"How am I gaining weight in a deficit?" or: You're not losing fat because you're eating too much.
Replies
-
estherdragonbat wrote: »
Does a belly laugh burn more calories than a cackle?
Where's the diary entry for that!?3 -
Traveler120 wrote: »ThatUserNameIsAllReadyTaken wrote: »doittoitgirl wrote: »What ever happened to that flowchart infographic to post when people complain they don't know why they aren't losing weight?
Honestly I was happy that people stopped circulating that tiresome chart. Now here it comes again!
Ah, so I'm not the only one who hates that annoying chart.
Nope, you can include me in the "oh man stop posting that stupid chart" crowd. Okay, it's NOT a stupid chart, and yes it has good information. But for goodness sakes it is tiresome seeing the same thing posted over and over and over again, with no other response. Put it in a dang sticky, and refer people back to it in your comments.0 -
estherdragonbat wrote: »
Does a belly laugh burn more calories than a cackle?
Where's the diary entry for that!?
You'll have to create a custom exercise.
Data can be found here, via Vanderbilt U:
No joke: Study finds laughing can burn calories
You don't need me to add a smiley, right?2 -
fitmom4lifemfp wrote: »Traveler120 wrote: »ThatUserNameIsAllReadyTaken wrote: »doittoitgirl wrote: »What ever happened to that flowchart infographic to post when people complain they don't know why they aren't losing weight?
Honestly I was happy that people stopped circulating that tiresome chart. Now here it comes again!
Ah, so I'm not the only one who hates that annoying chart.
Nope, you can include me in the "oh man stop posting that stupid chart" crowd. Okay, it's NOT a stupid chart, and yes it has good information. But for goodness sakes it is tiresome seeing the same thing posted over and over and over again, with no other response. Put it in a dang sticky, and refer people back to it in your comments.
It's also tiresome seeing the same question a hundred times and the same responses a thousand more. If you have a specific question, that's great. But if you're going to neglect to read the announcements on the subject at the top of the forum, keep your diary private so no one can see what you're eating, and then ask the same thing: " I'm eating a deficit and not losing weight help me" the infographic is a good first step to figuring out what's going wrong. Because if they haven't addressed any of those things, those are going to be the only responses posted in the first place.9 -
I've seen people count cooking as exercise. Not sure why, since I don't cross-examine. I guess if one is canning/preserving or something like that . . . ?
I don't count my everyday cooking but when I spend an extra three hours in the kitchen making a St. Patrick's Day feast for my family and am as tired afterwards as if I'd walked two miles, I sure do log that.3 -
doittoitgirl wrote: »fitmom4lifemfp wrote: »Traveler120 wrote: »ThatUserNameIsAllReadyTaken wrote: »doittoitgirl wrote: »What ever happened to that flowchart infographic to post when people complain they don't know why they aren't losing weight?
Honestly I was happy that people stopped circulating that tiresome chart. Now here it comes again!
Ah, so I'm not the only one who hates that annoying chart.
Nope, you can include me in the "oh man stop posting that stupid chart" crowd. Okay, it's NOT a stupid chart, and yes it has good information. But for goodness sakes it is tiresome seeing the same thing posted over and over and over again, with no other response. Put it in a dang sticky, and refer people back to it in your comments.
It's also tiresome seeing the same question a hundred times and the same responses a thousand more.
This is what I was thinking. I'd rather see one chart than 50 people dispensing the same advice 1 point at a time. Plus, the chart is colorful
7 -
It takes me half a second to scroll past the chart, no big deal. It's not as if we all have to read it every time it's posted
8 -
Colorscheme wrote: »Just in relation to your alternate thread title:
'You're not losing fat because you're eating too much'
... it's fair to say that this should be extended to:
'You're not losing fat because you're eating too much in relation to your caloric burn'.
I have noticed a tendency for some users of this site to grill people about the input while ignoring the latter part of the equation completely.
Most people think they're burning a lot more calories than they actually are.
Probably. For some that's because they don't move as much (or burn as many calories from their activity) as they think. For others is may be that their calculated metabolic estimate doesn't match the formulaic general guess.
But whether someone is eating 'too much' relative to what their expenditure is.
That's the entire premise of the CICO equation.
One of the things I see a lot on my feed is people logging daily activities like house work, yard work, etc. That never makes sense to me. I only log actual exercise.
