What should I log for a 45 minute walk?
Replies
-
GuitarJerry wrote: »So, what's the point of your post?
I'm thinking this as well, because activity settings really don't have that much to do with logging exercise.
I have my activity settings at active, even though I work a desk job, and I log my exercise workouts (except for weight lifting, because it burns energy in the long term but not much during the actual workout). If I don't do keep my activity settings on active, I lose weight, which I don't want to do0 -
But if it "doesn't matter" how fast or how far I go, I could do a leisurely 30-minute stroll and call it a day instead of going out there and busting my hump for five miles.
Nobody in this thread said there was no difference between a 30 minute stroll and a five mile walk.
Nobody.
0 -
So Christine shouldn't eat back an extra 1000 calories from walking?GuitarJerry wrote: »So, what's the point of your post?
Should I eat back the approximately 700 extra calories I get from walking?
The newbies reading posts that say "walking? I wouldn't log that" or "you could log walking if you really want to; but, I don't", shouldn't log and eat back their walking calories when they are set up as sedentary with 1000cal deficits?
I don't see where he said that.
You both must walk many miles each day to burn so many calories from walking. I'm 139 pounds and I burn approximately 250 calories for 45 minutes of brisk walking (4.2-4.5 mph). Both you and Christine look pretty trim, so I wonder where those big calorie burns are coming from.
I wouldn't pay attention if someone says not to log your long walks as exercise, unless you're just strolling along and smelling the flowers (which I doubt).
However, if you read my post prior to this, you will see I am set at active and I also count my cardio burns, AND I work a desk job. By your definition, I should be set at sedentary. I was at first, and I lost weight way too quickly. : )
I don't believe the MFP activity settings are a "one size fits all," and that trial and error is often necessary.0 -
So Christine shouldn't eat back an extra 1000 calories from walking?GuitarJerry wrote: »So, what's the point of your post?
Should I eat back the approximately 700 extra calories I get from walking?
The newbies reading posts that say "walking? I wouldn't log that" or "you could log walking if you really want to; but, I don't", shouldn't log and eat back their walking calories when they are set up as sedentary with 1000cal deficits?
I don't see where he said that.
You both must walk many miles each day to burn so many calories from walking. I'm 139 pounds and I burn approximately 250 calories for 45 minutes of brisk walking (4.2-4.5 mph). Both you and Christine look pretty trim, so I wonder where those big calorie burns are coming from.
Nobody said you should not log those. You should do what you feel is right.
However, if you read my post prior to this, you will see I am set at active and I also count my cardio burns, AND I work a desk job. By your definition, I should be set at sedentary. I was at first, and I lost weight way too quickly. : )
I don't believe the MFP activity settings are a "one size fits all," and that trial and error is often necessary.
"There's no compelling reason to eat back walking calories unless you're talking about 2+ hours of brisk walking, because it is such a low intensity exercise" Is exactly what was said. Walking 5 miles takes me 90 minutes. So according to this statement, I should not log it, not count it and continue to eat 1200 calories.
0 -
I count when I go for a long walk but never count it for shopping.0
-
If one INTENTIONALLY goes out to walk for a time limit, then it should be counted as exercise. You don't count walking to the bathroom, kitchen, to and fro from your chair at work as exercise. That's your NEAT.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Exactly. I don't count all the times I walk to a desk or the bathroom at work, from car at parking to work or vice versa, stroll down to the coffee shop at lunch, walking through the mall during a break.
0 -
My form of exercise is walking. I was out the door at 4:30 am to get my 5 miles in this morning and then pushed a stroller with my 33 pound grandson for another 2.5 miles. I lost 22 pounds just walking and have maintained that loss for over 8 months. I do not eat back my calories daily and try to always have a deficit just in case there is an unexpected dinner out or a birthday/holiday to celebrate.0
-
LOL...reading through this post makes me feel like I'm wasting my time when I go out to intentionally walk for exercise. I usually take a 60 minute or so brisk walk, but apparently it doesn't count unless it's more than that. Okay...
Who said that? Did you read this?ninerbuff wrote: »
If one INTENTIONALLY goes out to walk for a time limit, then it should be counted as exercise. You don't count walking to the bathroom, kitchen, to and fro from your chair at work as exercise. That's your NEAT.0 -
LOL...reading through this post makes me feel like I'm wasting my time when I go out to intentionally walk for exercise. I usually take a 60 minute or so brisk walk, but apparently it doesn't count unless it's more than that. Okay...
