Why the study?
Do metabolic equivalents (METs) appropriately indicate exercise intensity and metabolic cost in post-MI males compared to healthy controls?
Observational (n=31)
Do metabolic equivalents (METs) appropriately indicate exercise intensity and metabolic cost in post-MI males compared to healthy controls?
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
METs fail to account for the significantly greater anaerobic contribution during exercise in post-MI patients, suggesting they should be used with caution when prescribing exercise intensity in cardiac populations.
No abstract yet. The journal hasn't published one we can show.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
M. Billingsley (2011) conducted an observational in Post-myocardial infarction (n=31). Phase-IV post-myocardial infarction vs. Apparently healthy males was evaluated on Percentage of anaerobic threshold (%AT)/MET during cycle ergometer test (p=<0.001).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: