2023-12-08 08:00:00
Some of the most common diseases in Spain, such as cardiovascular diseases, can be prevented to a large extent through lifestyle changes that include frequent physical exercise. We even have scientific evidence that indicates that this healthy habit can reduce our risk of the worst cancer prognoses.
However, research in this regard has focused mainly on a demographic that, to a large extent, is forced to spend many hours a day inactive due to their occupation. For many others, however, physical activity is a requirement of their job, and some research has begun to suggest that these people not only do not obtain the benefits of physical activity in their leisure time but are even at greater risk of suffering from the diseases that physical activity is supposed to prevent.
Negative effects of physical activity at work
For example, a study recently published in the specialized media The Lancet Regional Health – Europe used data from 7,000 adults in occupations with varying degrees of physical activity requirements, and found that those who worked in more physically demanding professions were at greater risk of cognitive decline later in life.
Similarly, the Copenhagen Men’s Studya longitudinal study published in 2020, concluded that high occupational physical activity, in contrast to frequently performed leisure activity, was associated with an up to 55% higher risk of developing dementia.
And, along the same lines, an article published in the specialized magazine Occupational & Environmental Medicine carried out on data collected in the United States, related those professions with constant physical activity with a greater probability of suffering from cardiovascular disease than those in which this activity never occurred.
The mystery of the paradox
This type of evidence is what has led some authors to speak of a ‘paradox of physical activity,’ as stated in an editorial published by Pier Luigi Temporelli, medical director specialized in cardiology at the Italian center IRCCs Veruno, in the scientific community. European Heart Journal Supplements.
Precisely, this researcher recalls that this paradox remains “even after adjusting for other confounding factors, such as socioeconomic status, recreational physical activity or lifestyle.” And, although he explains that the reasons behind it are unclear, he proposes some hypotheses that could help explain it.
On the one hand, it emphasizes that while leisure physical activity “tends to be aerobic and more appropriate for improving physical fitness and cardiovascular health”, that carried out at work usually consists of “repetitive resistance efforts of short duration and , consequently, raises and does not reduce heart rate”, which “constitutes a risk factor for cardiovascular disease.”
A variable linked to socioeconomic level
On the other hand, remember that physical activity as a consequence of the profession tends to be carried out with shorter recovery periods, and often without adequate control of working conditions. In particular, it highlights that “around 50% of the workforce works outdoors, without sufficient attention to weather conditions, hydration or recovery breaks, resulting in heat stress that does not occur during physical activities.” recreational”.
Finally, he adds, “night shifts and environmental factors such as noise or air pollution can also have an effect, and intense work activity increases inflammation levels, which remain high without adequate rest times.”
Although, as we have mentioned, it is necessary to carry out more research to shed light on the mechanisms behind the paradox and confirm it (especially taking into account that jobs with greater physical activity are associated with lower socioeconomic levels, in which a large number of risk factors for many types of diseases), these types of studies constitute an important indication of a health inequity to which workers who carry out these professions would be subject. Of course, the evidence we have of the paradox at no time advises against performing physical exercise in free time, the benefits of which are amply documented.
References
Ekaterina Zotcheva, bernt Bratsberg, Bjørn Heine Strand et al. Trajectories of occupational physical activity and risk of later-life mild cognitive impairment and dementia: the HUNT4 70+ study. The Lancet Regional Health – Europe (2023). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lanepe.2023.100721
Nabe-Nielsen, K, Holtermann, A, Gyntelberg, F, et al. The effect of occupational physical activity on dementia: Results from the Copenhagen Male Study. Scandinavian J Med Sci Sport (2021) DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/sms.13846
Tyler D. Quinn, Patrick L. Yorio, Peter M. Smith, Yongsuk Seo et al. Occupational physical activity and cardiovascular disease in the United States. BMJ (2020). DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/oemed-2020-106948
Pier Luigi Temporelli. Is physical activity always good for you? The physical activity paradox. European Heart Journal Supplements (2021). DOI:
#paradox #physical #activity #works