ArticleInternational journal of obesity (2005)2014
Correction factors for the calculation of metabolic equivalents (MET) in overweight to extremely obese subjects.
Article in International journal of obesity (2005), 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed, 38 citations in OpenAlex.
- A Wearable Activity Tracker Intervention With and Without Weekly Behavioral Support Emails to Promote Physical Activity Among Women Who Are Overweight or Obese: Randomized Controlled Trial.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2021Trial
- Cardiorespiratory physiology, exertional symptoms, and psychological burden in post-COVID-19 fatigue.Respiratory physiology & neurobiology · 2022Article
- Relationship of social capital with overweight and obesity among female health care workers.Caspian journal of internal medicine · 2019Article
- Article
- Article
- Physiological correlates to spontaneous physical activity variability in obese patients with already treated sleep apnea syndrome.Sleep & breathing = Schlaf & Atmung · 2017Article
- Appropriateness of the metabolic equivalent (MET) as an estimate of exercise intensity for post-myocardial infarction patients.BMJ open sport & exercise medicine · 2016Article
- Energy Expenditure in People with Diabetes Mellitus: A Review.Frontiers in nutrition · 2016Review
- Metabolic equivalents of task are confounded by adiposity, which disturbs objective measurement of physical activity.Frontiers in physiology · 2015Review
- Assessment of physical activity and energy expenditure: an overview of objective measures.Frontiers in nutrition · 2014Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
objectivesThe metabolic equivalent (MET) is a construct that is commonly used to quantify physical activity as well as exercise performance. 'One MET' is equal to a resting oxygen uptake of 3.5 ml O2 kg(-1) min(-)(1). However, this assumption is unlikely valid in obese subjects. The aim of our study was to quantify the difference between calculated and measured METs in overweight to severely obese subjects and to provide body mass index (BMI)-specific MET correction factors. SUBJECTS/
methodsResting oxygen uptake (VO2-REE) was measured in 1331 patients with a BMI >25 kg m(-2) (72.0% women; age: 42.5 ± 13.0 years; BMI: 42.5 ± 7.0 kg m(-)(2)) by indirect calorimetry and MET-REE, that is, VO2-REE related to body weight was calculated. Six hundred and fifty-two subjects (70.9% women) additionally underwent a bicycle cardiopulmonary exercise test for measurement of maximal MET (MET peak).
resultsMean MET-REE was 2.47 ± 0.33 ml O2 kg(-1) min(-1) in women and 2.62 ± 0.34 ml O2 kg(-1) min(-1) in men, that is, markedly lower than the expected 3.5 ml O2 kg(-1) min(-1). MET-REE decreased with increasing BMI (P<0.001 for both sexes). On this dataset, gender-specific MET correction factors were developed for distinct BMI groups. During the exercise test, women performed 4.4 ± 1.3 MET peak and men 4.7 ± 1.3. After applying our correction factors, MET peak increased to 6.2 ± 1.7 and 6.1 ± 1.6, respectively.
conclusionsData indicate that the commonly used 1-MET value of 3.5 ml O2 kg(-)(1) min(-)(1) largely overestimates values in overweight to severely obese subjects. Our correction factors can help to reduce this systematic error and thus appear to be valuable for clinical practice as well as research studies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.