Narrative Übersicht zur Bewegungsdosis in Prävention und Therapie

 

 Buy Article Permissions and Reprints

Die vorliegende Übersichtsarbeit sondiert auf Basis internationaler Reviews der vergangenen Dekade Dosis-Wirkungs-Beziehungen körperlicher Aktivität zur Prävention und Therapie von Zivilisationskrankheiten. Empirisch gesicherte Hinweise auf Dosis-Wirkungs-Beziehungen finden sich für 8 der 10 am besten untersuchten chronischen Erkrankungen. Für 6 (Prävention) bzw. 4 Krankheitsbilder (Therapie) lassen sich Empfehlungen zur minimalen wirksamen Dosis (1–7 h moderate bis intensive körperliche Aktivität pro Woche) ableiten. Steigerungen der Bewegungsdosis gehen mit größeren gesundheitswirksamen Effekten einher. 

Based on published international reviews, this narrative review analyzes the dose-response relation between physical activity and preventive as well as therapeutic effects on chronic diseases. There is at least satisfactory evidence for dose-response in 8 out of 10 of the most frequently studied chronic diseases. For 6 (prevention) and 4 chronic diseases (therapy), respectively, there seems to be a minimum effective dose between 1 and 7 hours of moderate to vigorous physical activity per week. Increasing the dose of physical activity leads to better effects on health. 

Literatur

• 1 Carnethon M R. Physical Activity and Cardiovascular Disease: How Much is Enough.  American Journal of Lifestyle Medicine. 2009;  3 44S-49S
  Google Scholar
• 2 Kesaniemi Y K, Danforth E, Jensen M D. et al . Dose-response issues concerning physical activity and health: an evidence-based symposium.  Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise. 2001;  33 S351-S358
  Google Scholar
• 3 La Gerche A, Prior D L. Exercise – is it possible to have too much of a good thing.  Heart, Lung & Circulation. 2007;  16 S102-S104
  Google Scholar
• 4 Lee I. Dose-response relation between physical activity and fitness: even a little is good; more is better.  JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association. 2007;  297 2137-2139
  Google Scholar
• 5 Martyn-St James M, Carroll S. High-intensity resistance training and postmenopausal bone loss: a meta-analysis.  Osteoporosis International. 2006;  17 1225-1240
  Google Scholar
• 6 O‘Donovan G, Blazevich A J, Boreham C. et al . The ABC of Physical Activity for Health: a consensus statement from the British Association of Sport and Exercise Sciences.  Journal of sports sciences. 2010;  28 573-591
  Google Scholar
• 7 Ohkawara K, Tanaka S, Miyachi M, Ishikawa-Takata K, Tabata I. A dose-response relation between aerobic exercise and visceral fat reduction: systematic review of clinical trials.  International Journal of Obesity (2005). 2007;  31 1786-1797
  Google Scholar
• 8 Physical Activity Guidelines Advisory Committee .Physical Activity Guidelines Advisory Committee Report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; 2008
  Google Scholar
• 9 Thyfault J P, Booth F W. Lack of regular physical exercise or too much inactivity.  Current Opinion in Clinical Nutrition and Metabolic Care. 2011;  14 374-378
  Google Scholar
• 10 Timmons J A. Variability in training-induced skeletal muscle adaptation.  Journal of Applied Physiology. 2011;  110 846-853
  Google Scholar
• 11 Trojian T H, Mody K, Chain P. Exercise and colon cancer: primary and secondary prevention.  Current Sports Medicine Reports. 2007;  6 120-124
  Google Scholar
• 12 Warburton D ER, Nicol C W, Bredin S SD. Health benefits of physical activity: the evidence.  Canadian Medical Association Journal. 2006;  174 801-809
  Google Scholar
• 13 Zheng H, Orsini N, Amin J. et al . Quantifying the dose-response of walking in reducing coronary heart disease risk: meta-analysis.  European Journal of Epidemiology. 2009;  24 181-192
  Google Scholar

Korrespondenzadresse

Dr. C. Thiel

Goethe-Universität · Institut für Sportwissenschaften / Abteilung Sportmedizin

Ginnheimer Landstr. 39

60487 Frankfurt / Main

Phone: 0 69 / 79 82 45 / 06

Email: c.thiel@sport.uni-frankfurt.de