Who said that? Did you read this?ninerbuff wrote: »
If one INTENTIONALLY goes out to walk for a time limit, then it should be counted as exercise. You don't count walking to the bathroom, kitchen, to and fro from your chair at work as exercise. That's your NEAT.
Mr Knight says that. Have you read his posts? He's the one who says walking burns practically nothing. This isn't the only thread he's ever said it in.0 -
OK, let me explain my confusion. On a typical day of doing not much, my Fitbit gives me a burn of around 1600. So I must eat 1200 to get any sort of decent deficit. Now, on a day that I get 10K+ steps, I start to get into a 2200 day, which means I can eat a little bit more. However, the assertion that nah, you're not doing much by getting those steps in, I wouldn't count them, or only count 25% or whatever, tells me I am wasting my time. Sure, I still want to get a daily walk for my physical and mental well-being. But if it "doesn't matter" how fast or how far I go, I could do a leisurely 30-minute stroll and call it a day instead of going out there and busting my hump for five miles. And hey, keep on eating that 1200 calories that I am constantly being told is too little.
Quick question: what is your MFP calorie target, and how did you reach that?
Here is what I do: I ignore the overall calories burned according to Fitbit because that is TDEE and I am following MFP's NEAT numbers. They actually do work together well, if you understand the numbers. I am set to lose 1 lb a week at lightly active. I do not allow negative calorie adjustments because I am following NEAT so my 1760 calorie target already assumes I am not doing anything extra. When I get over 5000 steps or so, Fitbit starts to give me extra calories on MFP to eat. Typical day when I get 10k or just a little over gives me about 350 extra calories. 3 days a week I also swim laps for an hour and take an hour water aerobics class which, according to MFP, give me an extra 800 calories to eat (yes, 3 days a week I get about 1200 extra calories. 3 days about 350 extra, and 1 day I eat to my target because I rest). I eat back an average of 50% of my exercise calories from all sources. I have been averaging 1.4 lb a week loss over 15+ months.
0 -
Hello, glad you showed up!
I have to confess that I actually do know what *I* will log for my 45 minute walk!
But I am getting a little bit tired of seeing people advise others that they should not log walking as an exercise. Or imply in their posts that there is something wrong with eating back walking calories because walking is what? An inferior exercise?
Let's review here.
MFP has you eating at your prescribed deficit BEFORE you factor in exercise. Most people setup themselves in MFP as "sedentary".
"Sedentary" encompasses minimal movement throughout the day and generally once a person hits 5,000 steps a day they have reached those limits.
"Lightly active" ranges above 5,000 steps to almost 10,000 steps. Most people's energy expenditure at the 10K to 15K step levels corresponds to MFP's "active" setting. And as we approach 20 to 25,000K steps we start moving towards "very active".
If you are NOT setup as "sedentary" and if you are "walking" within the limits of the activity level you've chosen then YES, you should NOT log walking as exercise.
But if you walked 10,000 steps while setup as "sedentary" you most certainly SHOULD be accounting for the extra energy you've spent!
I did not know the 'formula' for setting activity levels. Great breakdown, thanks. Since using my FitBit I'm getting my 10,000 steps but not counting them towards my exercise logging. So, by your using your method I should log my walking after reaching that number.
0 -
So Christine shouldn't eat back an extra 1000 calories from walking?GuitarJerry wrote: »So, what's the point of your post?
Should I eat back the approximately 700 extra calories I get from walking?
The newbies reading posts that say "walking? I wouldn't log that" or "you could log walking if you really want to; but, I don't", shouldn't log and eat back their walking calories when they are set up as sedentary with 1000cal deficits?
I don't see where he said that.
You both must walk many miles each day to burn so many calories from walking. I'm 139 pounds and I burn approximately 250 calories for 45 minutes of brisk walking (4.2-4.5 mph). Both you and Christine look pretty trim, so I wonder where those big calorie burns are coming from.
Nobody said you should not log those. You should do what you feel is right.
However, if you read my post prior to this, you will see I am set at active and I also count my cardio burns, AND I work a desk job. By your definition, I should be set at sedentary. I was at first, and I lost weight way too quickly. : )
I don't believe the MFP activity settings are a "one size fits all," and that trial and error is often necessary.
"There's no compelling reason to eat back walking calories unless you're talking about 2+ hours of brisk walking, because it is such a low intensity exercise" Is exactly what was said. Walking 5 miles takes me 90 minutes. So according to this statement, I should not log it, not count it and continue to eat 1200 calories.
