lightly active vs active
zfitgal
Posts: 519 Member
Hi, so I work time doing sales and then I come home and then I'm a mother to 3 year old daughter....I'm moving quite a bit. I work out 6 days a week, would you consider me lightly active or active?
0
Replies
-
Your activity level is excluding your exercise so I would just pick one (probably "lightly active") and then monitor your weight loss. If you lose faster than you expect, you can always change it to "active."3
-
Exercise should be logged separately and not factored into activity level. 2500 ish steps is sedentary, 5000 steps lightly active, 7500 active and so on in 2500 step increments.0
-
I was on weight watchers before this and I was eating the recommended number of points, excluding my activity points and I was losing at all..that was about 1400 calorie diet....0
-
Was not losing0
-
Your evening with kids makes you lightly active by itself, job just bumps you up a level to Active.
Good job on attempting to get best estimate, it helps.
No need making the diet more extreme than it needs to be - body will thank you being that active.1 -
Logging accuracy is key. Invest in a food scale and weigh all solids and semi-solids, measure all liquids. You'll be surprised and were probably eating more than you thought.0
-
Was not losing
My understanding (having never done Weight Watchers) is that MFP and WW are pretty different. But I think if you're on the fence between two activity levels, it's usually better to choose the lower one and then adjust later if it turns out you need a higher level of activity.0 -
Hi, so I work time doing sales and then I come home and then I'm a mother to 3 year old daughter....I'm moving quite a bit. I work out 6 days a week, would you consider me lightly active or active?
If you're following MFP's methodology then you would exclude exercise from your activity level...you'll notice that the descriptors make no mention of exercise...only your daily grind. With MFP's methodology you log exercise after the fact and "earn" extra calories for that activity. This can be beneficial for people who are inconsistent with exercise...they can just hit their calorie targets and still lose and get a little bonus when they do exercise. The downside is that it's difficult to estimate calories out accurately.
Many people though just go ahead and include exercise, particularly if they exercise on the regular and are consistent...it just makes more sense.
0 -
So i made myself active and have been adding in 200 calories for exercise..I have lost in the past two weeks but I stalled this week. I want to have a weekly loss...I do feel eating 1638 calories a day is to much, but when I was eating the 1400 I really had no weight loss and I do have a food scale and measure everything that goes in my mouth...I know weight watchers is different then mfp but calories are still calories..I lift very heavy weights and that's my main workout.
0 -
So i made myself active and have been adding in 200 calories for exercise..I have lost in the past two weeks but I stalled this week. I want to have a weekly loss...I do feel eating 1638 calories a day is to much, but when I was eating the 1400 I really had no weight loss and I do have a food scale and measure everything that goes in my mouth...I know weight watchers is different then mfp but calories are still calories..I lift very heavy weights and that's my main workout.
I'm not 100% sure what your job entails, but I think it's unlikely that you're "Active." 200 calories may also be too much to add for weightlifting -- it actually doesn't burn all that many calories. Is 1,638 your base goal on "Active" or is that what you get when you take your goal and add 200 for exercise?0 -
So i made myself active and have been adding in 200 calories for exercise..I have lost in the past two weeks but I stalled this week. I want to have a weekly loss...I do feel eating 1638 calories a day is to much, but when I was eating the 1400 I really had no weight loss and I do have a food scale and measure everything that goes in my mouth...I know weight watchers is different then mfp but calories are still calories..I lift very heavy weights and that's my main workout.
I would personally think "active" would include your exercise, in which case, you wouldn't want to add any calories in for exercise.0 -
Yes, 1638 is what I get after adding in my weight lifting....when I do spin or an interval class I get more but I keep it at 16380
-
I get 1440 just being active...thanks for u r help btw0
-
-
You're not going to see a weekly loss on the scale, not many people do, particularly if you are female. The body naturally fluctuates due to a variety of factors, biggest one being hormones for women.
So don't panic after one week, see where you are in 6-8. It's a process, the human body isn't a nicely predictable and linear machine so settle in and just do what you should consistently, the results will come.1 -
I chose 1.5 lbs a week0
-
janejellyroll wrote: »So i made myself active and have been adding in 200 calories for exercise..I have lost in the past two weeks but I stalled this week. I want to have a weekly loss...I do feel eating 1638 calories a day is to much, but when I was eating the 1400 I really had no weight loss and I do have a food scale and measure everything that goes in my mouth...I know weight watchers is different then mfp but calories are still calories..I lift very heavy weights and that's my main workout.
