日行一萬(wàn)步真的有益健康嗎（雙語(yǔ)）

　　摘要：無(wú)論在紐約或西雅圖亦或是薩克拉門(mén)托市的街頭，隨便你問(wèn)哪個(gè)路人，人一天應(yīng)該走多少步路才達(dá)到足夠的鍛煉量，他們很可能都會(huì)告訴你說(shuō)一萬(wàn)步。然而日行一萬(wàn)步真的有益健康嗎？下面一起來(lái)看看吧。

　　If you pluck someone off the street, whether in New York or Seattle or Sacramento, and ask them how many steps people should aim for per day in order to get enough physical activity, they’ll probably tell you 10,000.

　　無(wú)論在紐約或西雅圖亦或是薩克拉門(mén)托市的街頭，隨便你問(wèn)哪個(gè)路人，人一天應(yīng)該走多少步路才達(dá)到足夠的鍛煉量，他們很可能都會(huì)告訴你說(shuō)一萬(wàn)步。

　　But is there any medical reason to embrace this number? Not really. That’s because the 10,000-steps-a-day recommendation has nothing to do with sedentary, fast-food-drenched circa-2015 America. Rather, the recommendation first popped up in a very different food and environment: 1960s Japan.

　　然而，這一數(shù)字背后有任何醫(yī)學(xué)依據(jù)嗎?其實(shí)不然。一天走一萬(wàn)步的這一建議與當(dāng)下久坐不動(dòng)，愛(ài)好快餐的美國(guó)人毫無(wú)關(guān)系。實(shí)則這一建議一開(kāi)始是由飲食與環(huán)境都相當(dāng)不同的日本于20世紀(jì)60年代提出的。

　　“It basically started around the Tokyo Olympics” in 1964, said Catrine Tudor-Locke, a professor who studies walking behavior at LSU’s Pennington Biomedical Center. “A company over there created a man-po-kei, a pedometer. And man stands for ‘10,000,’ po stands for ‘step,’and kei stands for ‘meter’or ‘gauge.’”Whatever the reason for the adoption of this particular number, “It resonated with people at the time, and they went man-po-kei-ing all over the place,”said Tudor-Locke.

　　“大約是在1964年?yáng)|京奧運(yùn)會(huì)前后，日本一公司設(shè)計(jì)出了一款計(jì)步器步，名為‘man-po-kei’，翻譯過(guò)來(lái)就是‘10000步儀表’”，美國(guó)路易斯安那州巴吞魯日潘寧頓生物醫(yī)學(xué)研究中心步行行為實(shí)驗(yàn)室的負(fù)責(zé)人卡特里內(nèi)·圖多爾·洛克這樣說(shuō)道。無(wú)論這一數(shù)字背后的來(lái)由是什么，圖多爾·洛克說(shuō)，“該計(jì)步器在日本很受歡迎，人們?nèi)ツ膬憾即┐髦?rdquo;

　　The problem, which barely needs stating, is that circa-1964 Japan was markedly different from the circa-2015 U.S. Data from the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations shows that the average per-capita food supply for Japanese people in 1964 was 2,632 calories, while the average for Americans in 2011 was 3,639. That’s a difference of about 1,000 calories —or, about 20,000 steps for an average-size person.

　　問(wèn)題顯而易見(jiàn)，20世紀(jì)60年代的日本和如今的美國(guó)之間有很大的區(qū)別。根據(jù)聯(lián)合國(guó)糧食農(nóng)業(yè)組織提供的數(shù)據(jù)顯示，1964年日本人均食品供應(yīng)量為2,632卡路里，而2011年美國(guó)的該數(shù)據(jù)為3,639卡路里。這里就差了將近有1,000卡路里，為一般人行走兩萬(wàn)步路消耗的熱量。

　　More broadly, 10,000 steps is just a bit too simplistic a figure, say nutrition researchers. All the ones I spoke to agreed that there’s nothing wrong with shooting for 10,000 steps, per se, and that walking more is better than walking less. But Tudor-Locke said that “The one-size-fits-all [approach] doesn’t necessarily work.”

　　更廣泛地說(shuō)來(lái)，一萬(wàn)步這一數(shù)字設(shè)置地有點(diǎn)兒過(guò)于簡(jiǎn)單，營(yíng)養(yǎng)觀察員如是說(shuō)。我所交流過(guò)的人都認(rèn)為每天行走一萬(wàn)步本質(zhì)上并沒(méi)什么錯(cuò)，走的多總好過(guò)走的少。但是圖多爾·洛克認(rèn)為，這一方法并不適用于所有人。

　　Her work focuses on the most sedentary slice of the population, and there, it can be a challenge to get people to take 5,000 steps, let alone 10,000. But moving from 2,500 steps a day, say, to 5,000, is a small but important victory for people who don’t get any exercise, and can have important healthramifications. A big European study published in January that looked at the mortality rates for people with different activities levels, in fact, found that “a markedly reduced hazard was observed between those categorized as inactive and those categorized as moderately inactive”—a 20 to 30 percent reduction.

　　圖多爾·洛克的研究對(duì)象是美國(guó)最不經(jīng)常運(yùn)動(dòng)的人群。對(duì)于這一部分人來(lái)說(shuō)，日行5,000步已是挑戰(zhàn)，更別提10,000步了。但對(duì)于不運(yùn)動(dòng)的人來(lái)說(shuō)，從每天2,500步跨越到5,000步已經(jīng)算是不錯(cuò)的成果了，同時(shí)還有益健康。一月發(fā)布的某大型歐洲研究對(duì)不同運(yùn)動(dòng)水平的人群死亡率進(jìn)行了調(diào)查。該研究發(fā)現(xiàn)，有一定運(yùn)動(dòng)量的人群死亡率要比沒(méi)有運(yùn)動(dòng)量的人群死亡率低20%到30%。

　　“Focusing exclusively on how many steps you’re getting and neglecting those other aspects isn’t going to lead to an overall improvement in health, unless you’re addressing those other factors simultaneously,” said Jeff Goldsmith, a biostatistics professor at Columbia’s Mailman School of Public Health.

　　然而，哥倫比亞大學(xué)梅爾曼公共衛(wèi)生學(xué)院生物統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)教授杰夫·戈德史密斯指出，只關(guān)注日行多少步而忽略飲食等其它因素是無(wú)法總體上提高健康水平的，除非同時(shí)考慮到其它這些因素。

　　Maybe it’s time, given just how unhealthy so many people are and how much they’d benefit from moving around just a little more, to embrace an incremental-improvement approach to exercise. “Stand rather than sit, walk rather than stand, jog rather than walk, and run rather than jog,”wrote Ulf Ekelund, lead author of the European mortality study, in an email. Tudor-Locke distilled things even further: “Just move more than before,”she said.

　　想到人們現(xiàn)在有多不健康以及鍛煉給人們帶來(lái)的好處，人們是時(shí)候應(yīng)該增加鍛煉了。研究歐洲病死率的研究員伍爾夫·艾克德隆表示，人們應(yīng)該能站著就不坐著，能走不就站著，能慢跑就不要走路，能跑步就不要慢跑。圖多爾·洛克進(jìn)一步總結(jié)道：“只要比以前動(dòng)得多就行。”