Discover what's new & improved in the MyFitnessPal app!
We’re dedicated to helping you achieve your health and nutrition goals. And our newest features and updates? They do just that. Learn how we're making tracking your progress easier, faster, and more motivating than ever.

is heavy cleaning legitamate exercise?

Options
13»

Replies

  • Dnarules
    Dnarules Posts: 2,081 Member
    edited August 2017
    Options
    SezxyStef wrote: »
    I used to work as a cleaner & my Samsung watch told me id done a 'dynamic workout' so yeah, pretty sure it counts.

    so if you did such dynamic workouts why are you on here trying to lose weight?

    Because you can't outrun a bad diet?

    ETA: I see I am late to this game and this has been well-covered :).
  • DX2JX2
    DX2JX2 Posts: 1,921 Member
    Options
    sijomial wrote: »
    DX2JX2 wrote: »
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    I'd note that some people want to accumulate the best possible set of log data, for eventual use in estimating personal loss rate or TDEE from their own data (which, when collected carefully, is inherently more accurate than calculator estimates).

    This makes an even stronger case to eliminate minor one-offs from trend analysis.

    No it actually doesn't.
    You would exclude bad data but wouldn't exclude small data for accuracy in plotting trends.

    I would say that any guesstimate for incremental calories burned through heavy cleaning is bad data. Just writing a number down on paper or creating an MFP entry does not make it good data. It's a one-off guess with no reasonable comparison to derive any kind of calorie burn figure.

    Couple that with the thinking that the incremental impact is likely small enough so as to not have any impact on weight loss results, and this is noise around the signal. Meaningless towards weight loss results and meaningless towards the resulting data interpretation.

    Recurring activities or exercises are different in that there are references to provide as starting points for estimates and/or enough frequency of occurrence such that over time an individual can actually determine a reasonable estimate for the impact of that activity on weight loss results.
  • AnnPT77
    AnnPT77 Posts: 33,010 Member
    Options
    DX2JX2 wrote: »
    sijomial wrote: »
    DX2JX2 wrote: »
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    I'd note that some people want to accumulate the best possible set of log data, for eventual use in estimating personal loss rate or TDEE from their own data (which, when collected carefully, is inherently more accurate than calculator estimates).

    This makes an even stronger case to eliminate minor one-offs from trend analysis.

    No it actually doesn't.
    You would exclude bad data but wouldn't exclude small data for accuracy in plotting trends.

    I would say that any guesstimate for incremental calories burned through heavy cleaning is bad data. Just writing a number down on paper or creating an MFP entry does not make it good data. It's a one-off guess with no reasonable comparison to derive any kind of calorie burn figure.

    Couple that with the thinking that the incremental impact is likely small enough so as to not have any impact on weight loss results, and this is noise around the signal. Meaningless towards weight loss results and meaningless towards the resulting data interpretation.

    Recurring activities or exercises are different in that there are references to provide as starting points for estimates and/or enough frequency of occurrence such that over time an individual can actually determine a reasonable estimate for the impact of that activity on weight loss results.

    Unless one makes a truly nutbar estimate, that estimate is likely to be more accurate than "zero".
  • Calichusetts
    Calichusetts Posts: 100 Member
    Options
    You guys stay scientific with your numerators and demulcifiers and all. I'd just say that mentally, this method is not a positive one. As a former landscaper that worked 8-8, 7 days a week. Unfortunately, it was not some hardcore workout that got me in "pool boy" shape. Focus on real, efficient workouts as your exercise. When results come, the association is with your personal hard work and time you took to get there. Not shifting desks or something.

    Building real muscle and transforming your body is hard work mentally and physically. Focus on your main goals and routines that get you there.
  • brentleyann1
    brentleyann1 Posts: 37 Member
    Options
    I count my hard exercise. I clean out my turtle tank and that means hauling 55 gallons of water out and 55 gallons in. It takes an hour and I am very sore the next day. Even when I was thin and in shape it was a great work out.

    I would just look at whether it was a real workout or not before logging it. I always underestimate my exercise and over estimate my food so I don't ever accidently go over.
  • Christine_72
    Christine_72 Posts: 16,049 Member
    Options
    I have a fitbit, no HR monitor, and it picks up my actual exercise. House cleaning, cooking etc doesn't even cause a blip in my day, calorie wise.

    So, the only activity that i log on mfp is actual exercise, not everyday/weekly/biweekly/monthly activities. That to me seems to be seriously clutching at straws.
  • hannamarie0098
    hannamarie0098 Posts: 85 Member
    Options
    Surely whether or not the activity is logged is irrelevant? The decision to eat back those estimated calories or not is what will make a difference. Log whatever you want, but be sensible about what you eat.
  • DX2JX2
    DX2JX2 Posts: 1,921 Member
    Options
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    DX2JX2 wrote: »
    sijomial wrote: »
    DX2JX2 wrote: »
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    I'd note that some people want to accumulate the best possible set of log data, for eventual use in estimating personal loss rate or TDEE from their own data (which, when collected carefully, is inherently more accurate than calculator estimates).

    This makes an even stronger case to eliminate minor one-offs from trend analysis.

    No it actually doesn't.
    You would exclude bad data but wouldn't exclude small data for accuracy in plotting trends.

    I would say that any guesstimate for incremental calories burned through heavy cleaning is bad data. Just writing a number down on paper or creating an MFP entry does not make it good data. It's a one-off guess with no reasonable comparison to derive any kind of calorie burn figure.

    Couple that with the thinking that the incremental impact is likely small enough so as to not have any impact on weight loss results, and this is noise around the signal. Meaningless towards weight loss results and meaningless towards the resulting data interpretation.

    Recurring activities or exercises are different in that there are references to provide as starting points for estimates and/or enough frequency of occurrence such that over time an individual can actually determine a reasonable estimate for the impact of that activity on weight loss results.

    Unless one makes a truly nutbar estimate, that estimate is likely to be more accurate than "zero".

    No, it's not. Adding a uninformed/unknowable estimate to your data is not more accurate nor is it better than leaving a zero. If anything I would make note of the activity in order to explain potential differences in actual results vs. expectations after the fact for data tracking purposes.

    Building a wild guess into numbers up front for a one-time event is introducing unneeded noise and complexity into the model. Better to leave it at zero and reconcile at the end.
  • amusedmonkey
    amusedmonkey Posts: 10,330 Member
    Options
    My mom cleans for 8-9 hours once a week (large house) plus general tidying up throughout the week, so you bet it's legitimate exercise. It burns a lot of calories to be moving for that long.

    How should you go about it? It's up to you. Do you wish to leave it for extra credit if it's not frequent? You could. Do you feel like eating more food? You could log it. Calories burned are calories burned. I don't subscribe to the group that says out of the ordinary heavy cleaning doesn't count, but I also don't subscribe to the group that counts everything. Due to my back condition I rarely do prolonged heavy cleaning, but if I did I would log it if I felt like eating more and wouldn't log it if I didn't feel like eating more. There is no concern of undereating since it's not a frequent activity, and there is no concern of overeating for the same reason.
  • Evamutt
    Evamutt Posts: 2,464 Member
    Options
    wow, so much info, opinion. Just to clarify, no I've never worked so hard for so long there before, I couldn't, I was too overweight, so it was more or less a one time thing, but if I work that hard again, I'm going to log it. It felt like I was in my HIIT class & I did a lot of the same type of moves, ie lifting,squatting etc without stopping & for much longer. When I do less there, which I normally do, I don't log that because I do it several times a week. I have my activity level set on "lightly active" which also includes walking my dogs for hour+ every day & being on my feet most of the day, going on second walk several days a week or any other "extra" thing I do