I'm not 100% sure what your job entails, but I think it's unlikely that you're "Active."
Why? I teach at a university. I have a long walk in from the parking lot. When I get home from work, I have two young children to look after. I followed the instructions on MFP and set myself to "lightly active" because "teacher". I set my deficit to 500 cals/day, averaged about 100 cals/day more than it told me to eat and lost 2 pounds/week for two months. Turns out I am more than "active". It's not actually that hard. If you're on your feet all day and get in well over 10,000 steps per day, you're more than "lightly active". I know I'm not the norm, but the OP's situation sounds similar to mine.
OP: My experience is not universal, but I think the approach was good. Set a conservative weight loss goal (e.g. 1 pound/week; this gives you a safety margin if you're underestimating your activity level). Set yourself to lightly active (because there's no way you're sedentary). After a few weeks, compare your actual weightloss to your predicted weightloss. If you're losing faster than expected, increase your activity level to "active". If you're losing as expected, leave it where it is. Do log your workouts. Activity level is just for day-to-day life.
Have you considered getting a pedometer to give you an idea of how much you're moving outside of your workouts? They're relatively inexpensive these days. I wound up going the FitBit route, but that's a lot more expensive.
FYI, 1680 calories is not "a lot" if you're active. I have increased my calorie intake to 2000 cals/day and am still losing at least 1 pound/week.4 -
0
-
Have you ever used a pedometer or step counter, or just used your phone to track steps?
If so, what were the numbers like?
Very few people in modern America are "active" without making an additional effort to add exercise. There are some charts around that map average step counts to how those activity ratings are applied, but the vast majority of people are NOT "active" in their daily lives.0 -
So i made myself active and have been adding in 200 calories for exercise..I have lost in the past two weeks but I stalled this week. I want to have a weekly loss...I do feel eating 1638 calories a day is to much, but when I was eating the 1400 I really had no weight loss and I do have a food scale and measure everything that goes in my mouth...I know weight watchers is different then mfp but calories are still calories..I lift very heavy weights and that's my main workout.
Ditto's to above that 1638 isn't that much.
In comparison to what?
A minimum number of 1440 that is based on what?
How about you compare 1638 to how much you used to eat?
That's what you should really compare to - not some bare bones minimum of 1200 that is thrown out everywhere as the diet amount to follow.
If you had like most people a pretty regular diet (what you ate, not while being in a diet trying to lose) of similar meals daily - go back to some days in the diary prior to starting your loss diet.
Estimate as best you can some typical days - and likely be surprised how much you used to eat.
And were you actually gaining weight eating that much? - most come from a place of overweight but not much being gained anymore, or at least so slow as to be unnoticed on weekly basis.
You merely need to eat less than that amount of calories by reasonable amount.
And if exercising now but you weren't then - you actually could have eaten more to maintain with the exercise.1 -
I was wondering this yesterday as I was in 1,380 but then I realised I had mine set as not active but now I have a job where I am constantly on my feet the whole day (5days a wk) and I walk to and from work I decided to set it to lightly active to see how I go and it put me up at 1,580 cals a day now
now I am worried I won't lose weight 0 -
SusanMFindlay wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »So i made myself active and have been adding in 200 calories for exercise..I have lost in the past two weeks but I stalled this week. I want to have a weekly loss...I do feel eating 1638 calories a day is to much, but when I was eating the 1400 I really had no weight loss and I do have a food scale and measure everything that goes in my mouth...I know weight watchers is different then mfp but calories are still calories..I lift very heavy weights and that's my main workout.
I'm not 100% sure what your job entails, but I think it's unlikely that you're "Active."
Why? I teach at a university. I have a long walk in from the parking lot. When I get home from work, I have two young children to look after. I followed the instructions on MFP and set myself to "lightly active" because "teacher". I set my deficit to 500 cals/day, averaged about 100 cals/day more than it told me to eat and lost 2 pounds/week for two months. Turns out I am more than "active". It's not actually that hard. If you're on your feet all day and get in well over 10,000 steps per day, you're more than "lightly active". I know I'm not the norm, but the OP's situation sounds similar to mine.
