Comparison of Conventional and Individualized 1-MET Values for Expressing Maximum Aerobic Metabolic Rate and Habitual Activity Related Energy Expenditure

The maximum aerobic metabolic rate can be expressed in multiple metabolically equivalent tasks (MET), i.e., METmax. The purpose was to quantify the error when the conventional (3.5 mL∙kg ∙min ) compared to an individualized 1-MET-value is used for calculating METmax and estimating activity energy ex...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Nutrients 2019-02, Vol.11 (2), p.458
Main Authors: Heydenreich, Juliane, Schutz, Yves, Melzer, Katarina, Kayser, Bengt
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Aerobic capacity
Athletes
Body composition
Body mass
Body weight loss
Costs
Energy
Energy balance
Energy expenditure
Energy intake
Energy measurement
Energy requirements
Exercise
Fatigue tests
Maintenance
Males
Metabolic rate
Metabolism
Oxygen consumption
Physical fitness
Questionnaires
Weight loss
Womens health
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:The maximum aerobic metabolic rate can be expressed in multiple metabolically equivalent tasks (MET), i.e., METmax. The purpose was to quantify the error when the conventional (3.5 mL∙kg ∙min ) compared to an individualized 1-MET-value is used for calculating METmax and estimating activity energy expenditure (AEE) in endurance-trained athletes (END) and active healthy controls (CON). The resting metabolic rate (RMR, indirect calorimetry) and aerobic metabolic capacity (spiroergometry) were assessed in 52 END (46% male, 27.9 ± 5.7 years) and 53 CON (45% male, 27.3 ± 4.6 years). METmax was calculated as the ratio of VO₂max over VO₂ during RMR (METmax_ind), and VO₂max over the conventional 1-MET-value (METmax_fix). AEE was estimated by multiplying published MET values with the individual and conventional 1-MET-values. Dependent -tests were used to compare the different modes for calculating METmax and AEE (α = 0.05). In women and men CON, men END METmax_fix was significantly higher than METmax_ind ( < 0.01), whereas, in women END, no difference was found ( > 0.05). The conventional 1-MET-value significantly underestimated AEE in men and women CON, and men END ( < 0.05), but not in women END ( > 0.05). The conventional 1-MET-value appears inappropriate for determining the aerobic metabolic capacity and AEE in active and endurance-trained persons.
ISSN:2072-6643
2072-6643
DOI:10.3390/nu11020458