Sex and METS

According to the compendium of METS (metabolic equivalents - used to classify the energy burden of different activities), where 1.0 is resting, 'vigorous effort' sex has a score of 1.5. Which is comparable to typing, knitting or having your nails done. And only slightly more energentic than standing in a queue (1.2) or attending a church service (also 1.2 METs).

This makes me wonder about the experiences of the researchers...

Comments

  • METs table

    Just in case you want to check out the METs for sitting on a toilet (1.0) or scuba diving as a frogman (12.0)

  • What book are you reading now? (1.0)

  • JT141JT141 ✭✭✭
    I've been in some queues that would rate at least 1.4.
  • Hog-mouseHog-mouse ✭✭✭

    I have heard that before. Perhaps it's from a time when ladies were told to lie back and think of England.

    If they'd researched in the 80's it would've been about 10 with all that chandalier business.

  • If you reclassified it as 'multiple household tasks all at once, vigorous effort', you'd get 4.0; it's 5.0 for hoeing, 4.5 for furriery, 4.0 for tapping and drilling; all in your definition, I guess...

  • Is that the first use of an xkcd strip on this forum?!!

    Christ it could be in which case...

     

  • I got a 1.7 once, but that was 25 years ago! Do you think I could do better, with some training?
  • how old is that assessment....................in the list of home activities...........they have butchering animals............how many people butcher anilmals in their homes imageimage

     

  • My parents do

  • If chickens count, I do. And it takes much less energy than sex! (as I recall)

    ed. replying to post about slaughter ( what happened to the quote?)

Sign In or Register to comment.