Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33900580›Full record

ArticleSports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.)2021

Evaluating the Accuracy of Using Fixed Ranges of METs to Categorize Exertional Intensity in a Heterogeneous Group of Healthy Individuals: Implications for Cardiorespiratory Fitness and Health Outcomes.

Danilo Iannetta, Daniel A Keir, Federico Y Fontana, Erin Calaine Inglis, Anmol T Mattu, Donald H Paterson, Silvia Pogliaghi, Juan M Murias

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
12.0field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

25 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 61 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Aerobic Training for Healthy Men and Women: Determining Intensities by Different Equations.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. In-Field Validity and Inter-Unit Variability of Metabolic Carts During Simulated Exercise.Scandinavian journal of medicine & science in sports · 2026
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Associations of Relative Intensity of Physical Activity With Incident Cardiovascular Events and All-Cause Mortality.The journals of gerontology. Series A, Biological sciences and medical sciences · 2024
    Article
  11. Metabolic equivalents intensity thresholds for physical activity classification in older adults.European review of aging and physical activity : official journal of the European Group for Research into Elderly and Physical Activity · 2024
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.

Danilo IannettaFaculty of Kinesiology, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada.
Daniel A KeirToronto General Research Institute, University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Federico Y FontanaTeam Novo Nordisk Professional Cycling Team, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Erin Calaine InglisFaculty of Kinesiology, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada.
Anmol T MattuFaculty of Kinesiology, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada.
Donald H PatersonSchool of Kinesiology, The University of Western Ontario, London, ON, Canada.
Silvia PogliaghiDepartment of Neurosciences, Biomedicine, and Movement Sciences, University of Verona, Verona, Italy.
Juan M MuriasFaculty of Kinesiology, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada. jmmurias@ucalgary.ca.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6460-6453
University of Calgary · CAWestern University · CANovo Nordisk (United States) · USUniversity of Verona · IT

Funding

Canadian Network for Research and Innovation in Machining Technology, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada RGPIN-2016-03698Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada 1047725
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAppropriate quantification of exertional intensity remains elusive.

objectiveTo compare, in a large and heterogeneous cohort of healthy females and males, the commonly used intensity classification system (i.e., light, moderate, vigorous, near-maximal) based on fixed ranges of metabolic equivalents (METs) to an individualized schema based on the exercise intensity domains (i.e., moderate, heavy, severe).

methodsA heterogenous sample of 565 individuals (females 165; males 400; age range 18-83 years old) were included in the study. Individuals performed a ramp-incremental exercise test from which gas exchange threshold (GET), respiratory compensation point (RCP) and maximum oxygen uptake (VO

resultsA critical discrepancy existed between the confines of the exercise intensity domains and the commonly used fixed MET classification system. Overall, the upper limit of the moderate-intensity domain ranged between 2 and 13 METs and of the heavy-intensity domain between 3 and 18 METs, whereas the severe-intensity domain included METs from 4 onward.

conclusionsFindings show that the common practice of assigning fixed values of METs to relative categories of intensity risks misclassifications of the physiological stress imposed by exercise and physical activity. These misclassifications can lead to erroneous interpretations of the dose-response relationship of exercise and physical activity.

Indexed as

Cardiorespiratory FitnessAdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overExercise TestFemaleHumansMaleMetabolic EquivalentMiddle AgedOutcome Assessment, Health CareOxygenOxygen ConsumptionYoung AdultOxygen

Identifiers

PMID33900580
OpenAlexW3159315571

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.