Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T09:17:25.809Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The modified obstetric metabolic equivalent (MET): finding a MET that fits in pregnancy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 February 2012

C. G. Campbell ,
R. C. Foster ,
L. M. Lanningham-Foster  and
K. M. Smith
C. G. Campbell*
Affiliation:
Department of Food Science and Human Nutrition, Iowa State University, Ames, IA, USA
R. C. Foster
Affiliation:
Department of Food Science and Human Nutrition, Iowa State University, Ames, IA, USA
L. M. Lanningham-Foster
Affiliation:
Department of Food Science and Human Nutrition, Iowa State University, Ames, IA, USA
K. M. Smith
Affiliation:
Department of Food Science and Human Nutrition, Iowa State University, Ames, IA, USA
*
*Address for correspondence: Dr C. G. Campbell, PhD, RD, Sandy S. and Roy W. Uelner Professor of Food Science and Human Nutrition, Department of Food Science and Human Nutrition, Iowa State University, 220 Mackay Hall, Ames, IA 50014, USA. (Email ccampbel@iastate.edu)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The Compendium of Physical Activities (CPA) provides the energy expenditure (EE) for hundreds of daily activities reported in metabolic equivalents (MET). It remains to be determined if the metabolic changes of pregnancy alter the use of the CPA MET (METCPA) in this population. The energy cost of rest, activities of daily living (ADL; typing, folding laundry and sweeping) and treadmill walking [2.0, 2.5, 3.0 mph (0% incline), 3.0 mph (3% incline)] were compared with the METCPA from the 2000 and 2011 CPA in 30 pregnant women (10–14 weeks gestation) using indirect calorimetry (IC). The METCPA for each activity was compared against two measured IC values: METabsolute (3.5 ml O2/kg/min) and METratio (EEactivity/EErest). Means for both comparisons were tested by one-sample t-test. Measured MET correlated with the 2011 METCPA: METabsolutev. METCPAR 2 = 0.906, P < 0.0001; METratiov. METCPAR 2 = 0.861, P < 0.0001. Differences between measured MET values and the 2011 METCPA ranged from 16% underestimation to 48% overestimation. Using the absolute definition, the METCPA significantly overestimated the ADL (P < 0.0005); yet, no significant differences were found between walking at 0% grade and METCPA. Conversely, only folding laundry was significantly different with the ratio definition, whereas walking at a level grade was significantly underestimated (P < 0.0001). Similar observations were found using the 2000 CPA. The use of the METCPA to estimate EE in pregnant women can result in significant over- or underestimation, depending on the activity and the definition of the MET that is used.

