Metabolic equivalents intensity thresholds for physical activity classification in older adults

Author:

Leal-Martín JavierORCID,Muñoz-Muñoz MiguelORCID,Sierra-Ramón MiguelORCID,Cerezo-Arroyo MónicaORCID,Gómez-Redondo PaolaORCID,Alegre Luis M.ORCID,Ara IgnacioORCID,García-García Francisco JoséORCID,Mañas AsierORCID

Abstract

Abstract Background Although the metabolic equivalents (METs) system is a common procedure to quantify the intensity of physical activity in older adults, it remains unclear whether the conventional METs intensity thresholds (CTs) used for this purpose are appropriate in this population. Therefore, this study aimed (i) to derive overall and fitness-specific METs intensity thresholds in older adults ≥ 60 years old (OATs) expressed both in standard METs (VO2/3.5 mL O2·kg−1·min−1) and older adults METs60+ (VO2/2.7 mL O2·kg−1·min−1), and (ii) to compare them with the CTs. Methods A total of 93 subjects were assessed for cardiorespiratory fitness. Graded exercise test protocols using indirect calorimetry were performed to calculate individual VO2max and categorize subjects as "very poor/fair" or "good/superior" fitness. Overall and fitness-specific OATs expressed in standard METs (OATsstandard) and METs60+ (OATs60+) were derived based on the %VO2max and the ventilatory thresholds (VTs) physical intensity categories. Results Significantly higher VO2max, VO2 at VT1 and VO2 at VT2 (p < 0.001) were obtained in the "good/superior" subgroup compared to the "very poor/fair" fitness subgroup. Accordingly, OATs were approximately 69% higher in individuals with a "good/superior" fitness compared to those with a "very poor/fair" fitness. Furthermore, this study showed that OATsstandard were approximately 21–24% lower than OATs60+, and 10–22% higher OATs were observed when following the VTs intensity categories (heavy-intensity physical activity [HPA] and severe-intensity physical activity [SPA]) compared to the %VO2max categories (moderate-intensity physical activity [MPA] and vigorous-intensity physical activity [VPA]). When compared with the CTs, similar or higher OATsstandard and OATs60+ for MPA, and HPA were obtained compared to the conventional MPA threshold (3.0 METs). Conversely, for VPA and SPA, lower, similar, or higher OATs were obtained depending on the METs derivation approach (OATsstandard or OATs60+) or the intensity categories (VO2max or VTs), compared to the conventional VPA threshold (6.0 METs). Conclusions None of the derived OATs were concurrently similar to the CTs, suggesting that fitness-specific METs intensity thresholds adapted to the METs derivation approach should be used in older adults. Trial registration FenotipAGING (Non-health-care intervention study), PRO-Training (NCT05619250).

Funder

Centro de Investigación Biomédica en Red Fragilidad y Envejecimiento Saludable

Red de Ejercicio Físico y Salud

Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación

Universidad de Castilla-La Mancha

Publisher

Springer Science and Business Media LLC

Reference40 articles.

1. Byrne NM, Hills AP, Hunter GR, Weinsier RL, Schutz Y. Metabolic equivalent: one size does not fit all. J Appl Physiol (1985). 2005;99(3):1112–9.

2. Garber CE, Blissmer B, Deschenes MR, Franklin BA, Lamonte MJ, Lee IM, et al. ACSM’s Position Stand: Quantity and quality of exercise for developing and maintaining cardiorespiratory, musculoskeletal, and neuromotor fitness in apparently healthy adults: guidance for prescribing exercise. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2011;43(7):1334–59.

3. Nagle F, Balke B. The gradational step test for assessing cardiorespiratory capacity: an experimental evaluation of treadmill and step test procedures. Oklahoma City, Oklahoma: Federal Aviation Agency, Office of Aviation Medicine, Civil Aeromedical Research Institute 1964 Jan. Report No.: AM 64–3; DOT/FAA/AM-64/03 Contract No.: 3.

4. Jetté M, Sidney K, Blümchen G. Metabolic equivalents (METS) in exercise testing, exercise prescription, and evaluation of functional capacity. Clin Cardiol. 1990;13(8):555–65.

5. PAGAC. 2018 Physical Activity Guidelines Advisory Committee Scientific Report. Washington, DC: U.S Department of Health and Human Services; 2018.

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3