MET Sistemi ve Dinlenik Metabolik Hızın Kestirilmesinde Sensewear Pro3 Armband’ın Geçerliği

Bir MET, 3.5 ml.kg-1.dk-1 VO2’ye karşılık gelmekte

Validity of Senserwear Pro3 Armband to Estimate MET System and Resting Metabolic Rate

One metabolic equivalent (MET) corresponds to3.5 ml.kg-1.min-1 VO2 and is accepted as the restingmetabolic rate (RMR). However, there have been argumentsrelated with VO2 equivalent of 1 MET (3.5 ml.kg-1.min-1); some arguments indicated that this value is relativelyhigh and may lead to misclassification of physicalactivities. The present study has 3 purposes: 1. todetermine the validity of SenseWear Armband (SWA)in predicting RMR; 2. to assess the differences betweenthe MET system and RMRs determined by SWA and indirectcalorimetry (IC) and 3. to evaluate the associationsbetween body composition and RMRs determinedby the two methods. Twenty-eight men and women(age range:25-55 yrs) participated in the study voluntarily.RMR was determined by IC by measuring VO2and CO2. Energy consumption was recorded simultaneouslywith SWA. Caloric equivalent of VO2 was determinedby Weir’s equation (1949). Differences between 1MET and SWA-measured MET values and between restingVO2 measured by IC and 3.5 ml.kg-1.min-1 were de-termined by One-Sample t-test; differences between thetwo methods were determined by Paired-Samples t- test;and associations between the variables were determinedby Pearson’s correlation coefficient. SWA-measured MET(1.0 ? 0.12) was equal to 1 MET (p > 0.05), whereas IC-measuredMET (0.83 ? 0.16) was lower than 1 MET (p<0.01).SWA-measured MET was higher than IC-measured MET(p<0.05). The association between MET values determinedby the two methods was not significant (p>0.05).Although significant correlation (p<0.01) was found betweenRMRs (kcal.day-1) measured by the two methods,SWA-measured RMR was higher than IC-measured RMR(p<0.05). Significant correlations were found betweenboth IC and SWA-measured RMRs and body weight, bodymass index and lean body mass (p<0.05). Results of thisstudy showed that; RMR measured by IC was significantlylower than 1 MET, SWA overestimated RMR compared toIC method, and LBM was the most significant body compositioncomponent associated with RMRs determinedby both methods.

___

  • Ainsworth BE, Haskell WL, Herrmann SD, Meckes N, Bassett DRJr, Tudor-locke C, ve diğ. (2011). Compendium of physical activities: A second update of codes and MET values. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 43(8), 1575-81.
  • Ainsworth BE, Haskell WL, Whitt MC, Irwin ML, Swartz AM, Strath SJ, ve diğ. (2000). Compendium of physical activities: an update of activity codes and MET intensities. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 32(9; SUPP/1), S498-504.
  • Arvidsson D, Slinde F, Larsson S, Hulthen L. (2007). Energy cost of physical activities in children: validation of SenseWear Armband. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 39(11), 2076–84.
  • SPOR BİLİMLERİ DERGİSİ