Using Metabolic Equivalents in Clinical Practice.
Level 5 - mechanism / opinion, no new human data
Narrative review without systematic search methodology
PubMed 29229271 · doi:10.1016/j.amjcard.2017.10.033
What was done
This narrative review evaluated the clinical application, utility, and limitations of metabolic equivalents (METs) for exercise prescription, cardiorespiratory fitness categorization, and cardiovascular risk assessment.
What was found
The abstract provides no primary quantitative empirical data. It reports that the conventional standard of 1 MET = 3.5 mL O2/kg/min overestimates actual resting energy expenditure in coronary patients, the morbidly obese, and individuals on beta-blockers, but notes that moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (≥3 METs) increases functional capacity in previously inactive adults.
Why it matters
Standard MET formulas may systematically miscalculate exercise capacity and risk stratification in specific clinical populations whose baseline resting energy expenditure deviates from conventional assumptions.
Limits
This is a narrative review without systematic search criteria or meta-analytic pooling. The abstract provides no sample sizes, effect estimates, or primary numerical data.
Cited by
- supports One metabolic equivalent (MET) is defined as the resting oxygen consumption of 3.5 mL of oxygen per minute per kilogram of body mass.