Need to revise classification of physical activity intensity in older adults? The use of estimated METs, measured METs and V̇O2Reserve

Mathias Skjødt, Mark A Tully, Li-Tang Tsai, Kasper Degn Gejl, Niels Ørtenblad, Kurt Jensen, Annemarie Koster, Marjolein Visser, Marianne Skovsager Andersen, Paolo Caserotti
{"title":"Need to revise classification of physical activity intensity in older adults? The use of estimated METs, measured METs and V̇O2Reserve","authors":"Mathias Skjødt, Mark A Tully, Li-Tang Tsai, Kasper Degn Gejl, Niels Ørtenblad, Kurt Jensen, Annemarie Koster, Marjolein Visser, Marianne Skovsager Andersen, Paolo Caserotti","doi":"10.1093/gerona/glae120","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background Multiples of resting metabolic rate (RMR) are often used to classify physical activity intensity, a concept known as the Metabolic Equivalent of Task (MET). However, the METs metrics may misclassify physical activity intensity in older adults because of age related changes in RMR and maximal aerobic capacity (V̇O2max). This study aimed to 1) compare classifications of activity intensity by estimated (METsestimated) and measured (METsmeasured) METs and 2) compare physical activity classified by absolute (METsmeasured) versus relative intensity (%V̇O2Reserve) in older adults. Methods Ninety-eight adults aged 75-90 years participated in the study. RMR and V̇O2 during sitting, standing, daily activities and 6-minute-walking-test were measured. V̇O2Reserve was defined as the difference between V̇O2max and RMR. Moderate and vigorous intensity was classified as 3 and 6 METs and 40% and 60% of V̇O2Reserve, respectively. Paired t-tests and a confusion matrix were used to investigate aim 1 and 2, respectively. Results METsmeasured was 24% lower than the standard 1 MET of 3.5 ml O2·min-1·kg-1. METsestimated underestimated the intensity during daily and walking activities when compared to METsmeasured. Nevertheless, when comparing METsmeasured to percentages of V̇O2Reserve, a mismatch was shown for moderate intensity in 47-67% of the participants during daily activities, and 21% of the participants during self-selected gait speed. Conclusion Applying METsestimated for older adults leads to potential underestimation of physical activity intensity, suggesting that current classification metrics should be revised for older adults. V̇O2Reserve is a candidate metric for establishing precise physical activity intensity cut-points for older adults.","PeriodicalId":22892,"journal":{"name":"The Journals of Gerontology Series A: Biological Sciences and Medical Sciences","volume":"62 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Journals of Gerontology Series A: Biological Sciences and Medical Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/gerona/glae120","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background Multiples of resting metabolic rate (RMR) are often used to classify physical activity intensity, a concept known as the Metabolic Equivalent of Task (MET). However, the METs metrics may misclassify physical activity intensity in older adults because of age related changes in RMR and maximal aerobic capacity (V̇O2max). This study aimed to 1) compare classifications of activity intensity by estimated (METsestimated) and measured (METsmeasured) METs and 2) compare physical activity classified by absolute (METsmeasured) versus relative intensity (%V̇O2Reserve) in older adults. Methods Ninety-eight adults aged 75-90 years participated in the study. RMR and V̇O2 during sitting, standing, daily activities and 6-minute-walking-test were measured. V̇O2Reserve was defined as the difference between V̇O2max and RMR. Moderate and vigorous intensity was classified as 3 and 6 METs and 40% and 60% of V̇O2Reserve, respectively. Paired t-tests and a confusion matrix were used to investigate aim 1 and 2, respectively. Results METsmeasured was 24% lower than the standard 1 MET of 3.5 ml O2·min-1·kg-1. METsestimated underestimated the intensity during daily and walking activities when compared to METsmeasured. Nevertheless, when comparing METsmeasured to percentages of V̇O2Reserve, a mismatch was shown for moderate intensity in 47-67% of the participants during daily activities, and 21% of the participants during self-selected gait speed. Conclusion Applying METsestimated for older adults leads to potential underestimation of physical activity intensity, suggesting that current classification metrics should be revised for older adults. V̇O2Reserve is a candidate metric for establishing precise physical activity intensity cut-points for older adults.
是否需要修订老年人体力活动强度的分类?估算的 METs、测量的 METs 和 VO2Reserve 的使用
背景静息代谢率(RMR)的倍数通常用于划分身体活动强度,这一概念被称为任务代谢当量(MET)。然而,由于与年龄有关的 RMR 和最大有氧能力(V̇O2max)的变化,METs 指标可能会对老年人的体力活动强度进行错误分类。本研究的目的是:1)比较按估算的(METsestimated)和测量的(METsmeasured)METs 对活动强度的分类;2)比较按绝对强度(METsmeasured)和相对强度(%V̇O2Reserve)对老年人体力活动的分类。方法 98 名 75-90 岁的成年人参加了研究。研究人员测量了坐姿、站姿、日常活动和 6 分钟步行测试时的肌肉收缩力和 V̇O2。V.J.O.Reserve定义为V.J.O.max与RMR之间的差值。中等强度和剧烈强度分别为 3 METs 和 6 METs,以及 V̇O2Reserve 的 40% 和 60%。分别采用配对 t 检验和混淆矩阵来研究目标 1 和 2。结果 METsmeasured 比 3.5 ml O2-min-1-kg-1 的标准 1 MET 低 24%。与 METsmeasured 相比,METsestimated 低估了日常活动和步行活动的强度。然而,当将 METs 测量值与 V̇O2Reserve 百分比进行比较时,47%-67% 的参与者在日常活动中的中等强度和 21% 的参与者在自选步速中的中等强度出现了不匹配。结论 对老年人应用 METsestimated 会导致对身体活动强度的潜在低估,这表明应针对老年人修订当前的分类指标。VO2Reserve 是一个候选指标,可用于为老年人建立精确的体力活动强度切点。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信