Abstract
The purpose of this paper is to 1) provide an overview of the science of physical activity-related energy expenditure in older adults (65+ years); 2) offer suggestions for future research and guidelines for how scientists should be reporting their results in this area; and 3) present strategies for making this data more accessible to the lay person. This paper is meant to serve as a preliminary blueprint for future empirical work in the area of energy expenditure in older adults as well as translational efforts to make this data useful and accurate for older adults. This document is based upon deliberations of experts involved in the Strategic Health Initiative on Aging (SHI-A) Committee of the American College of Sports Medicine (ACSM). The paper is designed to reach a broad audience who might not be familiar with the complexities of assessing energy expenditure, especially in older adults.
Keywords: Physical activity, RMR, oxygen uptake, translation, kilocalories, MET
Introduction
Paragraph Number 1 Public health initiatives to reduce obesity and prevent chronic disease via lifestyle interventions have led government health agencies to ask for more detailed information on activity-related energy expenditure (e.g., VO2, METs). Health professionals, practitioners, and the public are calling for accurate estimates of physical activity-related caloric expenditure to help guide lifestyle interventions that promote maintenance of a healthy weight and strive to prevent or lessen the burden of chronic diseases. Numerous activity calculators are now publicly available to assist individuals with estimating and tracking calories expended with activity. The vast majority of these calculators estimate caloric expenditure using information provided in The Compendium of Physical Activities (1-3).
Paragraph Number 2 A question that arises is whether the same estimates are appropriate for use in all adults, or whether estimates should be adjusted for factors known to influence physical activity energy expenditure (e.g., age, sex, body mass). In this paper we provide an overview of the science of physical activity-related energy expenditure, with a focus on older adults (65+ years). As a result of this review we identified areas for future research and offer guidelines for how scientists should be reporting their results in this area. Finally, we present strategies for translating these empirical data in a way that is more accessible and useful to older adults and health professionals. We focus on the technical aspects of providing data on activity-related energy expenditure in older adults. The recommendations are based upon deliberations of experts involved in the Strategic Health Initiative on Aging (SHI-A) Committee of the American College of Sports Medicine (ACSM). The paper is designed to reach a broad audience who might not be familiar with the complexities of assessing energy expenditure.
A Review of the Science of Energy Expenditure in Older Adults
Paragraph Number 3 There are two issues related to estimating energy expenditure in older vs. younger adults: absolute energy cost (e.g., VO2, ml/kg/min) and MET values. We provide a brief review of the current state of the science for each of these outcomes relative to older adults.
Absolute Energy Cost of Physical Activity in Older Adults
Paragraph Number 4 Few studies have assessed activity-related energy expenditure (e.g., VO2) in older adults (6,9,12,14,17,19). Although scarce, comparative studies show that the energetic cost (i.e., ml/kg/min) of walking and daily activities is higher in older adults compared to younger adults when both are examined at the same time under similar conditions (7,8,14-16). For example, a study by Jones and colleagues (8) reported that when walking speed is held constant, the energetic cost of walking is higher in older women than younger women. Additional evidence is provided by studies comparing measured energy expenditure in older adults with values reported in the Compendium, reporting sizeable differences in the estimated energy costs and higher energy costs in older adults (6,9,10).
Paragraph Number 5 Several limitations of the current literature emerged upon review. First, of the few studies that have examined the energy cost of activity in younger and older adults, many have focused on laboratory-based walking, with few studies examining activities of daily living and/or physical activities in the free living environment. This literature is further limited by a failure to fully report VO2 data in publications. The majority of studies examining energy expenditure across age groups do not fully report energy expenditure data for each age group separately, relying instead on graphical representations of the data or aggregated result tables, and as such are of limited use to the scientific community. A failure to fully report the demographic, biometric, and energy cost data in activity-related energy expenditure studies that compare values across groups (e.g., age, sex, obesity status) is an important and pervasive limitation of the published research. To date, the combined effect of common demographic, biometric, and functional characteristics on energy expenditure in older adult samples has received little attention._The lack of such studies limits the ability of practitioners, fitness trainers, and health promotion professionals to accurately estimate energy cost of activities in older adults.