OP: My experience is not universal, but I think the approach was good. Set a conservative weight loss goal (e.g. 1 pound/week; this gives you a safety margin if you're underestimating your activity level). Set yourself to lightly active (because there's no way you're sedentary). After a few weeks, compare your actual weightloss to your predicted weightloss. If you're losing faster than expected, increase your activity level to "active". If you're losing as expected, leave it where it is. Do log your workouts. Activity level is just for day-to-day life.
Have you considered getting a pedometer to give you an idea of how much you're moving outside of your workouts? They're relatively inexpensive these days. I wound up going the FitBit route, but that's a lot more expensive.
FYI, 1680 calories is not "a lot" if you're active. I have increased my calorie intake to 2000 cals/day and am still losing at least 1 pound/week.
I said I thought it was unlikely she was active (because most people aren't, by MFP's standard), not that is was impossible. That's why I recommended choosing the lower activity level (since she's already on the fence) and adjusting if she loses faster than expected.1 -
I have been the same weoght forwver, ive been into fitness and exercise for 15 yeats now so none of this is new to me. I have been going theough a divorce forbthe past twonyears but maintained propper sleep, diet and exercise. I pretty much ate the same food everyday aside from when i had a treat meal. The weight literally came on out of nowhere. I have heard that people had to eat more to lose and I guess my head is stuck in that 1200 calorie diet zone number
...quote="heybales;38075468"]So i made myself active and have been adding in 200 calories for exercise..I have lost in the past two weeks but I stalled this week. I want to have a weekly loss...I do feel eating 1638 calories a day is to much, but when I was eating the 1400 I really had no weight loss and I do have a food scale and measure everything that goes in my mouth...I know weight watchers is different then mfp but calories are still calories..I lift very heavy weights and that's my main workout.
Ditto's to above that 1638 isn't that much.
In comparison to what?
A minimum number of 1440 that is based on what?
How about you compare 1638 to how much you used to eat?
That's what you should really compare to - not some bare bones minimum of 1200 that is thrown out everywhere as the diet amount to follow.
If you had like most people a pretty regular diet (what you ate, not while being in a diet trying to lose) of similar meals daily - go back to some days in the diary prior to starting your loss diet.
Estimate as best you can some typical days - and likely be surprised how much you used to eat.
And were you actually gaining weight eating that much? - most come from a place of overweight but not much being gained anymore, or at least so slow as to be unnoticed on weekly basis.
You merely need to eat less than that amount of calories by reasonable amount.
And if exercising now but you weren't then - you actually could have eaten more to maintain with the exercise.[/quote]
0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »SusanMFindlay wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »So i made myself active and have been adding in 200 calories for exercise..I have lost in the past two weeks but I stalled this week. I want to have a weekly loss...I do feel eating 1638 calories a day is to much, but when I was eating the 1400 I really had no weight loss and I do have a food scale and measure everything that goes in my mouth...I know weight watchers is different then mfp but calories are still calories..I lift very heavy weights and that's my main workout.
I'm not 100% sure what your job entails, but I think it's unlikely that you're "Active."
Why? I teach at a university. I have a long walk in from the parking lot. When I get home from work, I have two young children to look after. I followed the instructions on MFP and set myself to "lightly active" because "teacher". I set my deficit to 500 cals/day, averaged about 100 cals/day more than it told me to eat and lost 2 pounds/week for two months. Turns out I am more than "active". It's not actually that hard. If you're on your feet all day and get in well over 10,000 steps per day, you're more than "lightly active". I know I'm not the norm, but the OP's situation sounds similar to mine.
OP: My experience is not universal, but I think the approach was good. Set a conservative weight loss goal (e.g. 1 pound/week; this gives you a safety margin if you're underestimating your activity level). Set yourself to lightly active (because there's no way you're sedentary). After a few weeks, compare your actual weightloss to your predicted weightloss. If you're losing faster than expected, increase your activity level to "active". If you're losing as expected, leave it where it is. Do log your workouts. Activity level is just for day-to-day life.
Have you considered getting a pedometer to give you an idea of how much you're moving outside of your workouts? They're relatively inexpensive these days. I wound up going the FitBit route, but that's a lot more expensive.
FYI, 1680 calories is not "a lot" if you're active. I have increased my calorie intake to 2000 cals/day and am still losing at least 1 pound/week.
I said I thought it was unlikely she was active (because most people aren't, by MFP's standard), not that is was impossible. That's why I recommended choosing the lower activity level (since she's already on the fence) and adjusting if she loses faster than expected.
I just think that when we tell people to guess low about their activity level, we also need to tell them to be conservative with their deficit - so that if they wind up underestimating their burn, they don't wind up undereating. I also think it would be gentler to say that "most people are less active than they think" as opposed to "you're probably not really active". Semantics, yes, but posts like that would make me second guess myself about raising my calories to where they needed to be.3 -
I think most people think they are less active than they really are. I've rarely found anyone estimating high. Even when they misunderstand and think exercise is included.
I'm with you.
You can always drop lower if need be. But start out too low and stress out the body and start gaining water weight - now how many are going to raise the level to fix that - very few.
Look at the surprise when people start wearing activity trackers and before they start walking more, notice how few, or how many, steps they get.
And yet despite that - they still get a positive adjustment on MFP when set to sedentary - because sedentary is truly a bump on log 7 days a week.
Most report that at about 4000 steps they start getting minor adjustments up. And these are people with desk jobs. But even though that may be 8 hrs, plus another 1-2 for driving time - the rushing around in the evening for family or kids or whatever, takes them out of sedentary. Especially if you average out busy weekend days across the whole week.4 -
I have been the same weoght forwver, ive been into fitness and exercise for 15 yeats now so none of this is new to me. I have been going theough a divorce forbthe past twonyears but maintained propper sleep, diet and exercise. I pretty much ate the same food everyday aside from when i had a treat meal. The weight literally came on out of nowhere. I have heard that people had to eat more to lose and I guess my head is stuck in that 1200 calorie diet zone number
Your daily routine likely changed - and since that is where the majority of calories comes from (when you include the metabolism level burn in there) - you can keep the others and still have major effect.
But if you ate common meals - still suggest adding up some typical days.
The problem being you may not be as active for whatever reason, perhaps outside of exercise and required duties - you plop down more or longer than you used to.
Those things can be hard to gauge when nothing to compare to.
If you used to wear an activity tracker with steps then until now - easy to compare and see what may have happened.
Has exercise always included resistance training that is difficult, or mainly cardio?
0 -
I have been the same weoght forwver, ive been into fitness and exercise for 15 yeats now so none of this is new to me. I have been going theough a divorce forbthe past twonyears but maintained propper sleep, diet and exercise. I pretty much ate the same food everyday aside from when i had a treat meal. The weight literally came on out of nowhere. I have heard that people had to eat more to lose and I guess my head is stuck in that 1200 calorie diet zone number
Your daily routine likely changed - and since that is where the majority of calories comes from (when you include the metabolism level burn in there) - you can keep the others and still have major effect.
But if you ate common meals - still suggest adding up some typical days.
The problem being you may not be as active for whatever reason, perhaps outside of exercise and required duties - you plop down more or longer than you used to.
Those things can be hard to gauge when nothing to compare to.
If you used to wear an activity tracker with steps then until now - easy to compare and see what may have happened.
Has exercise always included resistance training that is difficult, or mainly cardio?
Always been a big weight lifter. Not much cardio, I would do cardio two times a week. I did put on a decent amount of muscle and the more muscle one has faster their metabolism is, that's what I hear anyway. My TDEE is 2100...BMR IS 1360...I was eating close to 1400 calories a day for years, I just increase calories to see if I will start losing this way...
0 -
Muscle burns about 6 cal / lb per day, compared to fat at 2 cal/lb/day.
So not a huge metabolism increase of calories from just adding muscle.
But the workouts using that muscle, and doing damage to them, and requiring repair - now that increases the metabolism.
So you estimated potential TDEE is 2100.
Your literal right now TDEE is of course whatever amount you eat, if you aren't losing weight or gaining.
If that is around 1400, that could be a very accurate logged 1400, or sloppy logged 1400, in which case it's likely more.
Would suggest you increase slowly - you are likely to discover you had no idea your workouts could be so good.1
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions