Youth metabolic equivalents (METy) are sometimes operationally defined as multiples of predicted basal metabolic rate (METyBMR) and other times as multiples of measured resting metabolic rate (METyRMR). PURPOSE: This study aimed to examine the comparability of METyBMR and METyRMR. METHODS: Indirect calorimetry data (Cosmed K4b) were analyzed from two studies, with a total sample of 245 youth (125 male participants, 6-18 yr old, 37.4% overweight or obese). The Schofield equations were used to predict BMR, and K4b data from 30 min of supine rest were used to assess RMR. Participants performed structured physical activities (PA) of various intensities, and steady-state oxygen consumption was divided by predicted BMR and measured RMR to calculate METyBMR and METyRMR, respectively. Two-way (activity-METy calculation) analysis of variance was used to compare METyBMR and METyRMR (α = 0.05), with Bonferroni-corrected post hoc tests. Intensity classifications were also compared after encoding METyBMR and METyRMR as sedentary behavior (≤1.50 METy), light PA (1.51-2.99 METy), moderate PA (3.00-5.99 METy), or vigorous PA (≥6.00 METy). RESULTS: There was a significant interaction (F(30) = 3.6, P < 0.001), and METyBMR was significantly higher than METyRMR for 28 of 31 activities (P < 0.04), by 15.6% (watching television) to 23.1% (basketball). Intensity classifications were the same for both METy calculations in 69.0% of cases. CONCLUSIONS: METyBMR and METyRMR differ considerably. Greater consensus is needed regarding how metabolic equivalents should be operationally defined in youth, and in the meantime, careful distinction is necessary between METyBMR and METyRMR.
Youth metabolic equivalents (METy) are sometimes operationally defined as multiples of predicted basal metabolic rate (METyBMR) and other times as multiples of measured resting metabolic rate (METyRMR). PURPOSE: This study aimed to examine the comparability of METyBMR and METyRMR. METHODS: Indirect calorimetry data (Cosmed K4b) were analyzed from two studies, with a total sample of 245 youth (125 male participants, 6-18 yr old, 37.4% overweight or obese). The Schofield equations were used to predict BMR, and K4b data from 30 min of supine rest were used to assess RMR. Participants performed structured physical activities (PA) of various intensities, and steady-state oxygen consumption was divided by predicted BMR and measured RMR to calculate METyBMR and METyRMR, respectively. Two-way (activity-METy calculation) analysis of variance was used to compare METyBMR and METyRMR (α = 0.05), with Bonferroni-corrected post hoc tests. Intensity classifications were also compared after encoding METyBMR and METyRMR as sedentary behavior (≤1.50 METy), light PA (1.51-2.99 METy), moderate PA (3.00-5.99 METy), or vigorous PA (≥6.00 METy). RESULTS: There was a significant interaction (F(30) = 3.6, P < 0.001), and METyBMR was significantly higher than METyRMR for 28 of 31 activities (P < 0.04), by 15.6% (watching television) to 23.1% (basketball). Intensity classifications were the same for both METy calculations in 69.0% of cases. CONCLUSIONS: METyBMR and METyRMR differ considerably. Greater consensus is needed regarding how metabolic equivalents should be operationally defined in youth, and in the meantime, careful distinction is necessary between METyBMR and METyRMR.
Authors: Samuel R LaMunion; Andrew L Blythe; Paul R Hibbing; Andrew S Kaplan; Brandon J Clendenin; Scott E Crouter Journal: Appl Physiol Nutr Metab Date: 2019-07-03 Impact factor: 2.665
Authors: R R Pate; M Pratt; S N Blair; W L Haskell; C A Macera; C Bouchard; D Buchner; W Ettinger; G W Heath; A C King Journal: JAMA Date: 1995-02-01 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Nancy F Butte; Kathleen B Watson; Kate Ridley; Issa F Zakeri; Robert G McMurray; Karin A Pfeiffer; Scott E Crouter; Stephen D Herrmann; David R Bassett; Alexander Long; Zekarias Berhane; Stewart G Trost; Barbara E Ainsworth; David Berrigan; Janet E Fulton Journal: Med Sci Sports Exerc Date: 2018-02 Impact factor: 5.411