ライフサイエンスコーパス: metabolic equivalent

1 t rate, with an exercise capacity of 7 +/- 2 metabolic equivalents.

2 using body weights from national surveys and metabolic equivalents.

3 significantly increased minutes per week of metabolic equivalents (4 studies; standardized mean diff

4 Fitness was also estimated in metabolic equivalents according to treadmill time.

5 justment for potential confounders, 1 higher metabolic equivalent achieved during treadmill testing w

6 olesterol, a 1 unit greater fitness level in metabolic equivalents achieved in midlife was associated

7 stress right ventricular systolic pressure, metabolic equivalents achieved, and heart rate recovery

8 E inhibitors and a greater level of achieved metabolic equivalents among the former (P<0.05 for both)

9 Estimated functional capacity in metabolic equivalents and heart rate recovery, physiolog

10 ar with sildenafil use (mean [SD], 4.5 [1.0] metabolic equivalents) and placebo use (mean [SD], 4.6 [

11 ower peak VO2 (beta = -0.20; p < 0.0001) and metabolic equivalents (beta = -0.21; p < 0.0001), indepe

12 y to traditional variables including age and metabolic equivalents but failed to have diagnostic powe

13 workload (8.4 +/- 2.3 [Ex 8] vs. 8.9 +/- 2.6 metabolic equivalents [Ex 48]) was similar in both exerc

14 ity physical activity, requiring >or=3 METs (metabolic equivalents) for >or=30 minutes almost daily,

15 e Cox analysis, percent of age/sex-predicted metabolic equivalents (hazard ratio, 0.99; 95% confidenc

16 r systolic pressure) and exercise variables (metabolic equivalents, heart rate recovery at 1 minute a

17 ive risk, 0.7 [95% CI, 0.6 to 0.7] for >32.6 metabolic equivalent hours of exercise per week vs. 0 to

18 lent hours of exercise per week vs. 0 to 2.7 metabolic equivalent hours of exercise per week), and ob

19 s of medication use (dependent variable) vs. metabolic equivalent hours per day (METhr/d) of running,

20 total deaths for women expending at least 9 metabolic equivalent hours per week (approximately 2 to

21 Physical activity was categorized by metabolic equivalent hours per week (MET-h/wk).

22 est overall physical activity level (>/=32.3 metabolic equivalent-hours/day vs. <9.7 metabolic equiva

23 and lowest level of physical activity (<12.6 metabolic equivalent-hours/day) had a greater risk of de

24 32.3 metabolic equivalent-hours/day vs. <9.7 metabolic equivalent-hours/day) had lower risks of death

25 Agreement between the diaries and STAR-Q (metabolic equivalent-hours/day) was strongest for occupa

26 occupational, and nonoccupational activity (metabolic equivalent-hours/day) were obtained over 12 mo

27 CI: 0.10, 0.64), and those expending >/=21.1 metabolic equivalent-hours/week experienced a 74% reduct

28 Metabolic equivalent-hours/week of physical activity wer

29 riate linear regression analyses showed that metabolic equivalents-hours in 1994 were significantly a

30 Physical activity was expressed as metabolic equivalents-hours per week.

31 Each 1-metabolic equivalent increase in exercise capacity was a

32 The risk reduction per 1-metabolic equivalent increase ranged from approximately

33 Risk reduction per 1-metabolic equivalent increase, discriminative ability (c

34 Each 1-metabolic equivalent increment in treadmill performance

35 ers, vigorous and nonvigorous levels of EEE (metabolic equivalent levels > or = 6.0 and <6.0, respect

36 iography, lower percent of age/sex-predicted metabolic equivalents, lower heart rate recovery, atrial

37 lents) and placebo use (mean [SD], 4.6 [1.0] metabolic equivalents; mean difference, 0.07; 95% CI, -.

38 ard ratio for cardiovascular death for every metabolic equivalent (MET) decrement in exercise capacit

39 Engaging in 8.75 or more metabolic equivalent (MET) hours per week of recreationa

40 A metabolic equivalent (MET) score was calculated from rep

41 Moderate exercise volumes of 3 to <5 metabolic equivalent (MET)-h and 5 to <7 MET-h per week

42 sical activity were used to calculate weekly metabolic equivalent (MET)-hours of total and vigorous p

43 [CI], 4%-9%; P<.001) for each increase of 3 metabolic equivalent (MET)-hours per week of activity (e

44 regular exercise but who reported 10 or more metabolic equivalent (MET)-hours/day of nonexercise acti

45 time, and total physical activity levels in metabolic equivalent (MET)-hours/day.

46 mone use (-23%), being physically active (21 metabolic equivalent (MET)-hours/week vs. 2 MET-hours/we

47 = 6 hours/day) and physical activity (<24.5 metabolic equivalent (MET)-hours/week) combined were 1.9

48 one of four fitness categories based on peak metabolic equivalents (MET) achieved during exercise tes

49 isure-time physical activity on the basis of metabolic equivalents (MET) for reported activities and

50 age, the peak exercise capacity measured in metabolic equivalents (MET) was the strongest predictor

51 men met physical activity guidelines [>or=10 metabolic equivalents (MET)-h/wk], 19% met fruit/vegetab

52 Exercise capacity was measured in metabolic equivalents (MET).

53 Exercise capacity was measured in metabolic equivalents (MET).

54 meters, > 489 meters) and exercise behavior (metabolic equivalent [MET] -h/wk) adjusted for KPS and o

55 commended at least 150 minutes per week (7.5 metabolic equivalent [MET] hours per week) of moderate-i

56 e the association between exercise exposure (metabolic equivalent [MET] hours/week(-1)) and risk of m

57 ss the quantitative relationship between PA (metabolic equivalent [MET]-min/wk) and HF risk across st

58 Each decline in activity of 10 metabolic equivalent [MET]-times per week was associated

59 Compared with low physical activity (<600 metabolic equivalents [MET] x minutes per week or <150 m

60 oup for energy expenditure (expressed as the metabolic-equivalent [MET] score), women in increasing q

61 ) deaths occurring in patients achieving < 6 metabolic equivalents (METs) (log-rank chi-square 86, p

62 established fitness categories based on peak metabolic equivalents (METs) achieved.

63 Fitness categories were based on peak metabolic equivalents (METs) achieved.

64 gnificantly lower BP, HR, and RPP at 5 and 7 metabolic equivalents (METs) and peak exercise than thos

65 energy expenditure requirements expressed in metabolic equivalents (METs) and summed to yield a total

66 determine the prognostic value of estimated metabolic equivalents (METs) based on self-reported func

67 respiratory fitness was estimated by maximal metabolic equivalents (METs) calculated from treadmill t

68 The mean work load was 7.7 +/- 2.3 metabolic equivalents (METs) for men and 6.5 +/- 1.9 MET

69 We defined the peak metabolic equivalents (METs) level associated with no in

70 ntricular systolic pressure (RVSP), exercise metabolic equivalents (METs), and percentage of age-/sex

71 Fitness, in metabolic equivalents (METs), was estimated from a maxim

72 nt exercise stress testing to determine peak metabolic equivalents (METs).

73 ated physical exercise were quantified using metabolic equivalents (METs).

74 Exercise capacity in metabolic equivalents (METs).

75 mpared these results with self-reported DASI metabolic equivalents (METs).

76 ased on a Veterans Affairs cohort (predicted metabolic equivalents [METs] = 18 - [0.15 x age]) had th

77 1.5 to 11.0), low work load (defined as < 7 metabolic equivalents [METs] for men and < 5 METs for wo

78 en) who had good exercise capacity (> or = 5 metabolic equivalents [METs] for women, > or = 7 METs fo

79 d exercise workload (<7, 7 to 9, or > or =10 metabolic equivalents [METs]) and were compared for exer

80 nsity physical activity (time expending >/=3 metabolic equivalents [METs]) by people with COPD.

81 in those with high exercise capacity (>/=10 metabolic equivalents [METs]) plus a maximal test (>/=85

82 pacity (DASI scores <25, equivalent to <or=7 metabolic equivalents [METs]), and 39% had obstructive C

83 rrhythmia syndromes to moderate activity (<7 metabolic equivalents [METs]).

84 , echocardiographic, and exercise variables (metabolic equivalents [METs], % of age-sex-predicted MET

85 l 10 mg or placebo, followed by ETT (5 to 10 metabolic equivalents [METS], Bruce protocol) 1 h postdo

86 ndependent association of physical activity (metabolic equivalents [METs]/wk), calibrated dietary ene

87 by self-report at baseline and expressed as metabolic equivalent-minutes per week.

88 g even <51 min, <6 miles, 1 to 2 times, <506 metabolic equivalent-minutes, or <6 miles/h was sufficie

89 nnaire-assessed relative energy expenditure (metabolic equivalent-minutes/day) were higher in women (

90 95% CI, 0.75-0.83) for each unit increase in metabolic equivalent of oxygen consumption.

91 hat improving relative aerobic capacity by 1 metabolic equivalent of task (approximately 3.5 mL/kg/mi

92 hours of moderate or vigorous exercise and a metabolic equivalent of task (MET) score were computed.

93 Exercise volumes were multiplied by metabolic equivalent of task (MET) scores to calculate M

94 ount of total physical activity expressed in metabolic equivalent of task (MET)-hours/week.

95 ch, and physical activity into quartiles (in metabolic equivalent of task [MET]-hours per week).

96 lthy Eating Index scores, physical activity (metabolic equivalent of task hours/week), and smoking pa

97 nce interval) of CHD comparing >/=30 with <1 metabolic equivalent of task-hours/wk of physical activi

98 Active women (>/=30 metabolic equivalent of task-hours/wk) with body mass in

99 kg/m(2)) and inactive (physical activity <1 metabolic equivalent of task-hours/wk).

100 ion (535 vs 540 seconds; P = .62), estimated metabolic equivalent of tasks (METs; 11.6 vs 11.7; P = .

101 Younger age, female sex, higher metabolic equivalents of task achieved, and rapid recove

102 s between the volume of habitual exercise in metabolic equivalents of task hours/week and adverse out

103 ) methods based on energy expenditure, METs (metabolic equivalents of task), and oxygen consumption,

104 old or individuals who achieved at least 13 metabolic equivalents on ETT.

105 uspected CAD, an interpretable ECG, and >/=5 metabolic equivalents on the Duke Activity Status Index

106 G exercise test measures, exercise capacity (metabolic equivalents, or METs) and heart rate recovery

107 ons, achieved a lower workload (6.0 and 10.7 metabolic equivalents; P < 0.001), and had a greater lik

108 differences, 0.38; 95% CI, -0.15 to 0.92) or metabolic equivalents per week (3 studies; standardized

109 The PA(+) groups significantly increased the metabolic equivalents per week versus the PA(-) groups (

110 Physical activity was expressed as metabolic equivalents per week.

111 red with patients engaged in less than three metabolic equivalent task (MET) -hours per week of physi

112 6, 18, and 36 months after diagnosis, and a metabolic equivalent task (MET) score in hours per week

113 Risk of type 2 diabetes by quintile of metabolic equivalent task (MET) score, based on time spe

114 mpared with women who engaged in less than 3 metabolic equivalent task [MET] -hours per week of physi

115 leisure-time recreational physical activity (metabolic equivalent task [MET]-h/wk).

116 Physical activity was calculated as metabolic equivalent task hours per day (MET-h/d) spent

117 ear survival: 0.97 for >/=18 vs 0.89 for <18 metabolic equivalent task hours/week), while postdiagnos

118 D risk was highest in inactive women (</=1.7 metabolic equivalent task-h/week) who also reported >/=1

119 A meta-analysis estimated that each 15 metabolic equivalent task-hour per week increase in phys

120 , estrone sulfate levels in quintiles 1-5 of metabolic equivalent task-hours were 197, 209, 222, 214,

121 tervals [CIs]) corresponding to quintiles of metabolic equivalent tasks (METs) for total physical act

122 o 100), and exercise capacity was defined as metabolic equivalent tasks achieved at peak exercise.

123 of vegetables-fruits, and accumulating 540+ metabolic equivalent tasks-min/wk (equivalent to walking

124 quintiles of energy expenditure measured in metabolic equivalents (the MET score) had age-adjusted r

125 lude a nomogram to convert estimated maximal metabolic equivalents to actual peak V(O2) for patients

126 -therapy group (exercise tolerance, 5.0 MET [metabolic equivalent] vs. 3.9 MET; P=0.05); quality-of-l

127 Peak metabolic equivalents were the most significant predicto