I disagree with the opinion (did Guitar Jerry say that? He's the one who was quoted. If he did, I missed it).
Trial and error, do what you think is best.0 -
So Christine shouldn't eat back an extra 1000 calories from walking?GuitarJerry wrote: »So, what's the point of your post?
Should I eat back the approximately 700 extra calories I get from walking?
The newbies reading posts that say "walking? I wouldn't log that" or "you could log walking if you really want to; but, I don't", shouldn't log and eat back their walking calories when they are set up as sedentary with 1000cal deficits?
I don't see where he said that.
You both must walk many miles each day to burn so many calories from walking. I'm 139 pounds and I burn approximately 250 calories for 45 minutes of brisk walking (4.2-4.5 mph). Both you and Christine look pretty trim, so I wonder where those big calorie burns are coming from.
Nobody said you should not log those. You should do what you feel is right.
However, if you read my post prior to this, you will see I am set at active and I also count my cardio burns, AND I work a desk job. By your definition, I should be set at sedentary. I was at first, and I lost weight way too quickly. : )
I don't believe the MFP activity settings are a "one size fits all," and that trial and error is often necessary.
"There's no compelling reason to eat back walking calories unless you're talking about 2+ hours of brisk walking, because it is such a low intensity exercise" Is exactly what was said.
That's right. Because walking is a slow burn exercise, it *isn't* necessary to eat them back because the body can support the effort largely through fat oxidation, and the effort level isn't high enough to trigger meaningful amounts of muscle repair.
That isn't even remotely the same thing as saying walking is "useless".Walking 5 miles takes me 90 minutes. So according to this statement, I should not log it, not count it and continue to eat 1200 calories.
You're conflating all kinds of things here. A 150 pound person walking 5 miles is burning just over 200 calories - if you *want* to eat those back, go for it, but your body doesn't *need* to eat those back. You can walk that 5 miles a day indefinitely, without eating any of it back, and without starting to strip away lean body mass.
Running the same number of calories is different because that energy has to come from parts of your body that *need* to be replenished if you're going to keep doing the activity.
I never said DO or DO NOT - I said there was no compelling reason, as there is for running or other higher-intensity exercise. The choice is yours.
0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »LOL...reading through this post makes me feel like I'm wasting my time when I go out to intentionally walk for exercise. I usually take a 60 minute or so brisk walk, but apparently it doesn't count unless it's more than that. Okay...
Who said that? Did you read this?ninerbuff wrote: »
If one INTENTIONALLY goes out to walk for a time limit, then it should be counted as exercise. You don't count walking to the bathroom, kitchen, to and fro from your chair at work as exercise. That's your NEAT.
Mr Knight says that. Have you read his posts? He's the one who says walking burns practically nothing. This isn't the only thread he's ever said it in.
Yes, I saw those. That's silly as anything. It does't matter if it burns fewer calories than other activity, though. Walking for exercise needs to be logged.0 -
OK, let me explain my confusion. On a typical day of doing not much, my Fitbit gives me a burn of around 1600. So I must eat 1200 to get any sort of decent deficit. Now, on a day that I get 10K+ steps, I start to get into a 2200 day, which means I can eat a little bit more. However, the assertion that nah, you're not doing much by getting those steps in, I wouldn't count them, or only count 25% or whatever, tells me I am wasting my time. Sure, I still want to get a daily walk for my physical and mental well-being. But if it "doesn't matter" how fast or how far I go, I could do a leisurely 30-minute stroll and call it a day instead of going out there and busting my hump for five miles. And hey, keep on eating that 1200 calories that I am constantly being told is too little.
Quick question: what is your MFP calorie target, and how did you reach that?
Here is what I do: I ignore the overall calories burned according to Fitbit because that is TDEE and I am following MFP's NEAT numbers. They actually do work together well, if you understand the numbers. I am set to lose 1 lb a week at lightly active. I do not allow negative calorie adjustments because I am following NEAT so my 1760 calorie target already assumes I am not doing anything extra. When I get over 5000 steps or so, Fitbit starts to give me extra calories on MFP to eat. Typical day when I get 10k or just a little over gives me about 350 extra calories. 3 days a week I also swim laps for an hour and take an hour water aerobics class which, according to MFP, give me an extra 800 calories to eat (yes, 3 days a week I get about 1200 extra calories. 3 days about 350 extra, and 1 day I eat to my target because I rest). I eat back an average of 50% of my exercise calories from all sources. I have been averaging 1.4 lb a week loss over 15+ months.