Resting Metabolic Rate and Metabolic Cost of Activities in Older Adults
Paragraph Number 6 Energy demands of various physical activities have also been represented by multiples of a MET, that is, made relative to resting metabolic rate (RMR). The conventional definition of 1 MET = 3.5 ml/kg/min has long been the standard adopted by the scientific community. The prevailing practice of both the Compendium and empirical studies of energy expenditure has been to transform VO2 (ml/kg/min) values into METs by dividing the VO2 cost by RMR. However, several studies have shown that RMR decreases with age (4,5,11,12,17). In studies that have measured RMR directly in older adults, the value approximates 2.7-2.8 ml/kg/min (5,11,12,17); this is ~25% less than the 1 MET = 3.5 ml/kg/min assumed baseline for all adults. A recent meta-analysis of hundreds of study estimates of RMR highlights other limitations with this conventional definition, reporting that RMR is highly variable in adults, and is influenced by age, sex, and body mass (13).
Paragraph Number 7 Ainsworth et al. (1-3) clearly state in multiple publications that the “Compendium was not developed to determine the precise energy cost of physical activity within individuals...does not account for differences in body mass, adiposity, age, sex...and individual differences in energy expenditure for the same activity can be large.” Despite this word of caution, applying a standard MET value to all individuals continues to be common practice in the field. This practice is unlikely to change until comprehensive comparative studies of RMR are conducted in groups of men and women by age and other defining characteristics (e.g., body mass, functional status, sex, disease status). As such, existent studies that utilize this conventional definition of a MET to estimate the metabolic cost of activities in older adults may be of questionable accuracy.
Recommendations for Advancing the Scientific Basis Activity-Related Energy Expenditure
Paragraph Number 8 The following are recommendations for advancing the field of energy expenditure in older adults:
1) Include sufficient numbers of older adults (65+ years) in research studies which assess energy expenditure across a variety of activities, so as to allow comparison between young (20-39 yr), middle-aged (40-64 yr), and older adults.
2) In studies comparing energy expenditure across age groups, evaluate potential age-related differences in metabolic costs under standard conditions (i.e., same metabolic equipment, tasks, and speeds of movement).
3) In studies comparing energy expenditure across groups, report complete demographic, biometric, and energy expenditure data (e.g., RMR, METs, VO2) for each group separately. These data would be most clearly represented in table format, and supported by graphs/figures. This requires diligence on the part of journal editors, peer reviewers, and authors to ensure that the data is fully reported in the text of the report.
4) Some harmonization of measures across studies will be helpful towards gathering information on energy costs for a wide variety of activities in older adults (both healthy and those with specific diseases/combinations of diseases).
5) In studies of energy expenditure in older adults, measure activities that are common among older adults, are listed in the Compendium, and offer a spectrum of activity intensities.
6) There is a need for population-based studies that explore the singular and combined effects of common demographic (age and gender), obesity status (BMI, fat free mass), and health status (functional impairment, disease status) characteristics on RMR and VO2, and the impact these factors have on estimates for energy expenditure.
7) Population-based studies that examine both laboratory-based and free-living activities are needed and are now feasible with the availability of portable metabolic systems.
8) Studies that assess some estimate of maximal oxygen consumption in order to estimate the relative intensity of common activities are particularly important in older adults.
The Need for Translational Research in the Area of Activity-Related Energy Expenditure
Paragraph Number 9 As the number and quality of comparative studies of activity-related energy expenditure grow, increased effort must be made to translate these data so that they are accessible and interpretable to health professionals and the lay public. Recognizing that many public health efforts utilize principles of energy balance to promote a healthy lifestyle, we propose that energy expenditure data be reported in the units of kilocalorie.
Paragraph Number 10 Using data from the two published studies that fully report measured energy expenditure data (i.e., ml/kg/min) in older adult samples (6,9), we constructed tables of caloric expenditure in older adults. These tables are presented as examples of how empirical results can be translated and presented for the public. The data from these two studies have been combined for this report. Sample characteristics can be found in the parent papers, but are summarized here in Table 1. Participants in these two studies ranged in age from 61-90 years, with an average age of 75.6 years across both samples with equal representation across genders (46% female). Both studies included adults with a range of mobility (average rapid gait speed = 1.3 m/s) and functional profiles and who presented with varying levels of comorbidity (0-5 chronic conditions). Body mass index (BMI) averaged across the two samples was 27.9 kg/m2 (Range: 18.4-36.1). The information provided here originates from a heterogeneous sample, with similar characteristics of community-dwelling older adults living in the United States.
Table 1.
Sample Characteristics
| Variable (N=65) | M±SD or % | Range |
|---|---|---|
| Age (years) | 75.6±7.0 | 61-90 |
| Gender (male), n(%) | 35(53.8%) | N/A |
| Race (white), n(%) | 57(87.7%) | N/A |
| Weight (kg) | 80.2±15.1 | 47.6-125.5 |
| BMI (kg/m2) | 27.9±3.8 | 18.4-36.1 |
| Rapid Gait Speed (m/s) | 1.3±0.2 | 0.43-1.88 |
| Number of Chronic Conditions | 1.8±1.1 | 0-5 |
Paragraph Number 11
Caloric Expenditure: Measured vs Estimated
Table 2 presents the measured caloric cost of treadmill walking and a variety of daily activities in older adults and compares these values with the estimates from an on-line calculator that utilizes the MET values reported in the Compendium. These calculations were based on an 80 kg adult (same body mass as the study sample average) and 30 minutes of activity. The final column shows the differences in caloric expenditure between measured and estimated collection methods.
Table 2.
Caloric Cost of Daily Activities in Older Adults: Measured vs Estimated
| Activity | N | Measured Calories Burned per Minute Mean ± SEE | Measured Calories Burned per 30 Minutes Mean ± SEE | Estimated Calories Burned per 30 Minutes‡ | Mean Difference§ |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Treadmill walking† | |||||
| 1.5 mph | 20 | 4.1 ± 0.3 Range: 2.5-7.5 |
124.1±8.3 | Not Available | --- |
| 2.0 mph | 20 | 4.8 ± 0.3 Range: 2.8-8.9 |
145.4±9.8 | 100.5 | +44.9 |
| 2.5 mph | 20 | 5.5 ± 0.3 Range: 3.5-9.5 |
163.7±9.5 | Not Available | --- |
| 3.0 mph | 20 | 6.5 ± 0.4 Range: 3.9-11.3 |
194.2±12.1 | 132.7 | +61.5 |
| 3.5 mph | 19 | 7.7 ± 0.4 Range: 5.1-10.8 |
232.0±12.1 | 152.8 | +79.2 |
| Self-paced walking† | |||||
| Leisurely†,* | 63 | 4.4 ± 0.80 Range: 1.6-7.8 |
132 ± 24 | Not Available | --- |
| Brisk†,* | 58 | 5.7 ± 0.95 Range:2.2-9.8 |
171 ± 28.5 | Not Available | --- |
| Fast | 19 | 7.2 ± 0.42 Range:4.1-10.4 |
216 ± 12.6 | Not Available | --- |
| Daily Activities* | |||||
| Standing | 30 | 1.3 ± 0.08 Range: 0.7-2.5 |
39 ± 2.4 | 48.2 | −9.2 |
| Gardening | 40 | 3.1 ± 0.14 Range:1.4-5.3 |
93 ± 4.2 | 160.9 | −67.9 |
| Playing cards | 32 | 1.4 ± 0.07 Range:0.7-2.8 |
42 ± 2.1 | Not Available | --- |
| Sweeping and vacuuming | 41 | 4.1 ± 0.17 Range:2.3-7.0 |
123 ± 5.1 | 140.7 | −17.7 |
| Washing windows | 41 | 2.8 ± 0.12 Range:1.3-5.4 |
84 ± 3.6 | 120.6 | −36.6 |
| Ironing | 40 | 2.4 ± 0.10 Range:1.1-4.7 |
72 ± 3.0 | 92.5 | −20.5 |
| Lying in bed | 28 | 1.1 ± 0.05 Range:0.6-2.1 |
33 ± 1.5 | 36.2 | −3.2 |
| Making the bed | 44 | 3.8 ± 0.17 Range:.2.1-6.5 |
114 ± 5.1 | 80.4 | +33.6 |
| Doing laundry | 43 | 3.1 ± 0.14 Range:1.8-5.7 |
93 ± 4.2 | Not Available | --- |
| Computer work | 40 | 1.4 ± 0.06 Range:0.7-2.4 |
42 ± 1.8 | 60.3 | −18.3 |
| Grocery shopping | 45 | 3.3 ± 0.14 Range:1.5-5.3 |
99 ± 4.2 | 92.5 | +6.5 |
| Preparing and serving food | 45 | 2.1 ± 0.09 Range:1.1-3.7 |
63 ± 2.7 | 80.4 | −17.4 |
| Washing dishes | 45 | 2.2 ± 0.09 Range:1.1-3.7 |
66 ± 2.7 | Not Available | --- |
| Raking leaves | 45 | 3.5 ± 0.14 Range:1.8-5.6 |
105 ± 4.2 | 172.9 | −67.9 |
| Stair climbing | 40 | 6.0 ± 0.30 Range:2.9-11.8 |
180 ± 9.0 | Not Available | --- |
From 6
From9
Estimates generated from an on-line calculator based on the Compendium
Defined as ‘measured – estimated’
Paragraph Number 12 The tasks in Table 2 can be conceptualized as two distinct types of tasks: those that are standardized or mechanical in which the individual is required to keep up with a predetermined pace (e.g., treadmill walking at a certain speed), and those that are self-paced in which an individual can modify effort as desired to complete a task. As indicated in Table 2, the measured caloric costs of the standardized tasks are substantially higher (~30%) for older adults than the estimated caloric costs (generated by the activity calculator). The trend is reversed for self-paced or non-standardized tasks (i.e., daily activities) such that the measured caloric cost of most of these activities is lower than the estimated caloric costs (estimated by the activity calculator).
