Hi Austin and Jordan,
I’ve seen several references to METs being used to measure cardiorespiratory fitness, in the sense of average fitness = 10 METs or something like that. I understand the concept of METs for measuring exercise intensity, but I’m not sure how to interpret them without a time component. For example, running a 1600m in six minutes would seem to indicate a much higher level of fitness than running a 100m in 22 seconds, even though the METs of those two activities would be very similar. If I’m trying to compare myself to these numbers, what would be the best way to measure my own fitness level?
Thanks!
MET-minutes is another tool we have at our disposal. The current recommendations are for an individual to get 500-1,000 MET-minutes of activity per week. Take the duration (minutes) and multiply it by the METs to get the MET-minutes.
Absolutely; that makes sense in the context of weekly activity, and that guideline has been very helpful for me to measure my own activity level. However, I’m thinking more about something like this meta-analysis that Austin cited in another thread:
In 2018 we had a new meta-analysis of data published in JAMA (based on a growing body of evidence that has become more convincing to us) on the dose-response relationship between cardiorespiratory fitness and mortality: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jam…rticle/2707428 , in which there was a graded dose-response between low (6.1 METs), below average (8.2 METs), above average (9.6 METs), high (11.4 METs), and elite (13.8 METs)
Is there any realistic way for me to see where I fall in these categories? If I’m performing 500 MET-minutes of activity a week, but my fitness is still below average, that might suggest that I need to increase the volume or intensity of my cardio.
Sure, you could do a submaximal graded treadmill test. I wouldn’t worry about it however, as I’d rather see you getting 100 MET-min of activity per week, maintaining a healthy weight and waist circumference, and engaging in other healthy lifestyle behaviors.