I had originally set MFP to sedentary, which gives me 1200 whether I choose one pound or two, before anyone gripes at me for choosing two, it's the same for both choices. But the Fitbit adjustment was huge. So after some reading I changed MFP to active, as I was making sure to get at least 10K steps. I also set up negative adjustments so if I were less active than usual, it would take some away. On the days I get my steps in, there's not much of an adjustment from the Fitbit.
0 -
Miles walked * body weight in pounds * 0.3 => calories burned walking
There's no compelling reason to eat back walking calories unless you're talking about 2+ hours of brisk walking, because it is such a low intensity exercise and doesn't draw on the internal batteries the way something like running does. But if you want to - go for it! :drinker:
Plus *so* *many* MFPers end up with such huge overestimates for walking calories that even eating back "only" 50% still ends up being more than they burned.
Since you stated no compelling reason. I will still walk my 3.75 miles in 60 minutes 5 times a week and eat my normal 1200 calories a day. I am 5 foot 37 year female who can't physically run so according to you my intentional excerise is useless!0 -
OK, let me explain my confusion. On a typical day of doing not much, my Fitbit gives me a burn of around 1600. So I must eat 1200 to get any sort of decent deficit. Now, on a day that I get 10K+ steps, I start to get into a 2200 day, which means I can eat a little bit more. However, the assertion that nah, you're not doing much by getting those steps in, I wouldn't count them, or only count 25% or whatever, tells me I am wasting my time. Sure, I still want to get a daily walk for my physical and mental well-being. But if it "doesn't matter" how fast or how far I go, I could do a leisurely 30-minute stroll and call it a day instead of going out there and busting my hump for five miles. And hey, keep on eating that 1200 calories that I am constantly being told is too little.
Quick question: what is your MFP calorie target, and how did you reach that?
Here is what I do: I ignore the overall calories burned according to Fitbit because that is TDEE and I am following MFP's NEAT numbers. They actually do work together well, if you understand the numbers. I am set to lose 1 lb a week at lightly active. I do not allow negative calorie adjustments because I am following NEAT so my 1760 calorie target already assumes I am not doing anything extra. When I get over 5000 steps or so, Fitbit starts to give me extra calories on MFP to eat. Typical day when I get 10k or just a little over gives me about 350 extra calories. 3 days a week I also swim laps for an hour and take an hour water aerobics class which, according to MFP, give me an extra 800 calories to eat (yes, 3 days a week I get about 1200 extra calories. 3 days about 350 extra, and 1 day I eat to my target because I rest). I eat back an average of 50% of my exercise calories from all sources. I have been averaging 1.4 lb a week loss over 15+ months.
I had originally set MFP to sedentary, which gives me 1200 whether I choose one pound or two, before anyone gripes at me for choosing two, it's the same for both choices. But the Fitbit adjustment was huge. So after some reading I changed MFP to active, as I was making sure to get at least 10K steps. I also set up negative adjustments so if I were less active than usual, it would take some away. On the days I get my steps in, there's not much of an adjustment from the Fitbit.
Yup. If you're older and short, 1200 is all you get.
I looked up my maintenance TDEE at goal weight. I'm not going to get very many more calories then. Only about 150 more a day. So much sadness.
You'd better believe I'll be eating my walking calories back then!
0 -
Hello, glad you showed up!
I have to confess that I actually do know what *I* will log for my 45 minute walk!
But I am getting a little bit tired of seeing people advise others that they should not log walking as an exercise. Or imply in their posts that there is something wrong with eating back walking calories because walking is what? An inferior exercise?
Let's review here.
MFP has you eating at your prescribed deficit BEFORE you factor in exercise. Most people setup themselves in MFP as "sedentary".
"Sedentary" encompasses minimal movement throughout the day and generally once a person hits 5,000 steps a day they have reached those limits.
"Lightly active" ranges above 5,000 steps to almost 10,000 steps. Most people's energy expenditure at the 10K to 15K step levels corresponds to MFP's "active" setting. And as we approach 20 to 25,000K steps we start moving towards "very active".
If you are NOT setup as "sedentary" and if you are "walking" within the limits of the activity level you've chosen then YES, you should NOT log walking as exercise.
But if you walked 10,000 steps while setup as "sedentary" you most certainly SHOULD be accounting for the extra energy you've spent!
I did not know the 'formula' for setting activity levels. Great breakdown, thanks. Since using my FitBit I'm getting my 10,000 steps but not counting them towards my exercise logging. So, by your using your method I should log my walking after reaching that number.
If you sync Fitbit with MFP it will adjust your calorie goal based on steps. I did that for months, and it worked great.0 -
Miles walked * body weight in pounds * 0.3 => calories burned walking
There's no compelling reason to eat back walking calories unless you're talking about 2+ hours of brisk walking, because it is such a low intensity exercise and doesn't draw on the internal batteries the way something like running does. But if you want to - go for it! :drinker:
Plus *so* *many* MFPers end up with such huge overestimates for walking calories that even eating back "only" 50% still ends up being more than they burned.
Since you stated no compelling reason. I will still walk my 3.75 miles in 60 minutes 5 times a week and eat my normal 1200 calories a day. I am 5 foot 37 year female who can't physically run so according to you my intentional excerise is useless!
Again, I never said "no compelling reason" to walk - I said "no compelling reason" to eat back calories burnt on relatively short walks. Those are two very, very different statements.
I've now said a half a dozen times in this thread alone that walking is a great way to the body moving. I've given a reliable way to calculate the burn. And I've shared why walking is a great fit for specific exercise and/or diet needs. If from all that, all you walk away with is "useless"....well I can't really do much about that.
I suspect underlying some of the emotional responses here is an attachment to unrealistic calorie burns. Cool, I get that...but at some point we're all better off dealing with the actual realities than living in a dream world.
Good luck!
:drinker:0 -
So your saying there no compelling reason I should eat back any calories for walking?0
-
So Christine shouldn't eat back an extra 1000 calories from walking?GuitarJerry wrote: »So, what's the point of your post?
Should I eat back the approximately 700 extra calories I get from walking?
The newbies reading posts that say "walking? I wouldn't log that" or "you could log walking if you really want to; but, I don't", shouldn't log and eat back their walking calories when they are set up as sedentary with 1000cal deficits?
I don't see where he said that.
You both must walk many miles each day to burn so many calories from walking. I'm 139 pounds and I burn approximately 250 calories for 45 minutes of brisk walking (4.2-4.5 mph). Both you and Christine look pretty trim, so I wonder where those big calorie burns are coming from.
Nobody said you should not log those. You should do what you feel is right.
However, if you read my post prior to this, you will see I am set at active and I also count my cardio burns, AND I work a desk job. By your definition, I should be set at sedentary. I was at first, and I lost weight way too quickly. : )
I don't believe the MFP activity settings are a "one size fits all," and that trial and error is often necessary.
"There's no compelling reason to eat back walking calories unless you're talking about 2+ hours of brisk walking, because it is such a low intensity exercise" Is exactly what was said.
That's right. Because walking is a slow burn exercise, it *isn't* necessary to eat them back because the body can support the effort largely through fat oxidation, and the effort level isn't high enough to trigger meaningful amounts of muscle repair.
That isn't even remotely the same thing as saying walking is "useless".Walking 5 miles takes me 90 minutes. So according to this statement, I should not log it, not count it and continue to eat 1200 calories.
You're conflating all kinds of things here. A 150 pound person walking 5 miles is burning just over 200 calories - if you *want* to eat those back, go for it, but your body doesn't *need* to eat those back. You can walk that 5 miles a day indefinitely, without eating any of it back, and without starting to strip away lean body mass.
Running the same number of calories is different because that energy has to come from parts of your body that *need* to be replenished if you're going to keep doing the activity.
I never said DO or DO NOT - I said there was no compelling reason, as there is for running or other higher-intensity exercise. The choice is yours.
Where are you getting your calorie burn number from?
0 -
So your saying there no compelling reason I should eat back any calories for walking?
At the distances you posted? No, there's not. If you want to, you can, there's nothing wrong with it. If it helps you mentally to stick to your plan, go for it. Totally up to you.
But, no, your body isn't going to need you to eat back the 150-ish calories.
0 -
Since I don't walk two plus hours at a time?
0 -
Miles walked * body weight in pounds * 0.3 => calories burned walking
There's no compelling reason to eat back walking calories unless you're talking about 2+ hours of brisk walking, because it is such a low intensity exercise and doesn't draw on the internal batteries the way something like running does. But if you want to - go for it! :drinker:
Plus *so* *many* MFPers end up with such huge overestimates for walking calories that even eating back "only" 50% still ends up being more than they burned.