Paragraph Number 13 Previous studies that report similar results attribute these differences to an age-associated decline in self-paced intensity. That is, older adults adapt the way they do a task so as to minimize the amount of effort expended, resulting in lower absolute energy expenditure (7,8,17-19). However, the energy cost of performing daily activities requires a substantially greater relative effort in old compared with young adults, when considered as a percentage of their available maximal capacity (7). These data underscore the need to consider the energy cost of activities when making activity recommendations for older adults, and the importance of considering the impact of increased daily exercise expenditure on activities of daily living.
Paragraph Number 14
Caloric Expenditure in Older Adults by BMI Classification
. In an effort to lessen some of the variability in the measured energy expenditure data, we examined caloric cost of activities stratified by BMI (normal weight, overweight, and obese). These data are presented in Table 3. As expected, the caloric expenditure of activities increased with increasing body mass. Differences across the normal, overweight, and obese groups were substantially larger for the standardized tasks (treadmill walking) than on the self-paced activities. Tables such as these are helpful for both individuals and health professionals as they clearly show how energy costs differ by body mass.
Table 3.
Caloric Cost of Daily Activities in Older Adults Stratified by Body Mass Index (BMI)
| Activity | N | Measured Calories Burned per 30 Minutes Normal Weight (BMI 18.5-24.9) Mean ± SEE | Measured Calories Burned per 30 Minutes Overweight (BMI=25-29.9) Mean ± SEE | Measured Calories Burned per 30 Minutes Obese (BMI ≥30) Mean ± SEE |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Treadmill walking† | ||||
| 1.5 mph | 20 | 88.6±11.2 n=2 |
117.7±7.8 n=12 |
148.9±19.1 n=6 |
| 2.0 mph | 20 | 103.6±17.5 n=2 |
134.8±7.6 n=12 |
180.5±22.9 n=6 |
| 2.5 mph | 20 | 126.7±13.9 n=2 |
149.9±7.2 n=12 |
203.7±20.5 n=6 |
| 3.0 mph | 20 | 155.5±23.2 n=2 |
177.5±11.0 n=12 |
240.3±25.4 n=6 |
| 3.5 mph | 19 | 213.3±61.8 n=2 |
219.5±47.2 n=11 |
261.1±20.7 n=6 |
| Self-paced walking† | ||||
| Leisurely†,* | 63 | 97.0±16.2 n=16 |
137.2±18.1 n=32 |
148.4±25.9 n=15 |
| Brisk†,* | 58 | 143.2±16.7 n=14 |
167.1±28.8 n=30 |
197.0±31.2 n=14 |
| Fast† | 19 | 197.8±49.0 n=2 |
193.0±15.1 n=11 |
259.5±14.6 n=6 |
| Daily Activities* | ||||
| Standing | 30 | 30.6±2.4 n=9 |
38.1±2.7 n=14 |
46.5±7.0 n=7 |
| Gardening | 40 | 81.6±7.1 n=12 |
101.4±5.9 n=20 |
92.7±10.6 n=8 |
| Playing cards | 32 | 36.9±3.8 n=8 |
44.1±2.0 n=16 |
46.2±6.0 n=8 |
| Sweeping and vacuuming | 41 | 106.8±8.8 n=13 |
129.6±6.6 n=20 |
131.1±14.1 n=8 |
| Washing windows | 41 | 72.6±5.1 n=13 |
88.2±4.68 n=20 |
87.0±11.2 n=8 |
| Ironing | 40 | 60.0±4.0 n=13 |
76.5±3.9 n=19 |
83.4±9.7 n=8 |
| Lying in bed | 28 | 28.5±1.6 n=12 |
34.2±2.1 n=8 |
41.7±3.9 n=8 |
| Making the bed | 44 | 105.0±6.3 n=14 |
113.4±8.3 n=21 |
135.9±8.9 n=9 |
| Doing laundry | 43 | 82.8±4.8 n=14 |
97.2±7.0 n=20 |
101.1±6.7 n=9 |
| Computer work | 40 | 34.5±2.1 n=13 |
41.7±2.6 n=19 |
49.8±3.4 n=8 |
| Grocery shopping | 45 | 80.1±6.3 n=15 |
103.8±5.5 n=21 |
120.9±6.7 n=9 |
| Preparing and serving food | 45 | 57.3±4.3 n=15 |
63.3±3.9 n=21 |
75.9±5.3 n=9 |
| Washing dishes | 45 | 58.8±4.8 n=15 |
69.3±3.7 n=21 |
78.0±4.7 n=9 |
| Raking leaves | 45 | 98.4±7.4 n=15 |
105.0±6.3 n=21 |
114.0±8.2 n=9 |
| Stair climbing | 40 | 159.6±11.5 n=14 |
188.1±16.2 n=18 |
203.4±16.6 n=8 |
From6
From9
Paragraph Number 15 We recognize that the preliminary data presented in this document are based on a limited number of observations compiled from two studies of relatively small sample size (6,9). These studies did not include a comparison group of younger individuals, and therefore whether the discordance between measured and estimated energy expenditure is due to age cannot be determined. However, these data are presented as an example of how activity-related caloric expenditure data could be presented for the public.
Recommendations for Translating the Science of Activity-Related Energy Expenditure
