Help me choose activity level
Options
Kittyy1994
Posts: 108 Member
Hi all, I am having trouble choosing my activity level - I work in an office (but am up and down quite a bit during the day) I also do 2 brisk walks with my dog one before work for 30 min and one after work for 30 min. I don’t log these as exercise.
What should my activity level be?
What should my activity level be?
2
Replies
-
Should add that I am 5’6” female only looking to lose another 2kg/5lbs then maintain1
-
I also work in an office, but I go to the gym a few times during the week and walk to and from the office as well as at weekends. I've put myself as Sedentary, but I log my proper walks (including what I do to get to and from the office) and my gym sessions as exercise. The up-and-down during the day and at home is part of being Sedentary, which apparently assumes about 3000 steps a day.
If you're not logging your walks as exercise, that sounds like Lightly Active or even Active to me. Perhaps start with Lightly Active and see how fast you're losing after 6 weeks. You may need to revisit it if you're losing too fast.
1 -
Kittyy1994 wrote: »Hi all, I am having trouble choosing my activity level - I work in an office (but am up and down quite a bit during the day) I also do 2 brisk walks with my dog one before work for 30 min and one after work for 30 min. I don’t log these as exercise.
What should my activity level be?
Sedentary!
From Goals > View Guided Setup ...
How would you describe your normal daily activities?
Sedentary: Spend most of the day sitting (e.g. bank teller, desk job)
Lightly Active: Spend a good part of the day on your feet (e.g. teacher, salesperson)
Active: Spend a good part of the day doing some physical activity (e.g. food server, postal carrier)
Very Active: Spend most of the day doing heavy physical activity (e.g. bike messenger, carpenter)3 -
your 1 hr a day walking would mean lightly active at least.5
-
I have a similar level of activity to you and was advised to change from sedentary to lightly active. Even though this is more calories, it is much better and I have lost a number of pounds on lightly active where on sedentary I was stalling. (Honestly I think it made me more lethargic and I wasn't moving around very much!)5
-
confidenceinrain wrote: »I have a similar level of activity to you and was advised to change from sedentary to lightly active. Even though this is more calories, it is much better and I have lost a number of pounds on lightly active where on sedentary I was stalling. (Honestly I think it made me more lethargic and I wasn't moving around very much!)
Thanks for the reply!! I have been set on sedentary for the last 6 weeks and have lost around 4kg however a lot of days I feel like I am very hungry and end up eating maintenance anyway! That’s why I was thinking about the switch to lightly active just worried I might be over estimating.0 -
Kittyy1994 wrote: »confidenceinrain wrote: »I have a similar level of activity to you and was advised to change from sedentary to lightly active. Even though this is more calories, it is much better and I have lost a number of pounds on lightly active where on sedentary I was stalling. (Honestly I think it made me more lethargic and I wasn't moving around very much!)
Thanks for the reply!! I have been set on sedentary for the last 6 weeks and have lost around 4kg however a lot of days I feel like I am very hungry and end up eating maintenance anyway! That’s why I was thinking about the switch to lightly active just worried I might be over estimating.
that's a rate of loss of almost 1.5/week. it's considered aggressive for someone with only 5lb to lose. generally the last 10 there is a recommendation to lose at 0.5lb a week as we have less fat reserves and if we lose to fast it can grab from good things like muscles. Also because, as you mention, it's hard to keep a steep deficit and you get very hungry.
I recommended selecting a rate of loss of 0.5lb/week. or at minimum changing your actvity level to get more calories.
3 -
My settings are at the lowest rate already 0.2kg per week
0 -
Kittyy1994 wrote: »My settings are at the lowest rate already 0.2kg per week
It really doesn't matter what your settings are. (Heresy, huh?
).
Once you have 6 weeks of data, your own data is a more accurate guide than estimates from MFP or a TDEE calculator. If you're losing faster than desirable/sensible, adjust your intake to get the sensible rate of loss. (Use the formula that 3500 calories = 1 pound to figure out how much to add to intake per week, then divide by 7). (Same would be true if you were losing more slowly than sensible, just in the arithmetically opposite direction.)
You can set your calorie goal to a specific number manually, or you can use your activity level to tweak your calorie goal, even if that activity level setting isn't true. I've been set at "active" for almost 4 years now on MFP, even though I'm usually sedentary ( < 5000 steps daily), and I still lose at an intake that MFP says will make me gain, or maintain at a level that it things would make me gain pretty rapidly. MFP's wrong: It's just using a statistical estimate; some of us are closer to the population average than others.)
8 -
Kittyy1994 wrote: »My settings are at the lowest rate already 0.2kg per week
It really doesn't matter what your settings are. (Heresy, huh? ).
Once you have 6 weeks of data, your own data is a more accurate guide than estimates from MFP or a TDEE calculator. If you're losing faster than desirable/sensible, adjust your intake to get the sensible rate of loss. (Use the formula that 3500 calories = 1 pound to figure out how much to add to intake per week, then divide by 7). (Same would be true if you were losing more slowly than sensible, just in the arithmetically opposite direction.)
You can set your calorie goal to a specific number manually, or you can use your activity level to tweak your calorie goal, even if that activity level setting isn't true. I've been set at "active" for almost 4 years now on MFP, even though I'm usually sedentary ( < 5000 steps daily), and I still lose at an intake that MFP says will make me gain, or maintain at a level that it things would make me gain pretty rapidly. MFP's wrong: It's just using a statistical estimate; some of us are closer to the population average than others.)
Thanks, that is really interesting feedback - I have always found it strange that you never need to enter your height, body shape or age so I guess it would be different for different people.
I might up to lightly active and see how I go for the next 6 weeks2 -
Kittyy1994 wrote: »Kittyy1994 wrote: »My settings are at the lowest rate already 0.2kg per week
It really doesn't matter what your settings are. (Heresy, huh? ).
Once you have 6 weeks of data, your own data is a more accurate guide than estimates from MFP or a TDEE calculator. If you're losing faster than desirable/sensible, adjust your intake to get the sensible rate of loss. (Use the formula that 3500 calories = 1 pound to figure out how much to add to intake per week, then divide by 7). (Same would be true if you were losing more slowly than sensible, just in the arithmetically opposite direction.)
You can set your calorie goal to a specific number manually, or you can use your activity level to tweak your calorie goal, even if that activity level setting isn't true. I've been set at "active" for almost 4 years now on MFP, even though I'm usually sedentary ( < 5000 steps daily), and I still lose at an intake that MFP says will make me gain, or maintain at a level that it things would make me gain pretty rapidly. MFP's wrong: It's just using a statistical estimate; some of us are closer to the population average than others.)
Thanks, that is really interesting feedback - I have always found it strange that you never need to enter your height, body shape or age so I guess it would be different for different people.
I might up to lightly active and see how I go for the next 6 weeks
Your MFP profile includes height and birth date (and more). Shape is irrelevant; it knows weight.
MFP's calorie estimates are close for most people. Statistically, the estimate's based on a fairly narrow distribution (small-ish standard deviation). Some - very few - of us will be out in the tails, though. That's the nature of statistical estimates.5 -
Kittyy1994 wrote: »Kittyy1994 wrote: »My settings are at the lowest rate already 0.2kg per week
It really doesn't matter what your settings are. (Heresy, huh? ).
Once you have 6 weeks of data, your own data is a more accurate guide than estimates from MFP or a TDEE calculator. If you're losing faster than desirable/sensible, adjust your intake to get the sensible rate of loss. (Use the formula that 3500 calories = 1 pound to figure out how much to add to intake per week, then divide by 7). (Same would be true if you were losing more slowly than sensible, just in the arithmetically opposite direction.)
You can set your calorie goal to a specific number manually, or you can use your activity level to tweak your calorie goal, even if that activity level setting isn't true. I've been set at "active" for almost 4 years now on MFP, even though I'm usually sedentary ( < 5000 steps daily), and I still lose at an intake that MFP says will make me gain, or maintain at a level that it things would make me gain pretty rapidly. MFP's wrong: It's just using a statistical estimate; some of us are closer to the population average than others.)
Thanks, that is really interesting feedback - I have always found it strange that you never need to enter your height, body shape or age so I guess it would be different for different people.
I might up to lightly active and see how I go for the next 6 weeks
No height? no age? that is weird. What shape are you? I am a tried and true rectangle. Pants fall off of me. UGH1 -
L1zardQueen wrote: »Kittyy1994 wrote: »Kittyy1994 wrote: »My settings are at the lowest rate already 0.2kg per week
It really doesn't matter what your settings are. (Heresy, huh? ).
Once you have 6 weeks of data, your own data is a more accurate guide than estimates from MFP or a TDEE calculator. If you're losing faster than desirable/sensible, adjust your intake to get the sensible rate of loss. (Use the formula that 3500 calories = 1 pound to figure out how much to add to intake per week, then divide by 7). (Same would be true if you were losing more slowly than sensible, just in the arithmetically opposite direction.)
You can set your calorie goal to a specific number manually, or you can use your activity level to tweak your calorie goal, even if that activity level setting isn't true. I've been set at "active" for almost 4 years now on MFP, even though I'm usually sedentary ( < 5000 steps daily), and I still lose at an intake that MFP says will make me gain, or maintain at a level that it things would make me gain pretty rapidly. MFP's wrong: It's just using a statistical estimate; some of us are closer to the population average than others.)
Thanks, that is really interesting feedback - I have always found it strange that you never need to enter your height, body shape or age so I guess it would be different for different people.
I might up to lightly active and see how I go for the next 6 weeks
No height? no age? that is weird. What shape are you? I am a tried and true rectangle. Pants fall off of me. UGH
I have checked profile and it does ask height and birthdate! Set account so long ago I forgot!!
I am definately hourglass with an F cup so not sure how much that would affect my weight (everyone said that they would be the first thing to go but still waiting...🙄 lol)0 -
Kittyy1994 wrote: »L1zardQueen wrote: »Kittyy1994 wrote: »Kittyy1994 wrote: »My settings are at the lowest rate already 0.2kg per week
It really doesn't matter what your settings are. (Heresy, huh? ).
Once you have 6 weeks of data, your own data is a more accurate guide than estimates from MFP or a TDEE calculator. If you're losing faster than desirable/sensible, adjust your intake to get the sensible rate of loss. (Use the formula that 3500 calories = 1 pound to figure out how much to add to intake per week, then divide by 7). (Same would be true if you were losing more slowly than sensible, just in the arithmetically opposite direction.)
You can set your calorie goal to a specific number manually, or you can use your activity level to tweak your calorie goal, even if that activity level setting isn't true. I've been set at "active" for almost 4 years now on MFP, even though I'm usually sedentary ( < 5000 steps daily), and I still lose at an intake that MFP says will make me gain, or maintain at a level that it things would make me gain pretty rapidly. MFP's wrong: It's just using a statistical estimate; some of us are closer to the population average than others.)
Thanks, that is really interesting feedback - I have always found it strange that you never need to enter your height, body shape or age so I guess it would be different for different people.
I might up to lightly active and see how I go for the next 6 weeks
No height? no age? that is weird. What shape are you? I am a tried and true rectangle. Pants fall off of me. UGH
I have checked profile and it does ask height and birthdate! Set account so long ago I forgot!!
I am definately hourglass with an F cup so not sure how much that would affect my weight (everyone said that they would be the first thing to go but still waiting...🙄 lol)
The only thing that shape/cup affects is maybe the weight you choose to stop losing at, i.e., where you feel and look best. It makes zero difference during the weight loss process, just matters in deciding when you're done. MFP can't do that part for you.
For example, I have literally no breasts (post-mastectomy, no reconstruction). It's one of the things that means I should be on the lighter end of the BMI range.
Best wishes!4 -
Activity level is a setting that can be changed so there's no need to stress about getting it 'right'.
Pick an activity level, follow the recommended calorie intake for that activity level, try it for 4 weeks or so and see how it goes. If you're finding yourself hungry and you're losing weight too quickly then go up one level. If you find that you're not losing weight at the expected rate then you can consider going down to a lower activity level. Or (ideally) you're track well, making progress which means you've found your right level.2 -
Personally, I set myself to sedentary and then add in any exercise I do. I'm very active in terms of my exercises, but in my downtime I'm not moving that much. For example, I may do a 10 mile trail run in the morning, but then I'm sitting around the rest of the day. The next day I might only do yoga. It's a big difference from day to day. So it's easier to be safe and say sedentary, and then add in the active stuff.2
-
I have desk job but outside of that I hardly sit down, I have mine set to lightly active and its still not coming close to my actual TDEE of 2000 cals.
0 -
I'm a stay-at-home mom and I had initially set myself as lightly active. MFP uses the example of waitressing for the active level, I used to waitress and I don't come anywhere near that level of activity now. After 6 weeks though I'm losing at a higher rate than MFP says I should so I upped my activity level.1
-
LivingtheLeanDream wrote: »I have desk job but outside of that I hardly sit down, I have mine set to lightly active and its still not coming close to my actual TDEE of 2000 cals.
What’s TDEE I’ve seen this term a lot - how do you calculate it and what does it mean?0 -
Hello everyone, new to the forum, but not MFP. I’ve posted a hello post in the welcome forum, but have a question related to activity level settings. I didn’t think this warranted opening a new thread, but don’t want to hijack anything here either, so let me know if that would be better.
I am a 56-year-old male, 6‘1“, and weighed 199.6 lbs. yesterday, with 12.3% body fat as measured by my Under Armor Healthbox inductive scale. I have lost 40 pounds over roughly the last two years or so, but about a year ago started gaining some of it back. I rebounded about 15 pounds, but I am now back down to my target weight. I have spent so long trying to lose weight, I’m not quite sure how to maintain it. I don’t want to lose anymore, as my girlfriend thinks I’m getting too skinny.
I think my activity level normally might be described as sedentary or lightly active. I am a pastor, and spend a lot of time sitting behind a computer, writing. But about six months ago I started cycling and have become fairly serious about it. A normal week could see me putting 70 to 125 miles on the bike, and those miles will be at an average pace somewhere in the 14 to 15 mph range, so not pro cyclist speeds, but not an afternoon stroll either. The various training apps I’m using, including Runkeeper, Strava, or Under Armor‘s MapMyRide, usually show me burning about 2000 to 3000 cal per ride, In rough numbers. I’ll typically ride 2 to 3 days per week, so the length of the ride might vary from 30 to 50 miles each. In addition, I’m doing some strength training on the off days about 2 to 3 days per week, for about 30 minutes to an hour each session.
So the question is, what activity level does that look like to the forum? Is it active, very active, or does the sedentary occupation bring the exercise level down to only a lightly active setting? Thanks advance for your input!0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.5K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 392 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 927 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions