Patrick D Savage1, Michael J Toth, Philip A Ades. 1. Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, University of Vermont College of Medicine and Fletcher Allen Health Care, Burlington, VT 05401, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The metabolic equivalent (MET) is a commonly used method of quantifying the energy cost and intensity of physical activity. Recent studies have questioned the accuracy of the well-accepted value of a MET of 3.5 mL O2.kg(-1).min(-1). The goal of the present study was to compare the traditionally accepted value for 1 MET to direct measures of resting metabolic rate in a group of stable individuals with coronary heart disease (CHD). METHODS: The primary cohort consisted of 109 (60 men and 49 women) subjects with documented coronary heart disease and a body mass index >or=25 kg/m2. Measurements included indirect calorimetry, body composition, and exercise capacity (peak oxygen uptake [VO2]). In a substudy of 17 (10 men, 7 women) normal weight subjects (body mass index <25 kg/m2), metabolic rate in the seated position was also measured. RESULTS: Mean resting value for 1 MET was a VO2 value of 2.58 +/- 0.4 mL O2.kg(-1).min(-1) for overweight subjects measured in the supine position and 2.84 +/- 0.59 mL O2.kg(-1).min(-1) for normal weight individuals measured in the seated position. Caloric expenditure value was 0.74 +/- 0.12 kcal.kg(-1).h(-1) rather than the expected value of 1 kcal.kg(-1).h(-1). Values were similar between men and women. Women on beta-blockers had a lower resting metabolic rate (2.47 +/- 0.27 vs. 2.71 +/- 0.38 mL O2.kg(-1).min(-1)) (P < .05) than women not on beta-blocker therapy, whereas there was no effect of beta-blockers in men. CONCLUSIONS: Findings confirm recent studies of otherwise healthy individuals and indicate that the average resting metabolic rate in subjects with coronary heart disease is 23% to 36% lower than the widely accepted value of 3.5 mL O2.kg(-1).min(-1). Results demonstrate the limitation of the convention of expressing energy expenditure in multiples of an assumed constant.
OBJECTIVE: The metabolic equivalent (MET) is a commonly used method of quantifying the energy cost and intensity of physical activity. Recent studies have questioned the accuracy of the well-accepted value of a MET of 3.5 mL O2.kg(-1).min(-1). The goal of the present study was to compare the traditionally accepted value for 1 MET to direct measures of resting metabolic rate in a group of stable individuals with coronary heart disease (CHD). METHODS: The primary cohort consisted of 109 (60 men and 49 women) subjects with documented coronary heart disease and a body mass index >or=25 kg/m2. Measurements included indirect calorimetry, body composition, and exercise capacity (peak oxygen uptake [VO2]). In a substudy of 17 (10 men, 7 women) normal weight subjects (body mass index <25 kg/m2), metabolic rate in the seated position was also measured. RESULTS: Mean resting value for 1 MET was a VO2 value of 2.58 +/- 0.4 mL O2.kg(-1).min(-1) for overweight subjects measured in the supine position and 2.84 +/- 0.59 mL O2.kg(-1).min(-1) for normal weight individuals measured in the seated position. Caloric expenditure value was 0.74 +/- 0.12 kcal.kg(-1).h(-1) rather than the expected value of 1 kcal.kg(-1).h(-1). Values were similar between men and women. Women on beta-blockers had a lower resting metabolic rate (2.47 +/- 0.27 vs. 2.71 +/- 0.38 mL O2.kg(-1).min(-1)) (P < .05) than women not on beta-blocker therapy, whereas there was no effect of beta-blockers in men. CONCLUSIONS: Findings confirm recent studies of otherwise healthy individuals and indicate that the average resting metabolic rate in subjects with coronary heart disease is 23% to 36% lower than the widely accepted value of 3.5 mL O2.kg(-1).min(-1). Results demonstrate the limitation of the convention of expressing energy expenditure in multiples of an assumed constant.
Authors: Damien M Callahan; Timothy W Tourville; Mark S Miller; Sarah B Hackett; Himani Sharma; Nicholas C Cruickshank; James R Slauterbeck; Patrick D Savage; Philip A Ades; David W Maughan; Bruce D Beynnon; Michael J Toth Journal: Am J Physiol Cell Physiol Date: 2015-03-25 Impact factor: 4.249
Authors: Felipe A Cunha; Adrian W Midgley; Walace Monteiro; Raul Freire; Tainah Lima; Paulo T V Farinatti Journal: Eur J Appl Physiol Date: 2012-12-15 Impact factor: 3.078
Authors: Kathryn E Flynn; Li Lin; Gordon W Moe; Jonathan G Howlett; Lawrence J Fine; John A Spertus; Timothy R McConnell; Ileana L Piña; Kevin P Weinfurt Journal: Am Heart J Date: 2012-01 Impact factor: 4.749
Authors: Asier Mañas; Ignacio Ara; Javier Leal-Martín; Miguel Muñoz-Muñoz; Sarah Kozey Keadle; Francisco Amaro-Gahete; Luis M Alegre Journal: Sports Med Date: 2022-01-17 Impact factor: 11.928
Authors: Kathryn E Flynn; Li Lin; Stephen J Ellis; Stuart D Russell; John A Spertus; David J Whellan; Ileana L Piña; Lawrence J Fine; Kevin A Schulman; Kevin P Weinfurt Journal: Am Heart J Date: 2009-10 Impact factor: 4.749
Authors: Damien M Callahan; Mark S Miller; Andrew P Sweeny; Timothy W Tourville; James R Slauterbeck; Patrick D Savage; David W Maugan; Philip A Ades; Bruce D Beynnon; Michael J Toth Journal: J Physiol Date: 2014-07-18 Impact factor: 5.182
Authors: Daniel E Forman; Jonathan Myers; Carl J Lavie; Marco Guazzi; Bartolome Celli; Ross Arena Journal: Postgrad Med Date: 2010-11 Impact factor: 4.379