Withers Robert T, Brooks Anthony G, Gunn Simon M, Plummer John L, Gore Christopher J, Cormack John
Exercise Physiology Laboratory, School of Education, Flinders University, GPO Box 2100, Adelaide, SA 5001, Australia.
Eur J Appl Physiol. 2006 Jul;97(4):494-504. doi: 10.1007/s00421-006-0177-x. Epub 2006 Jun 10.
This study determined whether some of the more vigorous household and garden tasks (sweeping, window cleaning, vacuuming and lawn mowing) were performed at a moderate intensity (3-6 METs or metabolic equivalents) by a representative sample of 50, 55 to 65-year-old women (X +/- SD; 59.3 +/- 3.1 years, 161.5 +/- 5.2 cm, 69.4 +/- 12.4 kg, 38.4 +/- 7.3% BF). Data collection was conducted in a standardised laboratory environment and in the subjects' homes. Energy expenditure during self-perceived moderate paced walking around a quadrangle was also used as a marker of exercise intensity. Energy expenditure measured via indirect calorimetry was also predicted from: HR, CSA accelerometer counts, Quetelet's index and the Borg rating of perceived exertion. Ninety-six percent of the subjects walked at an intensity of >or= 3.0 METs. Except for vacuuming in the laboratory (X = 2.9 METs; P = 0.19), the intensity of each of the other activities was significantly (P </or= 0.002) greater than 3.0 METs. Subjects swept (3.7 vs. 3.3 METs) and vacuumed (3.6 vs. 2.9 METs) at greater intensities in the home than in the laboratory, whereas the converse applied to window cleaning (3.3 vs. 3.6 METs) and lawn mowing (4.9 vs. 5.5 METs). Eighty-six percent (172 out of 200) of the VO2 measurements were >or= 3.0 METs when the four household/garden activities were performed in the subjects' homes. These activities therefore have the potential to contribute to the 30 min day(-1) of moderate intensity physical activity required to confer health benefits but there was much inter-individual variability in the intensity at which these tasks were performed. Random intercept regression analyses yielded prediction equations with 95% confidence intervals of +/- 0.80 and +/- 0.84 METs for the laboratory and home based equations, respectively. Considering the means for the five activities ranged from 2.9 to 5.5 METs, these 95% confidence intervals lack predictive precision at the individual level. Nevertheless, the laboratory and home-based equations predicted with correct classification rates of 89 and 90%, respectively, whether energy expenditure was < 3.0 or >or= 3.0 METs.
本研究确定了50名年龄在55至65岁的女性(X±标准差;59.3±3.1岁,161.5±5.2厘米,69.4±12.4千克,体脂率38.4±7.3%)的代表性样本是否以中等强度(3 - 6梅脱或代谢当量)进行一些较为剧烈的家务和园艺任务(扫地、擦窗、吸尘和修剪草坪)。数据收集在标准化实验室环境和受试者家中进行。在四方场地以自我感觉中等速度行走时的能量消耗也被用作运动强度的指标。通过间接测热法测量的能量消耗还根据心率、CSA加速度计计数、奎特利指数和伯格自觉用力评分进行预测。96%的受试者行走强度≥3.0梅脱。除了在实验室吸尘(X = 2.9梅脱;P = 0.19)外,其他各项活动的强度均显著(P≤0.002)高于3.0梅脱。受试者在家中扫地(3.7对3.3梅脱)和吸尘(3.6对2.9梅脱)的强度高于实验室,而擦窗(3.3对3.6梅脱)和修剪草坪(4.9对5.5梅脱)则相反。当在受试者家中进行四项家务/园艺活动时,86%(200例中的172例)的VO2测量值≥3.0梅脱。因此,这些活动有可能有助于达到每天30分钟的中等强度身体活动以获得健康益处,但这些任务执行时的强度存在很大的个体差异。随机截距回归分析得出预测方程,实验室方程和家庭方程的95%置信区间分别为±0.80和±0.84梅脱。考虑到五项活动的均值范围为2.9至5.5梅脱,这些95%置信区间在个体水平上缺乏预测精度。然而,实验室方程和家庭方程分别以89%和90%的正确分类率预测能量消耗是<3.0还是≥3.0梅脱。