Talk:Metabolic equivalent of task

message: I would question the values given in the table, that "desk-work" = 1.8 and "strolling" = 2.0.  There should be a much greater difference.  Sitting work should be 1.0 or maybe 1.2 and standing work should be around 2.  I came to this article to find the difference in METs between sitting work and standing work, but I don't believe the listing. Baruchatta (talk) 16:01, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Question the values

message: If a single MET is the resting metabolic rate, and a MET-minute is (duration of activity in minutes)*(METs of the activity), then doesn't everyone, by definition, acquire about 10,080 MET-minutes per week? This is well above the targets given in the article, and makes me think that either there are some additional facts that need to be included or the MET-minute concept is vapid.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.56.148.221 (talk) 01:04, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. The article Heart failure says that the recommended minimum by U.S. guidelines is 500 MET-minutes/week. There are 10,080 minutes in a week, so what's the problem? Or let's say that resting doesn't count. So you can do 400 minutes (6 hours and 40 minutes) of 1.25 MET activity! Everybody does that. Something doesn't make sense. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 09:41, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Met-minutes Unclear

message: Some exercise machines estimate METs based on the formula: cpm/kg.
This convenient non-individualized approximation is often used, including in scientific literature.
"No work requires only “basal metabolism,” or about 3.5 mL O2/kg/minute, also known as 1 MET."
"One MET is defined as the energy it takes to sit quietly. For the average adult, this is about one calorie per every 2.2 pounds of body weight per hour someone who weighs 160 pounds would burn approximately 70 calories an hour while sitting or sleeping."
These simple surrogate formulas are widely used.  Please do not censor this information from the article.  Please add details about how good or bad this approximation is, how much reality varies by plus or minus for who under what conditions.-69.87.204.9 14:39, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Surrogate formula cpm/kg

message: I've tagged the article for the following reasons:
1. The article's introduction is too technical and/or becomes too technical too quickly.  This is a wiki style issue.
2. There is almost no information in the article on the origins of METs
3. There is almost no information in the article on the derivation of the tables
4. Citations in the article are inadequate. 
5. The criticism section (Limitations on the ...etc), although much needed, requires additional citations.
The bulk of the article appears to rely extensively in one source (Ainsworth) and at least one of the references is incorrect e.g the ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 55 does not specifically deal with Metabolic rate, but "defines the range of indoor thermal environmental conditions acceptable to a majority of occupants".
IMO the article needs attention from a medical expert.  There are other issues with the style of the article but imo the above issues are the most pressing.
LookingGlass (talk) 13:15, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Multiple issues 

message: The textual context to the definition is inaccurate, incomplete, and misleading. The article first states the MET has units (power)/(kg). I would guess that the (power) is either: the body's output power or the energy burned per unit time. These are different! The definition does not state which to use. Also, the (kg) is not defined. I would guess the (kg) is intended to be body mass, but again, this is not stated. 
The next sentence says the MET is also defined as (power)/(m^2), where the (m^2) is body surface area. 
These are two different definitions! There should be a discussion on the differences: "Some authors [...] define a MET as power produced per body mass; other authors [...] define a MET as power produced per body surface area." Or something along those lines.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.135.186.216 (talk) 19:25, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: moved this comment to the end as per wiki protocol.  It seems to add to my remarks above.  Should it be indented?  LookingGlass (talk) 18:57, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Confusing and incomplete

message: The heading of Wikipedia should read "MET (Metabolic Equivalency Task)"
This would reduce a lot of confusion. Most trainers and fitness experts and healthcare researchers refer to "METs", as a basis for measuring workout intensity.
Another factor which creates confusion is the exercises that can vary in intensity, such as running, unless other specific parameters are met, like miles per hour and the height and weight of the individual.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:30A:C0B4:EE30:E8F9:1668:FFAD:CED0 (talk) 17:07, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Metabolic Equivalency Task 

message: Please add discussion and information about converting between METs and Watts. Many common exercise machines now use both those units. Conversion tables and formulas? -71.174.175.150 (talk) 23:32, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  METs and WATTs 

message: I've noticed that the oxygen consumed is specified in millilitres. That is not specific enough. Especially temperature and pressure should be specified. Otherwise I'd guess 293K & 100kPa, but that is not common knowledge.
Tothphu (talk) 05:14, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  specifying volume of oxygen 

message: Common Source of Confusion about KCal in MET formula
 
It might be useful to explain that common usage of the term Calorie (spelled with upper case "C") in American literature to express energy consumed by exercise actually means kilcalories, or in technical abbreviation, Kcal.  This is unfortunate. Also, it might be useful to explain how one converts from VO2 measurements in mL O2/Kg/min to Kcal/kg/h.  Deriving energy from glucose provides a good starting point.  The heat of reaction (enthalpy) of glucose oxidation is about 677 Kcal/mole and it takes 6 moles of oxygen per mole of glucose.  Each mole of oxygen equals 22.4 L at standard temperature and pressure. Therefore, 1 L of oxygen is 0.0447 moles, enough to oxidize 1/6 of 0.0447 moles of glucose or 0.00744 moles.  It means that energy of glucose expended by 1 L of oxygen equates to 0.00744 mole x 677 Kcal/mole or 4.96 Kcal, or about 5 Kcal/L O2.  To convert 3.5 mL O2 to Kcal, divide by 1,000 mL/L and multiply by 5 Kcal/L.  To convert from min to h, multiply by 60.  The rounded off result is 1 Kcal/Kg/h. Clean Jordan Lake (talk) 22:41, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  American usage of Calories (upper case "C") in MET calculations can be confusing 

message: This section should be used to add links to additional information about this subject.
Free article about METS and Activities
:The above is a dead link... IiKkEe (talk) 20:17, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additional Linked Information 

message: The section which lists how many METs for a task is incorrect where "power" is given. For example, the number of METs using a stationary bicycle at 50 or 100 watts depends on the weight (mass ...) of the individual. I weight about 82kg, so 100 watts is close to 1.2 w/kg. A lighter rider -- say 50kg -- would be producing 2.0 w/kg, which is more METs. And obviously a heavier rider would be producing fewer. The examples should provide the weight of the example riders, with a footnote explaining how to translate to their own weight for an individual reading the article. Tall Girl (talk) 19:47, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inconsistent handling of power and METs 

message: For the record, my sympathies are 2 parts the reader, and 1 part the MOS. I just made edits that serve the reader 100% better, but the MOS 20% less well. Certain sticklers might not approve. Revise or revert at will; I'm done with this dog. — MaxEnt 00:16, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: By some miracle, I refrained from adding an assertion about the use of MET⋅hours/weakling of PT in boot camp. — MaxEnt 01:31, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Valiant misplaced sympathies