Keywords

energy expenditureindirect calorimetryphysical activity assessmentprenatal exercise
Type
Original Article
Information
Journal of Developmental Origins of Health and Disease , Volume 3 , Issue 3 , June 2012 , pp. 159 - 165
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press and the International Society for Developmental Origins of Health and Disease 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Crane, JMG, White, J, Murphy, P, Burrage, L, Hutchens, D. Effect of gestational weight gain by body mass index on maternal and neonatal outcomes. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2009; 31, 28–35.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2. Crozier, S, Inskip, HM, Godfrey, KM, et al. . Weight gain in pregnancy and childhood body composition; findings from the Southampton Women's Survey. Am J Clin Nutr. 2010; 91, 1745–1751.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3. Frederick, IO, Williams, MA, Sales, AE, Martin, DP, Killien, M. Pre-pregnancy body mass index, gestational weight gain, and other maternal characteristics in relation to infant birth weight. Matern Child Health J. 2008; 12, 557–567.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4. Mamun, AA, Kinarivala, M, O'Callaghan, MJ, et al. . Associations of excess weight gain during pregnancy with long-term maternal overweight and obesity: evidence from 21 y postpartum follow-up. Am J Clin Nutr. 2010; 91, 1336–1341.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5. Margerison Zilko, CE, Rehkopf, D, Abrams, B. Association of maternal gestational weight gain with short- and long-term maternal and child health outcomes. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2010; 202, 574.e1-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6. American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology. Committee opinion number 267: exercise during pregnancy and the postpartum period. Obstet Gynecol. 2002; 99, 171–173.Google Scholar
7. American College of Sports Medicine/American Diabetes Association. Exercise and type 2 diabetes: joint position statement. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2010; 42, 2282–2303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8. Evenson, KR, Savitz, DA, Huston, SL. Leisure-time physical activity among pregnant women in the US. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol. 2004; 18, 400–407.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9. Evenson, K, Wen, F. National trends in self-reported physical activity and sedentary behaviors among pregnant women: NHANES 1999–2006. Prev Med. 2010; 50, 123–128.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10. DiNallo, JM, Le Masurier, GC, Williams, NI, Downs, DS. Walking for health in pregnancy: assessment by indirect calorimetry and accelerometry. Res Q Exerc Sport. 2008; 79, 28–35.Google ScholarPubMed
11. Forsum, E, Löf, M. Energy metabolism during human pregnancy. Annu Rev Nutr. 2007; 27, 277–292.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12. Ainsworth, BE, Haskell, WL, Whitt, MC, et al. . Compendium of physical activities: an update of activity codes and MET intensities. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2000; 32, S498–S504.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13. Ainsworth, BE, Haskell, WL, Herrmann, SD, et al. . 2011 Compendium of physical activities: a second update of codes and MET values. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2011; 43, 1575–1581.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14. US Department of Health and Human Services. 2008 Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans. Retrieved October 2008 from http://www.health.gov/paguidelines/pdf/paguide.pdf.Google Scholar
15. Chasan-Taber, L, Freedson, PS, Roberts, DE, Schmidt, MD, Fragala, MS. Energy expenditure of selected household activities during pregnancy. Res Q Exerc Sport. 2007; 78, 133–137.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
16. Forsum, E, Löf, M, Schoeller, DA. Calculation of the energy expenditure in women using the MET system. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2006; 38, 1520–1525.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
17. Schmidt, MD, Freedson, PS, Pekow, P, et al. . Validation of the Kaiser physical activity survey in pregnant women. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2006; 38, 42–50.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
18. Chasan-Taber, L, Schmidt, MD, Roberts, DE, et al. . Development and validation of a pregnancy physical activity questionnaire. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2004; 36, 1750–1760.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
19. Harrison, CL, Thompson, RG, Teede, HJ, Lombard, CB. Measuring physical activity during pregnancy. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2011; 8, 19.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
20. Borodulin, KM, Evenson, KR, Wen, F, Herring, AH, Benson, AM. Physical activity patterns during pregnancy. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2008; 40, 1901–1908.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
21. Klein, PD, James, WP, Wong, WW, et al. . Calorimetric validation of the doubly-labeled water method for determination of energy expenditure in man. Hum Nutr Clin Nutr. 1984; 38, 95–106.Google Scholar
22. Ravussin, E, Harper, IT, Rising, R, Bogardus, C. Energy expenditure by doubly labeled water: validation in lean and obese subjects. Am J Physiol. 1991; 261, e402–e409.Google ScholarPubMed
23. Roberts, SB, Dietz, W, Sharp, T, Dallal, GE, Hill, JO. Multiple laboratory comparison of the doubly labeled water technique. Obes Res. 1995; 3 (Suppl 1), 3–13.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
24. American College of Sports Medicine. Appendix D: metabolic calculations. In ACSM's Guidelines for Exercise Testing and Prescription (eds. Whaley MH, Brubaker PH, Otto RM), 7th edn, 2006; pp. 286–288. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
25. Kozey, SL, Lyden, K, Howe, CA, Staudenmayer, JW, Freedson, PS. Accelerometer output and MET values of common physical activities. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2010; 42, 1776–1784.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
26. Zavorsky, GS, Longo, LD. Exercise guidelines in pregnancy: new perspectives. Sports Med. 2011; 41, 345–360.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
27. Cohen, TR, Plourde, H, Koski, KG. Are Canadian women achieving a fit pregnancy? A pilot study. Can J Public Health. 2010; 101, 87–91.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
28. Ridley, K, Ainsworth, BE, Olds, TS. Development of a compendium of energy expenditures for youth. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2008; 5, 45.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
29. Butte, NF, Wong, WW, Treuth, MS, Ellis, KJ, O'Brian Smith, E. Energy requirements during pregnancy based on total energy expenditure and energy deposition. Am J Clin Nutr. 2004; 79, 1078–1087.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
30. Butte, NF, Hopkinson, JM, Mehta, N, Moon, JK, Smith, EO. Adjustments in energy expenditure and substrate utilization during late pregnancy and lactation. Am J Clin Nutr. 1999; 69, 299–307.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
31. Butte, N. Energy requirements during pregnancy and consequences of deviations from requirements on fetal outcome. Nestle Nutr Workshop Ser Pediatr Program. 2005; 55, 49–71.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
32. Prentice, AM, Spaaj, CJ, Goldberg, GR, et al. . Energy requirements of pregnant and lactating women. Eur J Clin Nutr. 1996; 50(Suppl 1), 82–110.Google ScholarPubMed
33. Byrne, NM, Hills, AP, Hunter, GR, Weinsier, RL, Schutz, Y. Metabolic equivalent: one size does not fit all. J Appl Physiol. 2005; 99, 1112–1119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
34. Kozey, S, Lyden, K, Staudenmayer, J, Freedson, P. Errors in MET estimates of physical activities using 3.5 ml × kg(−1) × min(−1) as the baseline oxygen consumption. J Phys Act Health. 2010; 7, 508–516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
35. American College of Sports Medicine. General principles of exercise prescription. In ACSM's Guidelines for Exercise Testing and Prescription (eds. Thompson WR, Gordon NF, Pescatello LS), 8th edn, 2010; pp. 155–158. Wolters Kluwer Lippincott Williams & Winkins, Philadelphia.Google Scholar