METS aren't just a baseball team -

To be honest, my post about metabolic equivalents or METs should wait until tomorrow.  I had what I wanted to say in my mind last night, but when I went to write early this evening, I had to reread the article and do some math in order to fully understand what I wanted to tell you.
The information comes from the current issue of the ACSM's Certified News.  The article is written for professionals with the objective of having them educate their clients.  Hence, it is important and I do want to share the information.
For now, let me just say that an MET is a simpler way to consider caloric expenditure as it relates to VO2 max.  The more oxygen our body demands the more calories we burn. 
METS are assigned to certain activities and the higher they are the more vigorous the activity and the more calories you will burn.  However, you could choose a low MET activity like golf and do it for an hour and burn the same as an activity with double the METS that you do for half an hour. 
(I was actually going to delay this post - but it looks like I am half way there - so let me go on)

Exercise recommendations can be found at this CDC website.  Vigorous activity is considered to be > 6 METs. 
Some METs are as follows:  extremely slow walking (46 minutes per one mile) = 2, walking 15 minute miles (i.e. 4 miles in one hour) = 4, jogging at 11.5 minute miles = 9 and full out running =14.  My 10 minute miles are about 10 MET.  Golf is 3.75 and bicycling can be anywhere from 4 to 16.  Here are two charts that can help you to know the MET of many activities.  The first one will allow you to search the document by entering an activity in the box on top - it saves time.  You will need to know the MET to plug it into the formula that I will be providing.

Now we are all different so try not to base your intake on programs that say if you do a certain activity (say dancing) for an hour you will burn x amount of calories.  Most of those equations are based on 150 pound persons and do not include the exertion level.  Even the formula that I will give you cannot be taken as "fact" because there are many variables or circumstances that can impact an individuals' burn.

The second thing you need to know is how much you weigh - in kilograms.  So go weigh yourself..... if its in pounds, divide by 2.2.
Okay - find your activity and think about how much time you did spend or will spend doing it - such that your MET is the number in the chart multiplied by duration.  If it is an MET of 8 and you are doing the activity for 20 minutes, the MET for the formula is 160.

MET*3.5*WT/200 = ~ calories burned

Let us do my run from yesterday  - it lasted 64 minutes and my pace was just over 10 minutes (10:03) Looking at this chart , my MET is 10:
10 * 64 = 640
640*3.5*43/200= 481.6 calories burned on that run.  [my garmin GPS watch calculated 489 and a web based calculator figured 430.]  The formula I have provided here is from the ACSM document and thus, I trust it most.
Now if the person who did that run weight 150 pounds or 68kg, the outcome would be 761 calories.

Remember all of this because my next post may be about the difference in calories burned and calories consumed - i.e. how much food is 481 calories?  Remember also that you burn calories all day and night - and there really isnt' a way to be 100 percent sure of your day to day caloric needs.

wellness weekly

METS: Okay, I said that I would tell you about METS this week and so now I have to do it. This means I have to finish reading the section on them. Geez. What I am about to share with you is my interpretation from the Physical Activity Guidelines. A MET is the metabolic equivalent of energy expenditure used to describe exercise. If you are not doing any activity then your MET is one and anything above one can be catalogued and counted towards your better health. Scientists determine the MET of each exercise, though one activity will have different METS based on how you do it. For example a slow pace in walking might have 2 MET while a brisk walk could have 4. Running will obviously be higher in METS. However long you do that activity, for example 30 minutes, times the MET level will equal your MET minutes. A thirty minute activity that equals 4 MET will be worth 120 MET minutes. The people who worked on the guidelines offer us a number of MET minutes for which we will improve health. And it comes with a range. There is no upper limit. They do suggest at least 500 MET a week to improve health, but more than that is necessary to lower disease risk for breast cancer. Remember too, that you can do an 8 MET activity for half the time you do a 4 MET activity and still have the same MET total. Some examples offered in the guidelines include a ten minute mile pace for runners being equal to 10 MET and a twenty minute walking mile (three miles per hour) as being a 3.3 MET. IF you do fifteen minute walking miles your MET would be higher. A cyclist would need to be able to do a 6 minute mile to be considered vigorous. These are all the low end of vigorous BTW. It seems that 1000 MET is a good goal. (PS your exertion and your fitness levels change, for instance my running is more often moderate than vigorous)

Forty is NOT the end: I found it surprising that an article would say that it is difficult to find world class athletes over the age of 40. Surely the author is aware of the 2008 Summer Olympics. The article regarding some research about the body and brain’s decline in motor control that begins, perhaps, at the age of forty, explains. A healthy brain or central nervous system is one that sends and receives messages very quickly. One way to test this is to count how many times an average person can tap their finger in ten seconds. I ALWAYS wondered why doctors tell people to tap their finger really fast! Anyway, the brain circuitry (nerve fibers) works best when in is coated in myelin. The researchers in this study found that the slower tappers had broken down or frayed myelin in the finger tapping area of their brain. We do have a system that can repair myelin and the more physically and mentally active we are and remain, the healthier our brains will be. This is assisted also by preventing disease processes associated with sedentary lifestyles and malnutrition.

C Reactive Protein: When an article came out in the WSJ this week on the same topic we discussed last week, it had exactly the opposite conclusion. CRP is a very important heart disease indicator and should be addressed with medicine. I am sticking with the news from the week before however, that the inflammation level is a marker and the problem is a disease process that yes may be medically treated but more importantly lifestyle prevented.

President’s Cancer Panel: I don’t know about you, but I was not aware that we had such a council. We do and they came out with a report recently that urges government to get on board with more funding and diligence. The council is afraid that the message is getting damped down when “every day 4000 people in the US are diagnosed with some form of cancer.” WOW. I read about this in a Washington Post article where I was also surprised to learn that 40 % of us will develop some form of cancer in our lifetimes. That is a very high number. In the article, which calls for direct White House action, Dr. M Kripke of the Anderson Cancer Center in Texas reminds us that many types of cancer can be prevented and she states that tobacco causes at least 15 types, accounts for at least 30% of all cancer death and 87% of lung cancer deaths.


Migraines: Ever have a migraine? I have had two for certain and I think a few sub migraines.. I say sub because now that I know what they feel like I would never minimize that suffering. I cannot imagine what life would be life to have one every day. In fact, I believe that true chronic pain can destroy a person’s soul. I was interested then in reading an article whose headline promised to ease migraines. This is what I learned. (nothing. I haven’t read it yet! I actually read this stuff while writing the blog more often than not as life has gotten busy!) There is a medication that helps with migraines now but it has to be used with caution in persons with high blood pressure, high cholesterol and blood flow diseases. A new medication, made by Merck, may be able to treat migraines without constricting blood vessels. I hate that it is medicine again and I hate that it is from the makers of Vioxx because I still have fears about having used that medicine. Still, I was happy to see at the end of the USA Today story that a neurologist recommended that one pay attention to lifestyle factors, including sleep, nutrition and exercise. AMEN. I do myself have more headaches when I am unable to run.

Vytorin: Another drug associated with Merck. As you may recall, I have been against this cholesterol lowering medication combo from the very beginning. The latest news comes rather full circle and addresses my initial point to a degree. The Vytorin had the commercials about having Aunt Martha’s genes and eating Aunt Sally’s pie or some such nonsense. The commercial could easily mislead a person into thinking that taking the medication would obviate the need for healthy eating. This in my most professional opinion is bullshit. Merck and Schering-Plough also claimed that this medication worked better than older generics, which research has proved untrue. There are investigations and inquiries in place on both issues currently.

Goals: Make them achievable and it will build self efficacy and self esteem. I have really been struggling with my running and was feeling pretty down on myself because I couldn’t meet the mileage goals in the training plan I had devised. I revised it and you know what, it feels better to come in and check off the four or six mile run than having to put an X on the ten mile one…………



Happy weekend. I think I will get up and make some spaghetti sauce now. I love to smell it simmering on the stove. I use diced up onions (and maybe green pepper and mushroom) and garlic, simmered/sautéed in a splash of wine, then I add chopped tomatoes and basil, oregano and a bay leaf. I let it cook for a half hour or so. When it is all done I remove the bay leaf and stir in one packet of sweetener.

Ahhhh…………

Cancer Mortality - reduction

Today I reviewed a study that in some ways can be considered a gold standard. The positives of the study include that the sample size was large, over 3000 persons; the study was long, 16 years; and it followed people over time forward before disease occurred. A less respected way to study disease cause is to look back at people's exposures after the illness is identified, or retrospectively. This study is far from perfect. It only involves one geographical area and one gender, which some may say prevents generalizing the results to other people. I feel that the results will likely be repeated in other populations. The study also relies on self report from the participants though there were trained assistants conducting interviews. These are not, however, clinical measures. The study is thus a cross between an experimental control study and an epidemiological study. The results should however, turn your head.

In regards to cancer mortality, (not getting cancer, but dieing from it) the intensity as well as the duration of physical activity is protective. Other variables related to cancer outcomes were isolated, or taken out of the equation so that the data ONLY looked at the effect of this variable - exercise. The other factors, so you know that they are an issue, are weight, alcohol consumption and smoking status. The intensity of the exercise was measured in MET. This was mentioned in a recent blog and stands for the metabolic equivalent of oxygen consumption. The researchers identified several forms of exercise and then determined what level of MET to apply to them. This is a good follow up to the previous blog because the exercises that they found protective had METs over four and included, jogging at a 10, swimming and rowing at about 5.5 and cycling at 5.1. I am surprised that swimming was that high, but we do it for less time usually. Skiing and playing ball games was at about 9. Walking came in at a 4.2 but that may have been leisure or work related walking.

Bottom line was a significant reduction in deaths from cancer in those men who had consistently exercised 30 minutes a day at a moderate intensity. The activities listed above. In fact, the lead researcher was quoted,
"We found a 50% reduction in the risk of dying prematurely from cancer," Dr. Kurl pointed out. Exercise also improves well being and confidence, and leads to better sleep and weight control, he added. He also told the interviewer that he jogged three times a week and did weight training at the gym twice a week.

so now you know. Exercise: the more you do the more you get...

Odds and Ends

I certainly do not have 3 days worth of O&E this week - just 4 blurbs (finals are approaching and I have been writing papers for days).

Cashing in on Diabetes - I read an article in which a stock analyst recommended that people consider investing in companies that will be treating diabetes.  In the article, it was noted that countries outside of the USA may not be in as much health care debt and will be spending money to treat this epidemic rise of diabetes (related to obesity) in their populations.  In other words, the rates of diabetes are going up everywhere, and in emerging markets the governments haven't had to try and get a grip on spending, so there is a profit to be made.  Scandalous.

Swinburn Speaks - I always listen.  He is my hero. He gave his thoughts in regards to the goal of dietary interventions, programs and policies. Dr. Swinburn said that a change in behavior, not a change in weight, should be the focus.  Especially, he said, in regards to youth.   I strongly agree.  The behavior change I would like to encourage is choosing foods that are lower in calories and higher in nutrients.  If a person fills their plate with items that are low in energy density, a healthy weight should follow.

Robots for Our Own Good - Ford Motor Co is using robots in its plants to do things that human cannot do well, cannot do safely, or cannot do efficiently.  The use of robots will also reduce environmental pollution.  This is a plus side of automation.  I understand there is a downside.

Calorie Burn & Intensity - I just realized that I had a bit of data that could be used for an example - a teaching moment if you will.  It regards the intensity and duration of exercise within the same subject and the caloric expenditure difference between levels.  I.e. this controls for height and  weight because it is the same person - me.  
'We' know that running burns more calories than walking because it is of higher intensity, higher METs.  We think that if we walk twice as long as we run, the caloric expenditure will be the same (or close).  My little experiment is that I ran three miles and then I walked three miles - same route, day, and body!  (I went to meet my Saturday walking buddy, but I got there early and did this short run first. I kept my Garmin device on for both).  
Calorie monitoring devices are prone to inaccuracies so the amount that it says I burned for each activity is a broad estimate. The difference between the two amounts is the point of this post.  So the 30 minute 3+ mile run burned 238 calories and the 1 hour 3- mile walk burned 159 calories.  Not the same no matter how you look at it and I walked twice as long as I ran.

Burning Less and Consuming More

That is really the bottom line from the research that came out this week and several studies published last year. With regard to work time physical activity, the study by Church indicates that in the last 50 years, the work force (gender) and the type of work has changed significantly. There are more persons doing service providing work and fewer doing goods-producing work. In this case, the amount of physical effort expended on the job has changed (not including technical changes that make work easier). The researchers used METs to describe the work activity as either sedentary, light or moderate. You may remember the metabolic equivalent charts and formulas from this post. The jobs that were considered to be of the moderate MET were mining and logging, construction and manufacturing. The scientists considered moderate to be an MET of 3 to 5.9 and sedentary was an MET of less than two. Recall that a moderately paced walk of 4 miles an hour - or one mile in 15 minutes, is an MET of 4.

Reviewing data from the US over the past 5 decades, Church et. al, determined that there are more women employees now than in 1960 and on average, all workers are expending about 100 calories less in work time activity. They state that this change can explain a lot of the obesity epidemic. I disagree with how they are stating it, as if calories in are not driving the weight gain, but not with the bottom line. We are burning less calories, but we are consuming far more (mathematically). Other studies, namely Swinburn(2009), Westerterp(2009) and Prentice(2004) note that as we become more sedentary we do not moderate the difference by eating less. Prentice explained the issue of failing satiation signals, and Swinburn notes that the average intake is up 500 calories. That is where I put most of my faith. Even if work time physical activity has declined and leisure time physical activity has not increased, likely declining instead, not only are we NOT eating 100 to 200 calories less - so that we would have the right balance, we are eating even twice that MORE. The excess has a lot to do with how food is prepared and our ignorance of the amount of fat, sugar and calories in the portion of any food we are consuming.
But let us say that all things WERE equal. If a person who weighs 150 pounds lost the expenditure of 100 calories, they would need to take a brisk 15 minute per mile walk for about 30 minutes a day. Clearly, the majority of US adults do not do so. In fact, Church notes a study that has indicates only 1 in 20 US adults meet that requirement on five days a week. Instead, as Swinburn et al suggests, if we take away a sugar sweetened beverage 200 calories can be deleted.

BTW, I did make my FDA comments on the labeling initiative today and I have an appointment with my campus vending contract supervisor on Thursday :) I am still preparing.

Church, T. S., Thomas, D. M., Tudor-Locke, C., Katzmarzyk, P. T., Earnest, C. P., Rodarte, R. Q., . . . Bouchard, C. (2011). Trends over 5 Decades in U.S. Occupation-Related Physical Activity and Their Associations with Obesity. PLoS ONE, 6(5), e19657.

Prentice, A., & Jebb, S. (2004). Energy intake/physical activity interactions in the homeostasis of body weight regulation. Nutrition Reviews, 62(7 part 2), S98-104.

Swinburn, B., Sacks, G., & Ravussin, E. (2009). Increased food energy supply is more than sufficient to explain the US epidemic of obesity. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 90(6), 1453-1456. doi: 10.3945/ajcn.2009.28595

Westerterp, K. R., & Plasqui, G. (2009). Physically Active Lifestyle Does Not Decrease the Risk of Fattening. PLoS ONE, 4(3), e4745

vigorous physical activity

Hello, the travel today was not fun and I am cranky... drove over to the market and bought myself a healthy salad and vegetarian lunch meat... was good. NOW I think I can focus a bit.

I was mentioning to my brother n law the other day the importance of including not just physical activity, but vigorous physical activity, into his routine. It is the higher intensity that improves our overall fitness but also more stronger effects our cholesterol levels, in fact, exercise intensity directly impacts HDL levels.

It is recommended that adults participate in 20 minutes of vigorous physical activity several days a week. [or moderate intensity two and a half hours a week.]
So just what IS vigorous?
It gets a little complicated if you consider it in METs or metabolic equivalents.. but being still is equal to one and vigorous activity is six or more. If you think of perceived exertion is it about a seven on a scale of ten.. for the 20 minutes.

Now what is moderate for a 20 year old may be vigorous for a 70 year old, so some subjectivity is involved.

Here are just a few examples that the CDC and the ACSM consider high intensity or vigorous.


walking very fast... five miles per hour..
(it usually takes me 17 minutes to walk a mile which is low to moderate activity!)

running - no MPH given but 12 or less minutes per mile is usually considered "running"

bicycling at least ten miles per hour...
(I can do 12 in around 63 minutes on my no gear bike! and believe me, cyclists fly by me on the road so that I am almost embarrassed. I actually want to yell out, "I am just an injured runner, not a cyclist!")

mountain climbing and hiking

roller blading

aerobics, step, dance, floor - high intensity

jumping jacks

jumping rope

and YES TOM... rowing machine (at vigorous effort)

boxing

ballroom dancing

competitive sports (tennis, soccer, football, basketball, etc)

steady paced lap swimming

canoeing etc, at more than 4 mph

well, that ought to get you started...

Tomorrow I will be in conference so I should learn something new to share!