What should my MFP activity level be?

may14423

Hi y'all!

I'm a college student who gets about 10k-12k steps a day just walking to class, and I go to the gym 4-5 days a week, with at least 3 of those days including 30 mins of cardio, and every day including some kind of strength training, whether that be pilates or weight lifting.

Other than that though, I'm sitting in class or sitting at a desk working most weekdays and out partying/tailgating/generally messing around on weekends.

I have my activity level set to sendentary right now and just adding in the exercise I do and I have step tracking turned on. MFP gives me 1430 calories for maintenance right now, does that sound about right? (fyi, i am 19F, 4'11, 100lbs).

If not, what do I set it to? And, do I continue to let it track steps and add my gym workouts if I change the activity level?

AnnPT77

Seems low to me for that much activity, but I'm not that petite. Are you getting extra calories on top of the 1430 from having a step tracker synced?

The real test is following it for 4-6 weeks, and watching how scale weight trends on average over that time. If you have menstrual cycles, compare body weight at the same relative point in at least two different cycles to get a reasonable average.

With that knowledge, you can adjust your calorie goal to personalize it as needed. Use the assumption that 500 calories per day is a pound a week, and apply arithmetic for partial pounds.

MFP's calorie estimates are close for a lot of people, probably most people, when they use accurate inputs. 10k steps isn't sedentary, it's probably around the border of active and highly active, especially once you have near-daily exercise in the mix as well. If your step tracker is syncing all activity calories, and you're eating them, that will also adjust for actual activity.

MFP (or any other calorie estimator we use as a starting point) will be close for most people, noticeably off (high or low) for a few, and surprisingly far off (still in either direction) for a very rare few. That's the nature of statistical estimates based on population averages, which is all these estimates are.

MFP's around 25-30% off, for me (too low). That's rare, but it can happen. We figure this out by following the starting estimate long enough to get reasonable averages. That works pretty well, IME and IMO.

Best wishes!

may14423

Yeah, it usually gives me 50-80 calories extra for the steps!

And I add in excercise so I have a little extra buffer to eat over 1400 on the days that I do go to the gym, but staying below when I don't work out.

So, with that in mind, is it fine to leave it at 'sedentary' at 1430 and just keep doing what I'm doing now?

edit: oh noo!! I changed it from sedentary to lightly active just to see what it would give me (it gave me a WILD number like over 1800) and when I put it back to sedentary it put me at 1590??? I didn't change anything else, why'd this happen? manually set it back to 1430 but that is super strange.

AnnPT77

may14423 wrote: »

Yeah, it usually gives me 50-80 calories extra for the steps!

And I add in excercise so I have a little extra buffer to eat over 1400 on the days that I do go to the gym, but staying below when I don't work out.

So, with that in mind, is it fine to leave it at 'sedentary' at 1430 and just keep doing what I'm doing now?

If you stick with it for a month or so, then assess and adjust if necessary, yes.

One caveat: If you seem to be losing weight very fast, and at the same time start feeling low energy, weak, cold, or brain-fogged for no other obvious reason, I'd suggest eating more, and resetting your time horizon to start at that point for evaluating/adjusting.

Best wishes

may14423

oh noo!! I changed it from sedentary to lightly active just to see what it would give me (it gave me a WILD number like over 1800) and when I put it back to sedentary it put me at 1590??? I didn't change anything else, why'd this happen? manually set it back to 1430 but that is super strange.

but, hmm, here's the data I have from attempting 1430 for the past 2 weeks:
- lost 0.4 lbs (100.8 --> 100.4) (may be inaccurate though as i tend to weigh myself in the middle of the day at the gym in my gym clothes & shoes)
- averaged 1470 total calories, 1360 net calories over those two weeks (probably also not the most accurate, I just kinda eyeball the dining hall food portions right now since I can't cook for myself)

the "low energy, weak, cold, and brain fog" things I've had for a while but are probably just residual from my weight loss over the summer now, so I'm not suuuuuper worried about those, they seem to be getting better. I also don't have a cycle so I'm assuming any loss/gain I get will have anything to do with that.

AnnPT77

may14423 wrote: »

oh noo!! I changed it from sedentary to lightly active just to see what it would give me (it gave me a WILD number like over 1800) and when I put it back to sedentary it put me at 1590??? I didn't change anything else, why'd this happen? manually set it back to 1430 but that is super strange.

but, hmm, here's the data I have from attempting 1430 for the past 2 weeks:
- lost 0.4 lbs (100.8 --> 100.4) (may be inaccurate though as i tend to weigh myself in the middle of the day at the gym in my gym clothes & shoes)
- averaged 1470 total calories, 1360 net calories over those two weeks (probably also not the most accurate, I just kinda eyeball the dining hall food portions right now since I can't cook for myself)

the "low energy, weak, cold, and brain fog" things I've had for a while but are probably just residual from my weight loss over the summer now, so I'm not suuuuuper worried about those, they seem to be getting better. I also don't have a cycle so I'm assuming any loss/gain I get will have anything to do with that.

1800 is not a WILD number. A TDEE calculator** suggests your maintenance, at your size/age, with that activity schedule, would be somewhere 1500-1800.

** This one: https://www.sailrabbit.com/bmr/

One person's calorie needs don't predict another, but I'm non-petite, like I said: 5'5", 135 pounds this morning, which is a reasonable weight for me, age 68, sedentary outside of intentional exercise. I average about 5k steps daily. I maintain around 2100-2200 calories in average.

If the reason you don't have cycles is because of having lost weight in extreme ways, that's not at all a good thing. If there's some other reason, then just use the 4-6 week average. If you don't SEE cycles because of medication you take or certain kinds of surgical history, you may still have hormonal cycles in the background affecting scale weight fluctuations.

"Low energy, weak, cold, and brain fog" is also concerning. I'm glad to hear it's getting better. I wouldn't lowball calorie intake, though. We can train our bodies to limp along on low calorie levels, because they tend to get better at things we repeatedly ask them to do. That's not a path of thriving, though. Eating the most calories that are compatible for our weight goals, for the most nutrition possible: That's a path of thriving.

There's too much nonsense in the cultural zeitgeist suggesting that women ought to eat tiny birdlike numbers of calories. It's not universally true, and it can be seriously unhealthful. Please be careful!