Calories don't know if they are being burned in the yard or in the gym.9 -
As a 4'11, 47 yo female, I am one of the outlyers. No matter what I put into MFP, it tells me to eat 1200. My weightloss sweetspot is at about 1100. I started at 1200 and slowly reduced intake until I saw results. It's not rocket science. Before anyone comments on how I'm not getting adequate nutrition, I run a little low on carbs and the other macros are on point for a 1200 intake. I just eat a little less starches.1
-
Colorscheme wrote: »Just in relation to your alternate thread title:
'You're not losing fat because you're eating too much'
... it's fair to say that this should be extended to:
'You're not losing fat because you're eating too much in relation to your caloric burn'.
I have noticed a tendency for some users of this site to grill people about the input while ignoring the latter part of the equation completely.
Most people think they're burning a lot more calories than they actually are.
Probably. For some that's because they don't move as much (or burn as many calories from their activity) as they think. For others is may be that their calculated metabolic estimate doesn't match the formulaic general guess.
But whether someone is eating 'too much' relative to what their expenditure is.
That's the entire premise of the CICO equation.
One of the things I see a lot on my feed is people logging daily activities like house work, yard work, etc. That never makes sense to me. I only log actual exercise.
Well, if you sit behind a desk 40 hours a week and therefore have your activity level set to sedentary, if you're not sedentary on weekends then it's "exercise" as far as MFP is concerned.2 -
Colorscheme wrote: »One of the things I see a lot on my feed is people logging daily activities like house work, yard work, etc. That never makes sense to me. I only log actual exercise.
Well, if you sit behind a desk 40 hours a week and therefore have your activity level set to sedentary, if you're not sedentary on weekends then it's "exercise" as far as MFP is concerned.
Yeah, I think it depends on what's "normal" activity for you... if you regularly cook and clean and weed your yard, it should be included in your activity level and not logged separately. If yard work, for example, is unusual, it could be logged. That's the way I've always seen it, anyway!0 -
As a 4'11, 47 yo female, I am one of the outlyers. No matter what I put into MFP, it tells me to eat 1200. My weightloss sweetspot is at about 1100. I started at 1200 and slowly reduced intake until I saw results. It's not rocket science. Before anyone comments on how I'm not getting adequate nutrition, I run a little low on carbs and the other macros are on point for a 1200 intake. I just eat a little less starches.
You're less than 5 feet tall and over 40 years old. Nobody's going to pick on you for being slightly below 1200. You're actually short enough for that to be reasonable (assuming that you're sedentary).
I will, on the other hand, point out that 1200 is way too low for people who are tall (if relevant to the conversation).4 -
Colorscheme wrote: »Just in relation to your alternate thread title:
'You're not losing fat because you're eating too much'
... it's fair to say that this should be extended to:
'You're not losing fat because you're eating too much in relation to your caloric burn'.
I have noticed a tendency for some users of this site to grill people about the input while ignoring the latter part of the equation completely.
Most people think they're burning a lot more calories than they actually are.
Probably. For some that's because they don't move as much (or burn as many calories from their activity) as they think. For others is may be that their calculated metabolic estimate doesn't match the formulaic general guess.
But whether someone is eating 'too much' relative to what their expenditure is.
That's the entire premise of the CICO equation.
One of the things I see a lot on my feed is people logging daily activities like house work, yard work, etc. That never makes sense to me. I only log actual exercise.
Well, if you sit behind a desk 40 hours a week and therefore have your activity level set to sedentary, if you're not sedentary on weekends then it's "exercise" as far as MFP is concerned.
This was already covered. If it's part of your normal life, it's not exercise. If it isn't, then it's exercise.0 -
Colorscheme wrote: »Just in relation to your alternate thread title:
'You're not losing fat because you're eating too much'
... it's fair to say that this should be extended to:
'You're not losing fat because you're eating too much in relation to your caloric burn'.
I have noticed a tendency for some users of this site to grill people about the input while ignoring the latter part of the equation completely.
Most people think they're burning a lot more calories than they actually are.
Probably. For some that's because they don't move as much (or burn as many calories from their activity) as they think. For others is may be that their calculated metabolic estimate doesn't match the formulaic general guess.
But whether someone is eating 'too much' relative to what their expenditure is.
That's the entire premise of the CICO equation.
One of the things I see a lot on my feed is people logging daily activities like house work, yard work, etc. That never makes sense to me. I only log actual exercise.
Well, if you sit behind a desk 40 hours a week and therefore have your activity level set to sedentary, if you're not sedentary on weekends then it's "exercise" as far as MFP is concerned.
