What are METS?

MargaretYakoda

I am curious to know about METS.
What are they? Do I need to pay attention to them?

MaltedTea

Movement matters most but exertion is important too. I've always liked this infographic...

https://www.walteradamson.com/uploads/1/2/2/7/122717058/mets-energy-chart_orig.png

And for a more clinical perspective on the matter, there's Healthline...

https://www.healthline.com/health/what-are-mets

MikePfirrman

MaltedTea wrote: »

Movement matters most but exertion is important too. I've always liked this infographic...

https://www.walteradamson.com/uploads/1/2/2/7/122717058/mets-energy-chart_orig.png

And for a more clinical perspective on the matter, there's Healthline...

https://www.healthline.com/health/what-are-mets

Good articles. I do a ton of cardio but never really understood METS. All I knew is if I do over 9, it's a killer workout for me. I don't believe I remember ever doing 10 or more.

heybales

It's a way of comparing your effort to yourself, or others, without the normal difference of calorie burn that can occur because of weight differences.

With 1 MET being your RMR (tad over BMR) rate of burn, any workout calorie burn divided by your RMR gives METS.

Now 2 people doing the same walk but 1 weighing 50 lbs more don't compare HR, or tracker shown calorie burn, but can compare METS.

Also it becomes easy to compare yourself after losing weight for usually cardio.

Kind of how for lifting, say squats or deadlift, you can reach a point of improvement at a certain weight.
And then lose 40 lbs on your body, and add 40 lbs to the bar.
You may think you've gotten stronger - but you really haven't.

Same thing say running, you got faster as you got lighter, calorie burn changed maybe, but did you improve?

sijomial

If you are interested then maybe have a look at the Compendium of Physical Activities which is a huge list of activities/exercise with METS values.
https://sites.google.com/site/compendiumofphysicalactivities/home

"Do I need to pay attention to them?"
Can be an interesting comparison between different types of exercise. e.g. comparing METS values for various walking speeds versus strength training.

The database here sources the Compendium but for my particular sport of cycling it doesn't have a lot of value or a good correlation. e.g. Using speed to judge intensity falls apart due to different terrain, 16-19mph can be easier and have a lower calorie burn rate than 12-14mph with a lot of climbing of tough hills. Then you have different types of bike, poor correlation between weight of rider and actual power/calorie output etc. etc.

MargaretYakoda

Thank you everyone. I’m still wrapping my head around all this. But it makes some sense.

I know when I started on my NuStep the METS were showing at barely over a two, and I felt happy to get them to a three because I knew I felt like I was working hard.

I’ll take a look and see what it shows at my best efforts now. It’s still probably not that high, because disability. But it’s higher than two. I know that at least. 😇

MargaretYakoda

Well. I am definitely happy for the answers here. I found a way to see the METS on my NuStep while I am using it. And a way to set a target and stick to it the whole workout. Turns out I can handle 3.2 for a whole hour. Which might not be rock star great, but I’ll take it. 😁

MaltedTea

Way to go, Margaret 🙌🏿

MargaretYakoda

Thanks @MaltedTea !

It’s really funny. I’m the green dot. The red dot represents my virtual racing opponent. If I slack off for a bit and the red dot gets ahead of me, I get fired up like it was a real human beating me, and I think “O The KITTEN You Don’t!” and push hard until I’m at least a half lap ahead. 🤣

heybales

Pretty nifty setup options they have on that for pacing strategies.

And good job going way beyond what you thought you could do.

MargaretYakoda

heybales wrote: »

Pretty nifty setup options they have on that for pacing strategies.

And good job going way beyond what you thought you could do.

This is a NuStep.
It is indeed an extremely nifty machine. 😁
Extremely adaptable. Intended originally for the hospital/professional rehab market. It has a 600 pound weight limit, and the seat upgrade is comfy enough to to sit on for hours.

People who have experienced strokes, amputation, severe balance issues, MS caused weakness, congenital abnormalities of the spine, joints, and/or limbs, etc can safely get an amazing workout on this thing. And I do mean amazing.

