考研英語(yǔ)時(shí)文賞讀（100）：每周戶外兩小時(shí)，健康生活每一天

　　Mind and Body Benefit from Two Hours in Nature Each Week

　　每周進(jìn)行兩小時(shí)的戶外活動(dòng)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，幾乎人人都知道親近自然對(duì)我們是有益的。樹木繁茂的地方往往污染較少，所以待在那種地方會(huì)讓你呼吸變得更順暢。多在室外活動(dòng)可以降低血壓、減少壓力，而且似乎更能激起人們運(yùn)動(dòng)的欲望。

　　"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." Says 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.’"

　　?？巳卮髮W(xué)醫(yī)學(xué)院研究員馬修·P·懷特說：“所以，有研究表明，親近自然是有益的，這不足為奇。我的意思是，這是亙古不變的真理。有許多文獻(xiàn)都證明了這一點(diǎn)。我們之所以有這樣的想法是因?yàn)?，患者來找到我們并問道?lsquo;醫(yī)生，我應(yīng)該在戶外待上多久呢’，而醫(yī)生回答說：‘我真的不太清楚’。”

　　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.

　　因此懷特和他的團(tuán)隊(duì)決定通過對(duì)親近自然環(huán)境調(diào)查監(jiān)測(cè)所收集的接近2萬(wàn)英國(guó)人的數(shù)據(jù)進(jìn)行分析，來找出答案。

　　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.

　　他們的答案是什么呢？每周兩小時(shí)。報(bào)告顯示，每周至少在戶外待兩小時(shí)（包括一次性待夠兩小時(shí)和分多次總共待夠兩小時(shí)）的人比那些不去親近自然的人更有可能身體健康、心情舒暢。

　　Remarkably, the researchers found that less than two hours offered no significant benefits. So what’s so special about two hours?

　　值得注意的是，研究人員發(fā)現(xiàn)，待不夠兩個(gè)小時(shí)就沒有顯著的益處。那么待兩小時(shí)有什么特別之處呢？

　　"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."

　　“我完全不知道。真的。我們沒有預(yù)測(cè)過這個(gè)閾值將會(huì)是多少。然后它出現(xiàn)了。如果我說我們預(yù)測(cè)到了這個(gè)值，那我就是在撒謊，對(duì)此我也是一頭霧水。”

　　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.

　　更值得注意的是，兩小時(shí)的基準(zhǔn)對(duì)于男性和女性，老年人和年輕人，來自不同種族背景、職業(yè)和社會(huì)經(jīng)濟(jì)水平的人都適用。

　　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.

　　即使是患有長(zhǎng)期疾病或身體殘疾的人也可以從親近自然中受益——只要保證每周至少120分鐘。該研究發(fā)表于《科學(xué)報(bào)告》雜志。

　　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.

　　盡管調(diào)查結(jié)果是基于大量人群而得出的，但懷特提醒道，這只是一種相關(guān)性。即使這些研究結(jié)果能夠經(jīng)得起更為嚴(yán)格的調(diào)查研究，但沒有人知道大自然為什么或如何有這種好處的。

　　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?

　　我想要把這件事說清楚。研究還處于非常早期的階段。我們并不是說每個(gè)人都必須在戶外待上120分鐘。這才真正的進(jìn)入了對(duì)話，比如，臨界值是多少？

　　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.

　　如果想將研究進(jìn)行到下一步，我們還需要做什么研究，以便醫(yī)生在面對(duì)病人的提問時(shí)能更有信心？但這的確是個(gè)好的開始。

　　(全文共458個(gè)詞，科學(xué)美國(guó)人)

　　重難點(diǎn)詞匯：

　　motivate  v. 刺激，使有動(dòng)機(jī)，激發(fā)…的積極性；成為……的動(dòng)機(jī)；給出理由；申請(qǐng)

　　threshold n. 入口；門檻；開始；極限；臨界值

　　occupational adj. 職業(yè)的；占領(lǐng)的

　　tremendous  adj. 極大的，巨大的；驚人的

　　rigorous  adj. 嚴(yán)格的，嚴(yán)厲的；嚴(yán)密的；嚴(yán)酷的

　　?幫幫提示：考研英語(yǔ)同源外刊美文賞讀匯總