I do sit behind a desk, and as a result I use "sedentary". I never log yard work or anything that is not purposeful exercise (gym, bike, run, etc.)1 -
As a 4'11, 47 yo female, I am one of the outlyers. No matter what I put into MFP, it tells me to eat 1200. My weightloss sweetspot is at about 1100. I started at 1200 and slowly reduced intake until I saw results. It's not rocket science. Before anyone comments on how I'm not getting adequate nutrition, I run a little low on carbs and the other macros are on point for a 1200 intake. I just eat a little less starches.
I don't view that as an "outlier". You are very short, so clearly you are going to be quite low on the calories-needed scale. I put in my own calorie goal - I don't use the suggested. Works better for me.1 -
ThatUserNameIsAllReadyTaken wrote: »doittoitgirl wrote: »What ever happened to that flowchart infographic to post when people complain they don't know why they aren't losing weight?
Honestly I was happy that people stopped circulating that tiresome chart.
It may be tiresome to you, but for the myriads of newbies who arrive and start threads asking the very same questions, it gives them some things to ponder without twenty people having to contribute the info one bit at a time. I, for one, happen to think it's a marvelous resource for someone new to look through.
Now if someone kept posting it to threads that *you* had started, you might have a point. Otherwise, I don't really understand your negativity towards it. 15 -
The importance of accuracy in logging and measuring, especially high calorie items, cannot be overstated.
So true. I don't weigh stuff like veggies that is healthy and super low cal and nutrient dense. Not worth my time when I'm deciding between 20 or 25 calories for some bell pepper.
I definitely weigh nuts, processed foods, anything high calorie though! You are right, it adds up fast!1 -
SusanMFindlay wrote: »
Me too - it really helps!5 -
Colorscheme wrote: »Colorscheme wrote: »Just in relation to your alternate thread title:
'You're not losing fat because you're eating too much'
... it's fair to say that this should be extended to:
'You're not losing fat because you're eating too much in relation to your caloric burn'.
I have noticed a tendency for some users of this site to grill people about the input while ignoring the latter part of the equation completely.
Most people think they're burning a lot more calories than they actually are.
Probably. For some that's because they don't move as much (or burn as many calories from their activity) as they think. For others is may be that their calculated metabolic estimate doesn't match the formulaic general guess.
But whether someone is eating 'too much' relative to what their expenditure is.
That's the entire premise of the CICO equation.
One of the things I see a lot on my feed is people logging daily activities like house work, yard work, etc. That never makes sense to me. I only log actual exercise.
Well, if you sit behind a desk 40 hours a week and therefore have your activity level set to sedentary, if you're not sedentary on weekends then it's "exercise" as far as MFP is concerned.
This was already covered. If it's part of your normal life, it's not exercise. If it isn't, then it's exercise.
It's part of my normal life to hike a few miles at lunchtime. Should I stop counting this?3 -
kshama2001 wrote: »
It's part of my normal life to hike a few miles at lunchtime. Should I stop counting this?
I wear a Fitbit to log steps. 10K a day is my daily goal, always. For me it's just a way to make sure I hit that goal everyday.0 -
Read a couple of initial posts and skipping to next available, so forgive me if this is now thread drift--I just wanted to say that everyone's metabolism is different and while calories in/calories out dominates weight loss, whether you feel satiated or not on the calories you are eating can depend on your individual metabolism and how it likes your balance of macros.
For example I *cannot* adhere to a low-fat diet; I am ravenous all the time even if I grossly overeat calories. On the other hand, its comparatively easy for me to stay within the calorie target on a moderate carbohydrate (around 50-75% of what mfp suggests) and high (up to 20% above mfp target) fat diet, because my body is apparently good at recognizing fat intake but bad at recognizing carb intake.
Some people get full on high fiber.
You need to experiment to find out what makes your body feel full so that you can stick to your calorie targets.
As for logging, at home I weigh everything obsessively, and try to deliberately over-estimate quantities when reconstructing a restaurant meal.
Also google "diet whoosh" to find out about water-retention plateaus.3 -
kshama2001 wrote: »Colorscheme wrote: »Colorscheme wrote: »Just in relation to your alternate thread title:
'You're not losing fat because you're eating too much'
... it's fair to say that this should be extended to:
'You're not losing fat because you're eating too much in relation to your caloric burn'.
I have noticed a tendency for some users of this site to grill people about the input while ignoring the latter part of the equation completely.
