的。我們沒有對這個閾值有一個先驗的猜測。它出現了。如果我說我們預測到了這一點,那我就是在撒謊,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,兩個小時的基準測試適用于男性和女性、老年人和年輕人、來自不同種族背景、職業群體、社會經濟水平等的人。即使是患有長期疾病或殘疾的人,也能從花在大自然上的時間中獲益——只要每周至少120分鐘。這項研究發表在《科學報告》雜志上。

      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.

      雖然這些發現是基于大量的人,但懷特警告說,這實際上只是一種相關性。沒有人知道自然為什么或如何有這種好處,甚至這些發現是否經得起更嚴格的調查。

      "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."

      “我想把這件事說清楚。這是非常早期的階段。我們不是說每個人都必須做120。這是真正的開始對話,說,一個門檻應該是什么樣的?在醫生有真正的信心和病人一起工作之前,我們需要做哪些研究來把這個問題推進下一步?但這肯定是一個起點。”

      Mind and Body Benefit from Two Hours in Nature Each Week

      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.

      “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.'"

      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.

      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."

      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. [Matthew P. White et al, Spending at least 120 minutes a week in nature is associated with good health and wellbeing]

      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.

      "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."


      內容來自 VOA英語學習網http://www.fb881.com/show-8762-241768-1.html
      Related Articles
      內容推薦
      男人的天堂东京热!