It takes up about as much room as a conventional treadmill, and doesn’t need to be plugged in to the wall. But if you do, it draws very little power.
Oh. And if the power goes out? You can charge a cell phone with it. Not kidding.

The downside is it costs as much as a decent little used car. But they do have payment options. Which is what we’re doing.

I promise this isn’t a NuStep commercial. I just love the thing and will gush about it at any opportunity.

As far as what I thought I could do?
I know I can’t walk to the coffee shop a quarter mile down the road. No amount of willpower will make that ever happen again.
Everything else? Give me an option and tell me you think I can’t do it…. I’ll get so ticked off at the lack of faith that by GLOB I will get it done or die trying. 🤣
It’s definitely an affliction. Severe attitude and stubbornness.

heybales

Oh good grief - I looked it up because it sounded familiar finally - used that in the gym during recovery time from broken ankle - it was nice.
I think our machines tad older, but it did indeed have everything on there you showed, slightly different.
I think I recall some programming options too.

I liked that it could be total lower or total upper body workout if desired. I tried the hand cycle they had - so boring.
But this was much better.
Plus the ability to focus on push or pull only if desired.

MargaretYakoda

heybales wrote: »

Oh good grief - I looked it up because it sounded familiar finally - used that in the gym during recovery time from broken ankle - it was nice.
I think our machines tad older, but it did indeed have everything on there you showed, slightly different.
I think I recall some programming options too.

I liked that it could be total lower or total upper body workout if desired. I tried the hand cycle they had - so boring.
But this was much better.
Plus the ability to focus on push or pull only if desired.

The hand cycle is great for paraplegic exercise, though.

These things are amazing for disability/injury recovery workouts.

MargaretYakoda

I found an interesting article.
It appears METS are not perfect.
Of course, I don’t think that means they’re useless. But note bene:

Errors in MET Estimates of Physical Activity …
https://www.umass.edu/physicalactivity/newsite/publications/Sarah Keadle/papers/1.pdf

heybales

That's regarding creating a database for people to try to obtain intensities for hitting their desired MET level.

The logged level for activities may not be great, the conversion to a MET value.

But if using it just with your own comparisons - it's a measurement, just like calories or time is a measurement.

You burned X calories per hr divided by Y RMR = METS.

Does the Nustep have your physical info to calc a BMR/RMR? age, gender, height, weight?

If yes then the MET's is yours.
If no then they are basing your burn divided by a study MET value to calc what you are doing - that could be a problem if you were needing to compare with others.


But in studies with large groups that got the results, it just means that basic formula was likely estimated as higher than reality METS, so someone would need to be more intense.

But taking your estimated calorie burn/bmr avoids that, because no conversion from a measured VO2 usage to calorie burn using assumed 3.5 factor.

If someone was attempting to get a calorie burn for their workout by looking at a MET table - yes a problem then.

MargaretYakoda

heybales wrote: »

That's regarding creating a database for people to try to obtain intensities for hitting their desired MET level.

The logged level for activities may not be great, the conversion to a MET value.

But if using it just with your own comparisons - it's a measurement, just like calories or time is a measurement.

You burned X calories per hr divided by Y RMR = METS.

Does the Nustep have your physical info to calc a BMR/RMR? age, gender, height, weight?

If yes then the MET's is yours.
If no then they are basing your burn divided by a study MET value to calc what you are doing - that could be a problem if you were needing to compare with others.


But in studies with large groups that got the results, it just means that basic formula was likely estimated as higher than reality METS, so someone would need to be more intense.

But taking your estimated calorie burn/bmr avoids that, because no conversion from a measured VO2 usage to calorie burn using assumed 3.5 factor.

If someone was attempting to get a calorie burn for their workout by looking at a MET table - yes a problem then.

Thanks for the details.

Yes the NuStep does have the ability to include weight for calculating METS, but not height, age, or gender.
Unless it’s in the professional settings, which I can’t access because I’m just a home user.

So ya. It’s a thumbnail stat. Useful to compare my one workout to another of my workouts. But not perfect.
Which I don’t see as a criticism of METS in general. I understand now what kind of tool it is. Useful as away to guesstimate energy expended. Not perfect. But also not useless either.