Paragraph Number 16 The following are recommendations for advancing translational research in the area of activity-related energy expenditure in older adults:
1) Report energy expenditure data in units familiar to the lay public and which can be easily utilized by health promotion professionals. We recommend kilocalories (per minute of activity and for sustained periods of activity) as an ideal unit for reporting.
2) Studies reporting measured caloric expenditure across activities should also report variance statistics (i.e., standard deviation, range), to show how well an average value applies to a given individual.
3) If multiple age groups are examined, report complete demographic, biometric, and caloric cost data for each group separately.
4) Measure and report caloric cost of activities that are common among older adults, are listed in the Compendium, and offer a spectrum of activity intensities.
5) Offer kilocalorie estimates for older adults by gender and relative weight groups. These results may need to be further stratified by other individual-level factors (e.g., disease status, functional status) as determined by empirical studies (see recommendation #6 for scientific basis above).
6) Efforts to amass a database of energy expenditure (VO2) and caloric cost of common activities in older adults by pooling data from the literature would benefit the field and be a valuable resource for older adults and health professionals, in essence creating a Caloric Compendium of Activities that could be utilized for health promotion efforts.
7) As new information on energy expenditure of activities in older adults is gathered, new physical activity interventions may need to be developed. Any differences in energy costs of activities should influence the design of new exercise/physical activity interventions for older adults in terms of intensity and possibly duration and frequency. The differences in energy costs of activities will factor into study design depending on whether the target population is healthy older adults (i.e., prevention study) or older people living with a given chronic condition or multiple chronic conditions (i.e., rehabilitation or treatment study).
Summary and Conclusions
Paragraph Number 17 Our review of the science on activity-related energy expenditure highlights the need for comprehensive comparative studies that examine the influence of age and other factors (e.g., sex, obesity status, functional impairment, disease status) known to impact RMR and energy expenditure. Studies that examine the combined effects of these factors will be particularly beneficial as they would approximate group characteristics normally encountered in public health efforts and could inform lifestyle interventions that promote healthy aging. Accurate information of the energy costs of daily activities is important to public health initiatives aimed at preventing or lessening the burden of chronic diseases.
It is the hope of the authors that recommendations in this paper for moving the science forward will serve as a preliminary blueprint for future studies of activity-related energy expenditure, particularly in older adults. Previous empirical studies exist which likely have the requisite data to contribute to this effort, though not fully reported in the literature. Ideally such data could be analyzed and reported along the lines of the guidelines provided in this paper.
This field of study is ripe for translational research, and we provide an example of how empirical data on energy expenditure may be reported for the public. Efforts to translate activity-related energy expenditure for use by older adults and health professionals are of great public health importance and these studies may inform the design of new tailored physical activity interventions for older adults.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Paragraph Number 18 We thank Drs. Wendy Kohrt and Marcas Bamman for their thoughtful review of our manuscript. The authors also wish to thank the Charles Murcott Trust for providing funds to cover the publication costs of this manuscript.
Footnotes
No conflicts of interest are reported by any of the study authors.
The views expressed by the authors do not necessarily reflect the views of the Department of Veterans Affairs.
Paragraph Number 19 The authors report no conflict of interest.
REFERENCES
- 1.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(8):1575–81. doi: 10.1249/MSS.0b013e31821ece12. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Ainsworth BE, Haskell WL, Leon AS, et al. Compendium of Physical Activities: classification of energy costs of human physical activities. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 1993;25(1):71–80. doi: 10.1249/00005768-199301000-00011. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.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(9):498–516. doi: 10.1097/00005768-200009001-00009. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Byrne NM, Hills AP, Hunter GR, Weinsier RL, Schutz Y. Metabolic equivalent: one size does not fit all. J Appl Physiol. 2005;99(3):1112–19. doi: 10.1152/japplphysiol.00023.2004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Campbell J, D'Acquisto L, D'Acquisto D, Cline M. Metabolic and cardiovascular response to shallow water exercise in young and older women. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2003;35(4):675–81. doi: 10.1249/01.MSS.0000058359.87713.99. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Hall KS, Howe CA, Rana SR, Martin CL, Morey MC. METs and accelerometry of walking in older adults: standard vs. measured energy cost. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2013;45(3):574–82. doi: 10.1249/MSS.0b013e318276c73c. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Hortobagyi T, Mizelle C, Beam S, DeVita P. Old adults perform activities of daily living near their maximal capabilities. J Geronto. A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2003;58(5):M453–60. doi: 10.1093/gerona/58.5.m453. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Jones LM, Waters DL, Legge M. Walking speed at self-selected exercise pace is lower but energy cost higher in older versus younger women. J Phys Act Health. 2009;6(3):327–32. doi: 10.1123/jpah.6.3.327. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Knaggs JD, Larkin KA, Manini TM. Metabolic cost of daily activities and effect of mobility impairment in older adults. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2011;59:2118–23. doi: 10.1111/j.1532-5415.2011.03655.x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Kozey SL, Lyden K, Staudenmayer JW, Freedson PS. Errors in MET estimates of physical activities using 3.5 ml/kg/min as the baseline oxygen consumption. J Phys Act Health. 2010;7:508–16. doi: 10.1123/jpah.7.4.508. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Kwan M, Woo J, Kwok T. The standard oxygen consumption value equivalent to one metabolic equivalent (3.5 ml/min/kg) is not appropriate for elderly people. Int J Food Sci Nutr. 2004;55(3):179–82. doi: 10.1080/09637480410001725201. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Malatesta D, Simar D, Dauvilliers Y, et al. Energy cost of walking and gait instability in healthy 65- and 80-yr-olds. J Appl Physiol. 2003;95:2248–56. doi: 10.1152/japplphysiol.01106.2002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.McMurray RG, Soares J, Caspersen CJ, McCurdy T. Examining variations of resting metabolic rate of adults: A public health perspective. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2013 doi: 10.1249/MSS.0000000000000232. Epub ahead of print. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Mian OS, Thom JM, Ardigo LP, Narici MV, Minetti AE. Metabolic cost, mechanical work, and efficiency during walking in young and older men. Acta Physiol. 2006;186:127–39. doi: 10.1111/j.1748-1716.2006.01522.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Ortega JD, Farley CT. Individual limb work does not explain the greater metabolic cost of walking in elderly adults. J Appl Physiol. 2007;102(6):2266–73. doi: 10.1152/japplphysiol.00583.2006. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Peterson DS, Martin PE. Effects of age and walking speed on coactivation and cost of walking in healthy adults. Gait Posture. 2010;31(3):355–59. doi: 10.1016/j.gaitpost.2009.12.005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Withers RT, Brooks AG, Gunn SM, Plummer JL, Gore CJ, Cormack J. Self-selected exercise intensity during household/garden activiteis and walking in 55 to 65-year-old females. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2006;97:494–504. doi: 10.1007/s00421-006-0177-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Woolf-May K, Ferrett D. Metabolic equivalents during the 10-m shuttle walking test for post-myocardial infarction patients. Br J Sports Med. 2008;42:36–41. doi: 10.1136/bjsm.2006.034116. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Yue ASY, Woo J, Ip KWM, Sum CMW, Kwok T, Hui SSC. Effect of age and gender on energy expenditure in common activities of daily living in a Chinese population. Disabil Rehabil. 2007;29(2):91–6. doi: 10.1080/09638280600662232. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]