Most people think they're burning a lot more calories than they actually are.
Probably. For some that's because they don't move as much (or burn as many calories from their activity) as they think. For others is may be that their calculated metabolic estimate doesn't match the formulaic general guess.
But whether someone is eating 'too much' relative to what their expenditure is.
That's the entire premise of the CICO equation.
One of the things I see a lot on my feed is people logging daily activities like house work, yard work, etc. That never makes sense to me. I only log actual exercise.
Well, if you sit behind a desk 40 hours a week and therefore have your activity level set to sedentary, if you're not sedentary on weekends then it's "exercise" as far as MFP is concerned.
This was already covered. If it's part of your normal life, it's not exercise. If it isn't, then it's exercise.
It's part of my normal life to hike a few miles at lunchtime. Should I stop counting this?
It depends on how you set up MFP when it asked you for your baseline level of activity. If you said you were sedentary, then yes you should log your hikes. If you put yourself in the most active category, then mfp is already assuming that you are doing something like those hikes--mfp has already added a bunch of exercise calories to your baseline--so in that case you wouldn't log the hikes unless you do something well beyond routine.
add: someone earlier was skeptical about logging activities like 'cleaning'. That's another thing that depends on the person. For me, I'd like to be able to log that because I hate cleaning and it might be an incentive to be more consistent about it, but that's not really a (physical) health issue. But I can also imagine someone recovering from a heart attack using MFP to track a strict cardiac diet and with activity limitations due to heart failure, for whom logging cleaning is absolutely an appropriate thing to do.
Its a tool that some can use and that isn't needed by others. :shrug:2 -
kshama2001 wrote: »Colorscheme wrote: »Colorscheme wrote: »Just in relation to your alternate thread title:
'You're not losing fat because you're eating too much'
... it's fair to say that this should be extended to:
'You're not losing fat because you're eating too much in relation to your caloric burn'.
I have noticed a tendency for some users of this site to grill people about the input while ignoring the latter part of the equation completely.
Most people think they're burning a lot more calories than they actually are.
Probably. For some that's because they don't move as much (or burn as many calories from their activity) as they think. For others is may be that their calculated metabolic estimate doesn't match the formulaic general guess.
But whether someone is eating 'too much' relative to what their expenditure is.
That's the entire premise of the CICO equation.
One of the things I see a lot on my feed is people logging daily activities like house work, yard work, etc. That never makes sense to me. I only log actual exercise.
Well, if you sit behind a desk 40 hours a week and therefore have your activity level set to sedentary, if you're not sedentary on weekends then it's "exercise" as far as MFP is concerned.
This was already covered. If it's part of your normal life, it's not exercise. If it isn't, then it's exercise.
It's part of my normal life to hike a few miles at lunchtime. Should I stop counting this?
It depends on how you set up MFP when it asked you for your baseline level of activity. If you said you were sedentary, then yes you should log your hikes. If you put yourself in the most active category, then mfp is already assuming that you are doing something like those hikes--mfp has already added a bunch of exercise calories to your baseline--so in that case you wouldn't log the hikes unless you do something well beyond routine.
add: someone earlier was skeptical about logging activities like 'cleaning'. That's another thing that depends on the person. For me, I'd like to be able to log that because I hate cleaning and it might be an incentive to be more consistent about it, but that's not really a (physical) health issue. But I can also imagine someone recovering from a heart attack using MFP to track a strict cardiac diet and with activity limitations due to heart failure, for whom logging cleaning is absolutely an appropriate thing to do.
Its a tool that some can use and that isn't needed by others. :shrug:
I don't think kshama was genuinely questioning whether to log her hikes or not, as she has been here some time and understands how MFP works, but more to make a point.
Also, it's inaccurate to say she should only log hiking if she entered sedentary as her activity level. I have seen this similarly stated from time to time on these boards. Your activity level is based on your daily life without exercise. If a person has an active job (or daily life in other ways) and chose active, and then that person hikes in addition to their already active daily life, they should add in those hikes as exercise.
Now, a person can choose to use MFP however they like. However, they should understand how it's intended to work, and then adjust from there (for instance, many people use MFP for logging, but enter a custom goal based off of their TDEE). If a person solely chose active because they actually get in daily hikes and that's the only reason they actually are active, then obviously they should not add that hike as exercise. But if they set up MFP as intended, just because a person chooses higher than sedentary does not mean they are not to log exercise.