Since you stated no compelling reason. I will still walk my 3.75 miles in 60 minutes 5 times a week and eat my normal 1200 calories a day. I am 5 foot 37 year female who can't physically run so according to you my intentional excerise is useless!
?? Saying no compelling reason to eat back the calories is not the same thing as saying the exercise is useless.
I have my deficit set up to be 250 calories/week, because I don't want to risk muscle mass (I'm close to goal, I do somewhat intense exercise, I'm also admittedly tired of doing a calorie deficit). If I can also walk a bit extra in a week I'd probably lose a little more, and I don't feel like there's a need to eat it back like I would if I upped my more intense cardio some, but there'd still be a benefit--specifically, I'd lose more.
I get the sense that some are taking this as they don't have permission to eat the extra calories unless they HAVE TO, and that's not so. For lots of reasons I think a diet is more sustainable for most, especially if you are closer to goal or plan to keep it up for some time, if you can avoid eating 1200, so that's a good enough reason to eat the calories from walking.
Sometimes there's this weird machismo in posts about exercise calories that suggest there's some virtue to not eating them unless you "need to" and that people assume that don't need to unless they are suffering some noticeable ill effects. Wanting a calorie level that seems sustainable for you seems to me a good enough reason.
I flat out could not eat 1200 at the moment, so for me that's good enough reason not to, if I can lose without doing it. If I were injured so I couldn't do all the exercise I currently do, but could walk, you can bet I'd be walking as much as possible and eating more than 1200 (I estimate my maintenance if sedentary is 1550).0 -
Nice try on the calorie burn dig, but I'll just note that I only ever eat back about... oh 50 calories of what I log for my burns.
I go through periods where I can't exercise due to health reasons. My scale still moves, but not as quickly as it does when I can exercise. The losses I get during periods of exercise would correlate with a greater burn than the calculations some are stating in this thread.0 -
-
So since I am not burning enough calories walking 3.75 miles an hour 5 times aweek I should continue to only eat 1200 calories a day? I shouldn't add any calories? I am not talking about over estimation of burns but calories in general?0
-
@Mr_Knight. Did you say already in this thread where you got that formula .3 x body weight per mile burned? This number is lower than any I'm able to find through numerous sites.0
-
So since I am not burning enough calories walking 3.75 miles an hour 5 times aweek I should continue to only eat 1200 calories a day? I shouldn't add any calories? I am not talking about over estimation of burns but calories in general?
It's not my place to tell you what you should or shouldn't do. Only you have your context.
There's more to successful weight and fitness management than than just the things we "should" or "shouldn't" do. If you're feeling good doing whatever you're doing - keep on truckin'!
:drinker:
0 -
So Christine shouldn't eat back an extra 1000 calories from walking?GuitarJerry wrote: »So, what's the point of your post?
Should I eat back the approximately 700 extra calories I get from walking?
The newbies reading posts that say "walking? I wouldn't log that" or "you could log walking if you really want to; but, I don't", shouldn't log and eat back their walking calories when they are set up as sedentary with 1000cal deficits?
I don't see where he said that.
You both must walk many miles each day to burn so many calories from walking. I'm 139 pounds and I burn approximately 250 calories for 45 minutes of brisk walking (4.2-4.5 mph). Both you and Christine look pretty trim, so I wonder where those big calorie burns are coming from.
Nobody said you should not log those. You should do what you feel is right.
However, if you read my post prior to this, you will see I am set at active and I also count my cardio burns, AND I work a desk job. By your definition, I should be set at sedentary. I was at first, and I lost weight way too quickly. : )
I don't believe the MFP activity settings are a "one size fits all," and that trial and error is often necessary.
"There's no compelling reason to eat back walking calories unless you're talking about 2+ hours of brisk walking, because it is such a low intensity exercise" Is exactly what was said.
That's right. Because walking is a slow burn exercise, it *isn't* necessary to eat them back because the body can support the effort largely through fat oxidation, and the effort level isn't high enough to trigger meaningful amounts of muscle repair.
That isn't even remotely the same thing as saying walking is "useless".
Oooohhhh! I finally get it!
The (compelling) reason to eat back exercise calories is to provide the nutritional support for repair and replenishment the body needs as a result of having endured the exercise. If the primary effect of walking was burning off fat stores, then no nutritional support is neccesary since no repairs or replenishment is necessary.
In my book, burning off fat stores is not only a good thing, but it also would make walking a preferred type of exercise (whether or not I log it.)
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions