Saco-Indonesia.com - Di waktu seseorang dituntut bekerja terlalu keras, kondisi fisik dan mental cenderung rentan mengalami kelelahan. Pada gilirannya, tingkat konsentrasi akan menurun, sehingga mengurangi efisiensi dalam bekerja.
Kelelahan merupakan salah satu biang keladi menurunnya produktivitas di tempat kerja. 

Faktanya, banyak faktor yang menyebabkan seseorang menjadi gampang kelelahan. Berbagai penelitian telah dilakukan untuk menggali masalah kelelahan saat bekerja. Beragam faktor juga ditemukan yang menjadi pemicu problem kelelahan saat bekerja.

Dalam sebuah makalah berisi kesimpulan dari berbagai penelitian mengenai kelelahan terkait pekerjaan (2006) oleh Department of Employment and Workplace Relations - Australian Safety and Compensation Council (ASCC), disebutkan sejumlah faktor yang memengaruhi kelelahan saat bekerja.
Faktor tersebut di antaranya: tuntutan pekerjaan, jam kerja, tuntutan secara fisik dan psikis dalam bekerja, psikososial, lingkungan, hubungan interpersonal, kondisi lingkungan kerja seperti suara bising, suhu, serta stres dalam bekerja, tak terkecuali pola tidur.

Di luar berbagai faktor tersebut, dalam pernyataan terpisah, Dr Jill Dorrian dari Centre for Sleep Research University of South Australia mengungkapkan kualitas tidur turut mempengaruhi kinerja dan berdampak pada kelelahan saat bekerja. Asupan air dan kafein juga turut menentukan faktor kebugaran seseorang dalam beraktivitas sehari-hari.

Dr Dorrian menyarankan, agar tetap bugar, seseorang perlu minum banyak air karena cairan bisa mencegah kekeringan pada otak. "Ketika otak terhidrasi, oksigen dan nutrien yang esensial untuk tubuh bisa berfungsi optimal," terangnya.

Selain menjaga asupan cairan, tidur juga mempunyai peran penting mengatasi kelelahan saat bekerja.

"Tidur berkualitas selama 20 menit atau kurang akan lebih baik ketimbang tidur dalam waktu lama namun saat bangun justru merasa lebih buruk," ungkap dr Dorrian.

Beragam penyebab

Penyebab kelelahan dalam bekerja menurut menurut Lifestyle Observer dan Pengajar Biologi Fisiologi Tubuh dari Shape Up Indonesia, dr Grace Judio-Kahl, MSc, MH, CHt bisa sangat beragam.  Dalam penanganannya, seseorang perlu terlebih dulu mencermati sumber masalah kelelahan tersebut.

Grace menjelaskan, bisa saja kelelahan terjadi karena seseorang memang secara fisik lelah misalnya karena kurang istirahat atau melakukan pekerjaan yang membutuhkan aktivitas fisik yang besar. Kelelahan juga bisa terjadi karena penyakit kronis atau penyakit akut.

Penyakit akut bisa disebabkan beberapa virus, termasuk virus fourth disease, fifth disease, roseola, atau hepatitis. Sementara penyakit kronis misalnya pada orang yang memiliki masalah tiroid atau diabetes.

Rasa lelah juga bisa muncul karena orang itu secara emosional punya masalah yang memicu stres. Kurang makan juga bisa menjadi penyebab kelelahan saat bekerja.

Terkait makanan dan asupan nutrisi, Grace mengatakan faktor nutrisi mungkin saja memberikan kontribusi terhadap kelelahan.

"Nutrisi memungkinkan saja ada kontribusi pada kelelahan. Misalnya untuk penyakit kronis, asupan nutrisi yang salah membuat orang itu diabetes dan penyakit itulah yang membuat dia kelelahan. Atau orang itu sedang diet, karena diet terjadi hipoglikemi, itu memungkinkan menyebabkan kelelahan," ungkapnya kepada Kompas Health melalui email.

Karenanya, lanjut Grace, dalam mengatasi problem kelelahan harus diperhatikan akar masalahnya. Jika terjadi hipoglikemi akibat diet, asupan gula tepung dan karbohidrat harus cukup.

Solusi lain dalam mengatasi kelelahan juga bisa dilakukan dengan cara mengonsumsi kafein atau makanan yang sifatnya meningkatkan metabolisme. Selain itu bisa dengan mengonsumsi vitamin B atau multivitamin, serta buah dan sayur, namun ini sifatnya hanya sementara.

"Mengatasi kelelahan secara temporer bisa saja, tapi tetap saja harus dilihat akar masalahnya. Kalau lelahnya karena stres, mau dikasih makanan apa pun tetap saja stresnya tidak sembuh dan lelahnya tidak hilang," terangnya.

Nah, jika sumber masalah kelelahan karena kekurangan gizi atau mikronutrien, dan menyebabkan kelelahan berkepanjangan, lain lagi penanganannya.
"Kelelahan berkepanjangan karena kekurangan zat gizi bisa diatasi dengan mengasup zat gizi tertentu. Misalnya, kurang darah, HB turun, mungkin kekurangan zat besi, selenium, atau  seng," ungkapnya.

Lain halnya jika kelelahan terjadi karena kerja otot berlebihan. Jadi, saat otot bergerak, seseorang bisa merasa lelah karena muncul sampah metabolisme akibat pemakaian otot. Masalah ini bisa diatasi dengan asupan zat gizi tertentu seperti asam amino.

"Banyak hal yang harus dirujuk untuk mengatasi kelelahan bekerja. Lihat dulu penyebab kelelahan, untuk menentukan lalu cari obatnya," saran Grace.

Terkait masalah asupan gizi untuk membantu kelelahan, sebuah riset di Jepang menunjukkan bahwa konsumsi saripati ayam (essence of chicken) dapat membantu memulihkan stres dan kelelahan mental.

Seperti dimuat Journal of Physiological Anthropology (Applied Human Science), Dr. Nagai dan Harada dari Institute of Fundamental Research Suntory, Jepang, melakukan penelitian melibatkan dua kelompok mahasiswa pria sehat yang diberikan tes beban kerja.  

Kelompok pertama diberi minuman saripati setiap pagi selama satu pekan, sedangkan kelompok yang lain diberikan plasebo. Pada hari ke tujuh, kedua kelompok mahasiswa ini menjalani tes kemampuan dan pengukuran kadar stres.   Tes mental untuk mahasiswa ini berupa ujian artimatika dan kemampuan daya ingat jangka pendek, yang keduanya berkaitan dengan hormon stres atau kortisol

Hasil penelitian menunjukkan, tingkat kesalahan pada kelompok pertama yang diberi minuman saripati lebih rendah dibanding kelompok plasebo. Kelompok pertama juga mengaku lebih aktif dan tidak mudah lelah selama mengikuti ujian.  Peneliti menyimpulkan, kandungan gizi dalam saripati membantu memetabolisme kortisol dalam darah dan memulihkan tubuh dari kelelahan mental.


Editor : Liwon Maulana
Bila Kondisi Tubuh Cepat Lelah Saat Bekerja, Apa Sih Penyebabnya?

WASHINGTON — The former deputy director of the C.I.A. asserts in a forthcoming book that Republicans, in their eagerness to politicize the killing of the American ambassador to Libya, repeatedly distorted the agency’s analysis of events. But he also argues that the C.I.A. should get out of the business of providing “talking points” for administration officials in national security events that quickly become partisan, as happened after the Benghazi attack in 2012.

The official, Michael J. Morell, dismisses the allegation that the United States military and C.I.A. officers “were ordered to stand down and not come to the rescue of their comrades,” and he says there is “no evidence” to support the charge that “there was a conspiracy between C.I.A. and the White House to spin the Benghazi story in a way that would protect the political interests of the president and Secretary Clinton,” referring to the secretary of state at the time, Hillary Rodham Clinton.

But he also concludes that the White House itself embellished some of the talking points provided by the Central Intelligence Agency and had blocked him from sending an internal study of agency conclusions to Congress.

Photo
 
Michael J. Morell Credit Mark Wilson/Getty Images

“I finally did so without asking,” just before leaving government, he writes, and after the White House released internal emails to a committee investigating the State Department’s handling of the issue.

A lengthy congressional investigation remains underway, one that many Republicans hope to use against Mrs. Clinton in the 2016 election cycle.

In parts of the book, “The Great War of Our Time” (Twelve), Mr. Morell praises his C.I.A. colleagues for many successes in stopping terrorist attacks, but he is surprisingly critical of other C.I.A. failings — and those of the National Security Agency.

Soon after Mr. Morell retired in 2013 after 33 years in the agency, President Obama appointed him to a commission reviewing the actions of the National Security Agency after the disclosures of Edward J. Snowden, a former intelligence contractor who released classified documents about the government’s eavesdropping abilities. Mr. Morell writes that he was surprised by what he found.

Advertisement

“You would have thought that of all the government entities on the planet, the one least vulnerable to such grand theft would have been the N.S.A.,” he writes. “But it turned out that the N.S.A. had left itself vulnerable.”

He concludes that most Wall Street firms had better cybersecurity than the N.S.A. had when Mr. Snowden swept information from its systems in 2013. While he said he found himself “chagrined by how well the N.S.A. was doing” compared with the C.I.A. in stepping up its collection of data on intelligence targets, he also sensed that the N.S.A., which specializes in electronic spying, was operating without considering the implications of its methods.

“The N.S.A. had largely been collecting information because it could, not necessarily in all cases because it should,” he says.

The book is to be released next week.

Mr. Morell was a career analyst who rose through the ranks of the agency, and he ended up in the No. 2 post. He served as President George W. Bush’s personal intelligence briefer in the first months of his presidency — in those days, he could often be spotted at the Starbucks in Waco, Tex., catching up on his reading — and was with him in the schoolhouse in Florida on the morning of Sept. 11, 2001, when the Bush presidency changed in an instant.

Mr. Morell twice took over as acting C.I.A. director, first when Leon E. Panetta was appointed secretary of defense and then when retired Gen. David H. Petraeus resigned over an extramarital affair with his biographer, a relationship that included his handing her classified notes of his time as America’s best-known military commander.

Mr. Morell says he first learned of the affair from Mr. Petraeus only the night before he resigned, and just as the Benghazi events were turning into a political firestorm. While praising Mr. Petraeus, who had told his deputy “I am very lucky” to run the C.I.A., Mr. Morell writes that “the organization did not feel the same way about him.” The former general “created the impression through the tone of his voice and his body language that he did not want people to disagree with him (which was not true in my own interaction with him),” he says.

But it is his account of the Benghazi attacks — and how the C.I.A. was drawn into the debate over whether the Obama White House deliberately distorted its account of the death of Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens — that is bound to attract attention, at least partly because of its relevance to the coming presidential election. The initial assessments that the C.I.A. gave to the White House said demonstrations had preceded the attack. By the time analysts reversed their opinion, Susan E. Rice, now the national security adviser, had made a series of statements on Sunday talk shows describing the initial assessment. The controversy and other comments Ms. Rice made derailed Mr. Obama’s plan to appoint her as secretary of state.

The experience prompted Mr. Morell to write that the C.I.A. should stay out of the business of preparing talking points — especially on issues that are being seized upon for “political purposes.” He is critical of the State Department for not beefing up security in Libya for its diplomats, as the C.I.A., he said, did for its employees.

But he concludes that the assault in which the ambassador was killed took place “with little or no advance planning” and “was not well organized.” He says the attackers “did not appear to be looking for Americans to harm. They appeared intent on looting and conducting some vandalism,” setting fires that killed Mr. Stevens and a security official, Sean Smith.

Mr. Morell paints a picture of an agency that was struggling, largely unsuccessfully, to understand dynamics in the Middle East and North Africa when the Arab Spring broke out in late 2011 in Tunisia. The agency’s analysts failed to see the forces of revolution coming — and then failed again, he writes, when they told Mr. Obama that the uprisings would undercut Al Qaeda by showing there was a democratic pathway to change.

“There is no good explanation for our not being able to see the pressures growing to dangerous levels across the region,” he writes. The agency had again relied too heavily “on a handful of strong leaders in the countries of concern to help us understand what was going on in the Arab street,” he says, and those leaders themselves were clueless.

Moreover, an agency that has always overvalued secretly gathered intelligence and undervalued “open source” material “was not doing enough to mine the wealth of information available through social media,” he writes. “We thought and told policy makers that this outburst of popular revolt would damage Al Qaeda by undermining the group’s narrative,” he writes.

Instead, weak governments in Egypt, and the absence of governance from Libya to Yemen, were “a boon to Islamic extremists across both the Middle East and North Africa.”

Mr. Morell is gentle about most of the politicians he dealt with — he expresses admiration for both Mr. Bush and Mr. Obama, though he accuses former Vice President Dick Cheney of deliberately implying a connection between Al Qaeda and Iraq that the C.I.A. had concluded probably did not exist. But when it comes to the events leading up to the Bush administration’s decision to go to war in Iraq, he is critical of his own agency.

Mr. Morell concludes that the Bush White House did not have to twist intelligence on Saddam Hussein’s alleged effort to rekindle the country’s work on weapons of mass destruction.

“The view that hard-liners in the Bush administration forced the intelligence community into its position on W.M.D. is just flat wrong,” he writes. “No one pushed. The analysts were already there and they had been there for years, long before Bush came to office.”

Ex-C.I.A. Official Rebuts Republican Claims on Benghazi Attack in ‘The Great War of Our Time’

Artikel lainnya »