And then, of course, they need to be patient and see if the numbers add up to expected weight loss and adjust from there (as those numbers are estimates). Maybe they chose active but are actually lightly active, or chose sedentary but are actually active. I think that's just important to note for anyone lurking with questions so they understand MFP is intended to work from your daily life base, with exercise added in as you go, and your daily life can be active without exercise.4 -
kshama2001 wrote: »Colorscheme wrote: »Colorscheme wrote: »Just in relation to your alternate thread title:
'You're not losing fat because you're eating too much'
... it's fair to say that this should be extended to:
'You're not losing fat because you're eating too much in relation to your caloric burn'.
I have noticed a tendency for some users of this site to grill people about the input while ignoring the latter part of the equation completely.
Most people think they're burning a lot more calories than they actually are.
Probably. For some that's because they don't move as much (or burn as many calories from their activity) as they think. For others is may be that their calculated metabolic estimate doesn't match the formulaic general guess.
But whether someone is eating 'too much' relative to what their expenditure is.
That's the entire premise of the CICO equation.
One of the things I see a lot on my feed is people logging daily activities like house work, yard work, etc. That never makes sense to me. I only log actual exercise.
Well, if you sit behind a desk 40 hours a week and therefore have your activity level set to sedentary, if you're not sedentary on weekends then it's "exercise" as far as MFP is concerned.
This was already covered. If it's part of your normal life, it's not exercise. If it isn't, then it's exercise.
It's part of my normal life to hike a few miles at lunchtime. Should I stop counting this?
walking is exercise. so no.0 -
kshama2001 wrote: »Colorscheme wrote: »Colorscheme wrote: »Just in relation to your alternate thread title:
'You're not losing fat because you're eating too much'
... it's fair to say that this should be extended to:
'You're not losing fat because you're eating too much in relation to your caloric burn'.
I have noticed a tendency for some users of this site to grill people about the input while ignoring the latter part of the equation completely.
Most people think they're burning a lot more calories than they actually are.
Probably. For some that's because they don't move as much (or burn as many calories from their activity) as they think. For others is may be that their calculated metabolic estimate doesn't match the formulaic general guess.
But whether someone is eating 'too much' relative to what their expenditure is.
That's the entire premise of the CICO equation.
One of the things I see a lot on my feed is people logging daily activities like house work, yard work, etc. That never makes sense to me. I only log actual exercise.
Well, if you sit behind a desk 40 hours a week and therefore have your activity level set to sedentary, if you're not sedentary on weekends then it's "exercise" as far as MFP is concerned.
This was already covered. If it's part of your normal life, it's not exercise. If it isn't, then it's exercise.
It's part of my normal life to hike a few miles at lunchtime. Should I stop counting this?
Personally, if I did it every day or almost every day and did not use a Fitbit or similar, I'd include it in overall activity level and not count it back as exercise. That's what I did back when I was counting exercise calories (I was on as "lightly active" and added back exercise on top of that--my job is sedentary, but I walk several miles daily related to errands, commuting, etc.).
Either works, of course, as does not counting exercise at all but including it within your TDEE (as I currently do). What can lead to people not losing is not realizing that sedentary may include regular movement like cooking, light cleaning, short walks related to commuting, etc.1 -
Another supporter of Vitamin D here. I was just killin' it at weight loss, and then it was like running in molasses to drop half a pound. Had my vitamin D checked and was super, duper low. Started intense supplementation and BAM felt way better and weight loss resumed.
If you REALLY REALLY REALLY have been faithful to food logging and eating in a deficit and not seeing measurable changes in your weight/inches, definitely see a doctor.5 -
jessiferrrb wrote: »Colorscheme wrote: »annacole94 wrote: »Colorscheme wrote: »Colorscheme wrote: »Just in relation to your alternate thread title:
'You're not losing fat because you're eating too much'
... it's fair to say that this should be extended to:
'You're not losing fat because you're eating too much in relation to your caloric burn'.
I have noticed a tendency for some users of this site to grill people about the input while ignoring the latter part of the equation completely.
Most people think they're burning a lot more calories than they actually are.
Probably. For some that's because they don't move as much (or burn as many calories from their activity) as they think. For others is may be that their calculated metabolic estimate doesn't match the formulaic general guess.
But whether someone is eating 'too much' relative to what their expenditure is.
That's the entire premise of the CICO equation.
One of the things I see a lot on my feed is people logging daily activities like house work, yard work, etc. That never makes sense to me. I only log actual exercise.
|You're welcome to come clean my place then.
I'm talking about people who count vaccuming as exercise and the like.
If it doesn't work for you, don't do it. What other people do impacts you not one iota. I do tend to log things like cleaning - because it's what I spend Saturday doing, rather than sitting on my butt in front of a computer, which is my normal state 5 days a week. Cleaning is more active than my baseline. I also tend to wear pants that don't have pockets, so my steps don't get counted by my phone, and I want to count those minutes I spent off the couch.
That's why I do it, and I never complain about how I'm eating 1200 calories!!! and gaining!!! We need to be aware of how our own lives work, and go with that.
Yeah except these are the same folks complaining how they can't lose weight. To me, that stuff shouldn't be counted as exercise because it's apart of every day living. You don't log taking a shower as exercise, or cooking as exercise. Now if it's something like deep cleaning or something that really is physical like moving boxes or furniture, that's a different story.
i guess i can see it from both sides. if you're truly sedentary then making the effort to get up and clean can reflect in your CO, especially if you're at a weight where those simple things are not so easy and take more effort than they would for a relatively fit person. if someone is being honest and accurate about the intensity level and duration as well as looking at the stated burn with a careful eye then i don't see anything wrong with eating back some of those calories. and logging the activity is always going to give you another data point for consideration and trouble shooting. if i see that every time i ate back 200 calories from light housework my losses were less than expected that's a pretty easy fix.
on the flip side i use my fitbit hr with negative adjustments allowed. mfp may give me 1600 calories to start the day, but if i literally just sit on my *kitten* all day and do nothing fitbit is going to take some of those away. if i was out running for an hour or if i was cleaning house for 4 hours that's still extra CO regardless of whether i would categorize it as "intentional exercise"
I logged 7 hours of "gardening" today..manually digging up tree stumps and their roots, filling ditches, hauling wheelbarrows with 75 lbs of fieldstones uphill for 10 acres, maybe 15 load back and forth. Took maybe one 5 minute break and worked at fast pace. Gardening and housework can be very good exercise!5 -
kshama2001 wrote: »Colorscheme wrote: »Just in relation to your alternate thread title:
'You're not losing fat because you're eating too much'
... it's fair to say that this should be extended to:
'You're not losing fat because you're eating too much in relation to your caloric burn'.
I have noticed a tendency for some users of this site to grill people about the input while ignoring the latter part of the equation completely.
Most people think they're burning a lot more calories than they actually are.
Probably. For some that's because they don't move as much (or burn as many calories from their activity) as they think. For others is may be that their calculated metabolic estimate doesn't match the formulaic general guess.
But whether someone is eating 'too much' relative to what their expenditure is.
That's the entire premise of the CICO equation.
One of the things I see a lot on my feed is people logging daily activities like house work, yard work, etc. That never makes sense to me. I only log actual exercise.
Calories don't know if they are being burned in the yard or in the gym.
They don't know the difference but if you're counting calories on here, the ones from the yard are already counted in your daily calories while the gym ones need to be added separately. If you properly chose your calories at the beginning you're doubling up on those yard calories if you put them in your diary.1 -
Glad you're on the mend, @stit60 !
- I think a lot of folks would rather believe they have something wrong with them than it's their own inaccuracies causing their stall.
my friend is a nutritionist and she says that when clients come to her, those that she says have a hormone imbalance will work three times as hard as those she says just have a poor diet0 -
stevencloser wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »Colorscheme wrote: »'You're not losing fat because you're eating too much'
One of the things I see a lot on my feed is people logging daily activities like house work, yard work, etc. That never makes sense to me. I only log actual exercise.
Calories don't know if they are being burned in the yard or in the gym.
They don't know the difference but if you're counting calories on here, the ones from the yard are already counted in your daily calories while the gym ones need to be added separately. If you properly chose your calories at the beginning you're doubling up on those yard calories if you put them in your diary.
If you're starting with a baseline of "sedentary", then, no, yard work and house work are generally NOT included in your daily calories. Because sedentary is actually sedentary. It corresponds to <5000 daily steps. This is especially true if doing extensive cleaning or yard work that are NOT daily activities but still counting yourself as sedentary.
I did this for a very long time because I have an autoimmune disease, and the amount of activity I get on any given day can vary wildly depending how well I'm feeling. It worked very well, as long as I recognized that the calorie counts given by the default database entry were way off (rather like the calorie counts for many exercise machines).10
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