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.

无论在纽约或西雅图亦或是萨克拉门托市的街头，随便你问某个路人，问他们人一天应该走多少步路才达到足够的锻炼量，他们很可能都会告诉你说一万步。

But is there any medical reason to embrace this number? Not really. That’s because the 10, 000-step-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，这一数字背后有任何医学依据吗?其实不然。那时因为一天走一万步的这一建议与当下久坐不动，爱好快餐的美国人毫无关系。实则这一建议一开始是由饮食与环境都相当不同的日本于20世纪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.

大约是在1964年东京奥运会前后，日本一公司设计出了一款计步器步，名为man-po-kei翻译过来就是10000步仪表，美国路易斯安那州巴吞鲁日潘宁顿生物医学研究中心步行行为实验室的负责人卡特里内图多尔洛克这样说道。无论这一数字背后的来由是什么，图多洛克说，该计步器在日本很受欢迎，人们去哪儿都穿戴着它。

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-sized person.

问题显而易见，20世纪60年代的日本和如今的美国之间有很大的区别。根据联合国粮食农业组织提供的数据显示，1964年日本人均食品供应量为2,632卡路里，而2011年美国的该数据为3,639卡路里。这里就差了将近有1,000卡路里，为一般人行走两万步路消耗的热量。

 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, and that walking more is better than walking less. But Tudor-Locke said that “The one-size-fits-all approach doesn’t necessarily work.”

更广泛地说来，一万步这一数字设置地有点儿过于简单，营养观察员如是说。我所交流过的人都认为每天行走一万步本质上并没什么错，走的多总好过走的少。但是图多尔·洛克认为，这一方法并不适用于所有人。

 “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，哥伦比亚大学梅尔曼公共卫生学院生物统计学教授杰夫;戈德史密斯指出，只关注日行多少步而忽略饮食等其它因素是无法总体上提高健康水平的，除非同时考虑到其它这些因素。

 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 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 concluded even further:“Just move more than before,”she said.

想到人们现在有多不健康以及锻炼给人们带来的好处，人们是时候应该增加锻炼了。研究欧洲病死率的研究员伍尔夫艾克德隆表示，人们应该能站着就不坐着，能走不就站着，能慢跑就不要走路，能跑步就不要慢跑。图多尔洛克进一步总结道：只要比以前运动得多就行。

【B】Which of the following sentences is incorrect according to the passage?根据这篇文章，下列哪个句子是不正确的？

A. Nowadays, a lot of people are unhealthy due to lack of exercise.如今很多人因缺少锻炼而不健康。

B. To improve overall health, we should exercise as much as possible.为了提高整体健康，我们应该尽可能多的进行锻炼。

C. It is better to take as many steps as your overall health condition can allow.在身体健康允许的情况下尽可能多走一些步数的路更好些。

D. Walking more is better than walking less.多走路要比少走路更好些

我们回答这些问题的基础是基于这篇文章。

B说：要提高整体健康，我们应该尽可能多的锻炼。这句话应该是错误的，第一文章没有说表达该意思，第二，尽可能多的锻炼会对身体有害，只有适当运动才有益健康。

C说：在你整体健康条件允许的情况下，多走会比（少走）会更好一些。

看上去，好像意思有点对，但在文章中，有这么一句话：

“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,”

这明确的说：如果你只关注走多少步，而忽略其它的因素，是不会提高整体健康的。

意思是：如果你不整体考虑的话，多走路没有多少益处。

D说：多走好于少走。和C差不多意思，和文章观点不同。

A说：当前很多人不健康，是由于缺乏锻炼。

在文章中有这么一句话：... given just how unhealthy so many people are and how much they’d benefit from moving around just a little more, to embrace an improvement approach to exercise.

文章说，基于现在很多人都不健康（作为前提），他们会受益于 moving around just a little more (稍微多一些 moving around)，间接说明，很多人都由于缺乏锻炼而不健康。

综合以上，A是最符合篇文章的意思。

作者在文章结尾总结说，这要比之前运动多一点点就好了。足以证明，越多走路越好的说法，不受作者支持。

以上分析，希望对你有所帮助。

这是考中小学阅读啊。我选B和D。A是对的，缺乏锻炼和健康问题在这一句--given just how unhealthy so many people are and how much they’d benefit from moving around just a little more, to embrace an improvement approach to exercise.考虑到那么多人不健康，以及多走动一点会给他们带来多少好处，是时候该采用正确的改良方法来锻炼了。（原因-结果-方法）B明显不对了，上面句子是原因之一，第二文中明确说，走多少步没有依据的，而且走一万步也不适合所有人（主业人员观点）然后专家又说，只关注多少步而忽略其他因素无法总体提高健康。最后一段讲运动方式，只要比以前多就行，但不表示，尽可能多，越多越好。C是严谨表述，没毛病。D。原因同B。交卷！

我真是奇怪这么简单的题怎么还不明白呢？

1. 首先题目要求选和文章观点不一致的选项，即incorrect. 你不能选对的。

2. 你认为选A：你的理解不对， A 和最后一段作者的观点是一致的，所以不能选。你认为i：“原文中没有提到缺乏锻炼的原因。”这和解题有什么关系呢？我怀疑你没有看懂A选项的意思。

3. 答案只能选B，b 错在we should exercise as much as possible。原文说：“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,” 意思是光靠走路不行，还要考虑其它因素（如卡路里的摄入量）。也就是说全面改进健康，不是光靠锻炼，还有其它。

我想根本问题出在对文章的句子没有完全看懂。我发现我们不少网友读完一句话，即使单词都认识，但不一定能明白这句话说得是什么。由此可以判断，你看都看不懂，如果是放在听力里，你就更听不懂了。因此，平时要多读多练，丢去幻想，不要想着有什么捷径。