Unfortunately, applying a standard MET value to all individuals has attained widespread acceptance but has been questioned in the past decade by the scientific community ( 13, 29, 30).Ī perusal of the RMR literature reveals that considerable information on studies of specific population subgroups (e.g., men, women, children, obese, and patient populations) is based primarily on relatively small sample sizes, or studies that were not intended to be population based ( 21). ( 13) suggests that the use of the conventionally defined MET value often reflects an overestimate that does not apply well to all individuals nor to population subgroups. ( 1– 3), the energy expenditure of a MET is noted to be imprecise and seen only as a means of classifying activities based on the expected intensity of typical activity participation when expressed as a multiple of 1 MET ( 1– 3). In all three articles by Ainsworth et al.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |