Kids are not little adults: what MET threshold captures sedentary behavior in children?

Pedro F. Saint-Maurice, Youngwon Kim, Gregory J. Welk, Glenn Gaesser

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

27 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Purpose: The study compares MET-defined cutpoints used to classify sedentary behaviors in children using a simulated free-living design. Methods: A sample of 102 children (54 boys and 48 girls; 7–13 years) completed a set of 12 activities (randomly selected from a pool of 24 activities) in a random order. Activities were predetermined and ranged from sedentary to vigorous intensities. Participant’s energy expenditure was measured using a portable indirect calorimetry system, Oxycon mobile. Measured minute-by-minute VO2 values (i.e., ml/kg/min) were converted to an adult- or child-MET value using the standard 3.5 ml/kg/min or the estimated child resting metabolic rate, respectively. Classification agreement was examined for both the “standard” (1.5 adult-METs) and an “adjusted” (2.0 adult-METs) MET-derived threshold for classifying sedentary behavior. Alternatively, we also tested the classification accuracy of a 1.5 child-MET threshold. Classification accuracy of sedentary activities was evaluated relative to the predetermined intensity categorization using receiver operator characteristic curves. Results: There were clear improvements in the classification accuracy for sedentary activities when a threshold of 2.0 adult-METs was used instead of 1.5 METs (Se1.5 METs = 4.7 %, Sp1.5 METs = 100.0 %; Se2.0 METs = 36.9 %, Sp2.0 METs = 100.0 %). The use of child-METs while maintaining the 1.5 threshold also resulted in improvements in classification (Se = 45.1 %, Sp = 100.0 %). Conclusion: Adult-MET thresholds are not appropriate for children when classifying sedentary activities. Classification accuracy for identifying sedentary activities was improved when either an adult-MET of 2.0 or a child-MET of 1.5 was used.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)29-38
Number of pages10
JournalEuropean Journal of Applied Physiology
Volume116
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2016

Fingerprint

Child Behavior
Basal Metabolism
Indirect Calorimetry
Energy Metabolism

Keywords

  • Measurement
  • Public health
  • Resting energy expenditure
  • Youth

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health
  • Orthopedics and Sports Medicine
  • Physiology (medical)

Cite this

Kids are not little adults : what MET threshold captures sedentary behavior in children? / Saint-Maurice, Pedro F.; Kim, Youngwon; Welk, Gregory J.; Gaesser, Glenn.

In: European Journal of Applied Physiology, Vol. 116, No. 1, 01.01.2016, p. 29-38.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Saint-Maurice, Pedro F. ; Kim, Youngwon ; Welk, Gregory J. ; Gaesser, Glenn. / Kids are not little adults : what MET threshold captures sedentary behavior in children?. In: European Journal of Applied Physiology. 2016 ; Vol. 116, No. 1. pp. 29-38.
@article{0bd3988abacd4eca8ef5c8db45e23cc6,
title = "Kids are not little adults: what MET threshold captures sedentary behavior in children?",
abstract = "Purpose: The study compares MET-defined cutpoints used to classify sedentary behaviors in children using a simulated free-living design. Methods: A sample of 102 children (54 boys and 48 girls; 7–13 years) completed a set of 12 activities (randomly selected from a pool of 24 activities) in a random order. Activities were predetermined and ranged from sedentary to vigorous intensities. Participant’s energy expenditure was measured using a portable indirect calorimetry system, Oxycon mobile. Measured minute-by-minute VO2 values (i.e., ml/kg/min) were converted to an adult- or child-MET value using the standard 3.5 ml/kg/min or the estimated child resting metabolic rate, respectively. Classification agreement was examined for both the “standard” (1.5 adult-METs) and an “adjusted” (2.0 adult-METs) MET-derived threshold for classifying sedentary behavior. Alternatively, we also tested the classification accuracy of a 1.5 child-MET threshold. Classification accuracy of sedentary activities was evaluated relative to the predetermined intensity categorization using receiver operator characteristic curves. Results: There were clear improvements in the classification accuracy for sedentary activities when a threshold of 2.0 adult-METs was used instead of 1.5 METs (Se1.5 METs = 4.7 {\%}, Sp1.5 METs = 100.0 {\%}; Se2.0 METs = 36.9 {\%}, Sp2.0 METs = 100.0 {\%}). The use of child-METs while maintaining the 1.5 threshold also resulted in improvements in classification (Se = 45.1 {\%}, Sp = 100.0 {\%}). Conclusion: Adult-MET thresholds are not appropriate for children when classifying sedentary activities. Classification accuracy for identifying sedentary activities was improved when either an adult-MET of 2.0 or a child-MET of 1.5 was used.",
keywords = "Measurement, Public health, Resting energy expenditure, Youth",
author = "Saint-Maurice, {Pedro F.} and Youngwon Kim and Welk, {Gregory J.} and Glenn Gaesser",
year = "2016",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1007/s00421-015-3238-1",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "116",
pages = "29--38",
journal = "European Journal of Applied Physiology",
issn = "1439-6319",
publisher = "Springer Verlag",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Kids are not little adults

T2 - what MET threshold captures sedentary behavior in children?

AU - Saint-Maurice, Pedro F.

AU - Kim, Youngwon

AU - Welk, Gregory J.

AU - Gaesser, Glenn

PY - 2016/1/1

Y1 - 2016/1/1

N2 - Purpose: The study compares MET-defined cutpoints used to classify sedentary behaviors in children using a simulated free-living design. Methods: A sample of 102 children (54 boys and 48 girls; 7–13 years) completed a set of 12 activities (randomly selected from a pool of 24 activities) in a random order. Activities were predetermined and ranged from sedentary to vigorous intensities. Participant’s energy expenditure was measured using a portable indirect calorimetry system, Oxycon mobile. Measured minute-by-minute VO2 values (i.e., ml/kg/min) were converted to an adult- or child-MET value using the standard 3.5 ml/kg/min or the estimated child resting metabolic rate, respectively. Classification agreement was examined for both the “standard” (1.5 adult-METs) and an “adjusted” (2.0 adult-METs) MET-derived threshold for classifying sedentary behavior. Alternatively, we also tested the classification accuracy of a 1.5 child-MET threshold. Classification accuracy of sedentary activities was evaluated relative to the predetermined intensity categorization using receiver operator characteristic curves. Results: There were clear improvements in the classification accuracy for sedentary activities when a threshold of 2.0 adult-METs was used instead of 1.5 METs (Se1.5 METs = 4.7 %, Sp1.5 METs = 100.0 %; Se2.0 METs = 36.9 %, Sp2.0 METs = 100.0 %). The use of child-METs while maintaining the 1.5 threshold also resulted in improvements in classification (Se = 45.1 %, Sp = 100.0 %). Conclusion: Adult-MET thresholds are not appropriate for children when classifying sedentary activities. Classification accuracy for identifying sedentary activities was improved when either an adult-MET of 2.0 or a child-MET of 1.5 was used.

AB - Purpose: The study compares MET-defined cutpoints used to classify sedentary behaviors in children using a simulated free-living design. Methods: A sample of 102 children (54 boys and 48 girls; 7–13 years) completed a set of 12 activities (randomly selected from a pool of 24 activities) in a random order. Activities were predetermined and ranged from sedentary to vigorous intensities. Participant’s energy expenditure was measured using a portable indirect calorimetry system, Oxycon mobile. Measured minute-by-minute VO2 values (i.e., ml/kg/min) were converted to an adult- or child-MET value using the standard 3.5 ml/kg/min or the estimated child resting metabolic rate, respectively. Classification agreement was examined for both the “standard” (1.5 adult-METs) and an “adjusted” (2.0 adult-METs) MET-derived threshold for classifying sedentary behavior. Alternatively, we also tested the classification accuracy of a 1.5 child-MET threshold. Classification accuracy of sedentary activities was evaluated relative to the predetermined intensity categorization using receiver operator characteristic curves. Results: There were clear improvements in the classification accuracy for sedentary activities when a threshold of 2.0 adult-METs was used instead of 1.5 METs (Se1.5 METs = 4.7 %, Sp1.5 METs = 100.0 %; Se2.0 METs = 36.9 %, Sp2.0 METs = 100.0 %). The use of child-METs while maintaining the 1.5 threshold also resulted in improvements in classification (Se = 45.1 %, Sp = 100.0 %). Conclusion: Adult-MET thresholds are not appropriate for children when classifying sedentary activities. Classification accuracy for identifying sedentary activities was improved when either an adult-MET of 2.0 or a child-MET of 1.5 was used.

KW - Measurement

KW - Public health

KW - Resting energy expenditure

KW - Youth

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84952984949&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84952984949&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/s00421-015-3238-1

DO - 10.1007/s00421-015-3238-1

M3 - Article

C2 - 26271677

AN - SCOPUS:84952984949

VL - 116

SP - 29

EP - 38

JO - European Journal of Applied Physiology

JF - European Journal of Applied Physiology

SN - 1439-6319

IS - 1

ER -