Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Is there a more objective way of measuring METs? It seems flimsy.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Is there a more objective way of measuring METs? It seems flimsy.

    I've started doing cardio after my workouts, 2x-3x/week 20 minutes fast walking on the incline treadmill.

    There doesn't seem to be a good way to actually measure METs, I've found some charts online that equate a 160 heart rate (for me based on age) as 8 METs. When adding up the MET minutes I'm still under the minimum health guidelines suggested by BBM, even if I manage to hit cardio 3x/week.

    What doesn't make sense to me is that a fitter persons heart rate will be lower for the same activity, so if I continue doing cardio and my performance increases - suddenly 5 incline at 5kph doesn't bring my heart rate up to 160. I'm still doing the same activity so I'd imagine metabolically the same things are happening, but my heart rate no longer rises to the same level. Does that mean I'll no longer be experiencing health benefits?

    Additionally, it seems strange to me that doing 20 minutes of 'high intensity' cardio 2x per week would provide 0 health benefits. BBM says that health benefits START at the minimum guidelines - does that mean I'm wasting my time if I don't hit them?

  • #2
    Where do we say that health benefits START when you meet the minimum guidelines?

    You should most certainly start with whatever you get get done, even if that is less to start with, and that is what many people do.

    Comment

    Working...
    X