Does anyone eat their exercise calories while losing?
Replies
-
Reassess your activity level to "lightly active"? After I noticed I was losing at my desired rate, despite going way over on calories most days, I ended up looking for a better description of what sedentary and lightly active might comprise elsewhere, and realised I was definitely in the wrong category.I eat back my exercise calories and still seem to be losing weight at a rate faster than MFP is estimating. I'm set to sedentary activity level (desk job) and I'm doing P90X every day. I set my workouts manually for between 400 and 650 calories depending on which routine it is. Even the days where I go very slightly over my allowance I'm still losing weight.
I try to brutally honest in my logging of food. And I don't want to be skinny, I want to improve my strength so it doesn't make sense to starve myself IMO.
You might have a desk job, but do you actually sit there like an immobile blob for eight hours a day?
http://krupp.wcc.hawaii.edu/BIOL100L/nutrition/energy.pdf
2 -
I haven't read the replies.
Yes, I eat my exercise calories as the site intends.1 -
HeliumIsNoble wrote: »You might have a desk job, but do you actually sit there like an immobile blob for eight hours a day?
You found the PERFECT description of how I spend eight (plus) hours every day! And my wife might agree about me being under the care of someone else!
But maybe the housework / putting the kids to bed stuff is bumping me up to Lightly Active. I started with Sedentary to be on the safe side and I still have fat that needs to come off so I haven't changed my intake yet. Losing about 2 pounds per week but muscle mass and strength still increasing so I'll stick with what's working for now.
Thanks for the descriptions!2 -
I eat them if I am hungry. Usually exercising reduces my appetite so if I have an appetite for food I consider it a true need to eat. I track the calories and try to stay within a reasonable amount of my goal for the day.1
-
kshama2001 wrote: »One problem with this reasoning is that symptoms of malnutrition like hair loss don't show for months. And you likely wouldn't be aware of bone loss for years.
For what it's worth, I am 61. And I have had 2 bone density tests in the last 10 years - the last one was in the last year. Results? I have excellent bones. So all good there.
0 -
good question. i am a little confused. i work a desk job, work out 3-4 times a week (run ~18 min @ 6mph, light lifting + yoga), and walk about 10,000 steps a day. most of the day i am sitting if not for this exercise. i synced my iphone to MFP to log my steps as exercise and eat the calories back, as 1200 seems very low and the exercise calories MFP projects seem small too (~100 calories for 11,000 steps???) i'm plateauing, should i change my settings / routine?0
-
I dont...I dont even log workoiuts because i trick myself into eating more.1
-
HeliumIsNoble wrote: »Reassess your activity level to "lightly active"? After I noticed I was losing at my desired rate, despite going way over on calories most days, I ended up looking for a better description of what sedentary and lightly active might comprise elsewhere, and realised I was definitely in the wrong category.
You might have a desk job, but do you actually sit there like an immobile blob for eight hours a day?
http://krupp.wcc.hawaii.edu/BIOL100L/nutrition/energy.pdf
Well, my desk job does require that I be seated in order to actually work. And there is plenty of disagreement out there from that definition.
This is right off of the MFP site.
http://www.sedentarybehaviour.org/what-is-sedentary-behaviour/
0 -
Every. Single. One.2
-
Thanks! But yeah, have seen the MFP definitions. Very sparse aren't they? They're what I used to pick my settings initially, which turned out to be wrong. Since then, I've looked for more detailed descriptions elsewhere, and found them.fitmom4lifemfp wrote: »HeliumIsNoble wrote: »Reassess your activity level to "lightly active"? After I noticed I was losing at my desired rate, despite going way over on calories most days, I ended up looking for a better description of what sedentary and lightly active might comprise elsewhere, and realised I was definitely in the wrong category.
You might have a desk job, but do you actually sit there like an immobile blob for eight hours a day?
http://krupp.wcc.hawaii.edu/BIOL100L/nutrition/energy.pdf
Well, my desk job does require that I be seated in order to actually work. And there is plenty of disagreement out there from that definition.
This is right off of the MFP site.
http://www.sedentarybehaviour.org/what-is-sedentary-behaviour/
The MFP ones are brief and easy to use, which naturally gives a lot of room for error.For example, "sitting most of the day" could mean Anne who really does sit there all day, but it also includes Sharon who gets the coffee, fetches new paper for the printer from the stationery cupboard on the next floor and brings Anne, Georgie and Ellen their print-outs on her way back to her own desk
3 -
HeliumIsNoble wrote: »
Thanks! But yeah, have seen the MFP definitions. Very sparse aren't they? They're what I used to pick my settings initially, which turned out to be wrong. Since then, I've looked for more detailed descriptions elsewhere, and found them.fitmom4lifemfp wrote: »HeliumIsNoble wrote: »Reassess your activity level to "lightly active"? After I noticed I was losing at my desired rate, despite going way over on calories most days, I ended up looking for a better description of what sedentary and lightly active might comprise elsewhere, and realised I was definitely in the wrong category.
You might have a desk job, but do you actually sit there like an immobile blob for eight hours a day?
http://krupp.wcc.hawaii.edu/BIOL100L/nutrition/energy.pdf
Well, my desk job does require that I be seated in order to actually work. And there is plenty of disagreement out there from that definition.
This is right off of the MFP site.
http://www.sedentarybehaviour.org/what-is-sedentary-behaviour/
The MFP ones are brief and easy to use, which naturally gives a lot of room for error.For example, "sitting most of the day" could mean Anne who really does sit there all day, but it also includes Sharon who gets the coffee, fetches new paper for the printer from the stationery cupboard on the next floor and brings Anne, Georgie and Ellen their print-outs on her way back to her own desk
Exactly. I got the good advice a few years ago on these forums, when I had recently synced a FitBit to MFP for the first time - that even though I was following the MFP definitions of "sedentary" because I have a desk job - since I was averaging 10K steps/day and now more like 15K steps/day - I really wasn't sedentary. It's a starting point, and one that might make sense to adjust based on more specific real life situations and results. When I changed my activity level, it addressed one of the issues I was having which was high exercise adjustments from FitBit - by selecting a more appropriate activity level for my whole day, not just the time I spend at work - I got a higher baseline calorie target and then the adjustments became more representative of the actual purposeful exercise I was doing. It also serves the purpose of making sure that I stay active, with those negative calorie adjustments enabled, now I have to get at least 10K steps just to get any positive adjustment.1 -
WinoGelato wrote: »HeliumIsNoble wrote: »
Thanks! But yeah, have seen the MFP definitions. Very sparse aren't they? They're what I used to pick my settings initially, which turned out to be wrong. Since then, I've looked for more detailed descriptions elsewhere, and found them.fitmom4lifemfp wrote: »HeliumIsNoble wrote: »Reassess your activity level to "lightly active"? After I noticed I was losing at my desired rate, despite going way over on calories most days, I ended up looking for a better description of what sedentary and lightly active might comprise elsewhere, and realised I was definitely in the wrong category.
You might have a desk job, but do you actually sit there like an immobile blob for eight hours a day?
http://krupp.wcc.hawaii.edu/BIOL100L/nutrition/energy.pdf
Well, my desk job does require that I be seated in order to actually work. And there is plenty of disagreement out there from that definition.
This is right off of the MFP site.
http://www.sedentarybehaviour.org/what-is-sedentary-behaviour/
The MFP ones are brief and easy to use, which naturally gives a lot of room for error.For example, "sitting most of the day" could mean Anne who really does sit there all day, but it also includes Sharon who gets the coffee, fetches new paper for the printer from the stationery cupboard on the next floor and brings Anne, Georgie and Ellen their print-outs on her way back to her own desk
Exactly. I got the good advice a few years ago on these forums, when I had recently synced a FitBit to MFP for the first time - that even though I was following the MFP definitions of "sedentary" because I have a desk job - since I was averaging 10K steps/day and now more like 15K steps/day - I really wasn't sedentary. It's a starting point, and one that might make sense to adjust based on more specific real life situations and results. When I changed my activity level, it addressed one of the issues I was having which was high exercise adjustments from FitBit - by selecting a more appropriate activity level for my whole day, not just the time I spend at work - I got a higher baseline calorie target and then the adjustments became more representative of the actual purposeful exercise I was doing. It also serves the purpose of making sure that I stay active, with those negative calorie adjustments enabled, now I have to get at least 10K steps just to get any positive adjustment.
I am another person who is sedentary on paper (desk job), but not really. This is why I think people should always compare their real-life results to what they expect -- pick the activity level that seems like the best fit and then observe to see if your weight results are what you expect or if you should adjust more.
(Or you could just get a Fitbit and not worry about it -- it's what I did).2 -
HeliumIsNoble wrote: »Thanks! But yeah, have seen the MFP definitions. Very sparse aren't they? They're what I used to pick my settings initially, which turned out to be wrong. Since then, I've looked for more detailed descriptions elsewhere, and found them.
The MFP ones are brief and easy to use, which naturally gives a lot of room for error.For example, "sitting most of the day" could mean Anne who really does sit there all day, but it also includes Sharon who gets the coffee, fetches new paper for the printer from the stationery cupboard on the next floor and brings Anne, Georgie and Ellen their print-outs on her way back to her own desk
They seem to work fine for me. I do get a min of 10K steps a day, with my exercise, but I still have a very sedentary day. I consider folks that work on their feet, such as sales clerks and custodians, to be one level up from me.1 -
It's great that they work for you, but I'm not sure why your success has made you so doubtful that such broad-brush descriptions might not work for other people, like those who also have desk jobs and get 10K steps without additional purposeful exercise.fitmom4lifemfp wrote: »HeliumIsNoble wrote: »Thanks! But yeah, have seen the MFP definitions. Very sparse aren't they? They're what I used to pick my settings initially, which turned out to be wrong. Since then, I've looked for more detailed descriptions elsewhere, and found them.
The MFP ones are brief and easy to use, which naturally gives a lot of room for error.For example, "sitting most of the day" could mean Anne who really does sit there all day, but it also includes Sharon who gets the coffee, fetches new paper for the printer from the stationery cupboard on the next floor and brings Anne, Georgie and Ellen their print-outs on her way back to her own desk
They seem to work fine for me. I do get a min of 10K steps a day, with my exercise, but I still have a very sedentary day. I consider folks that work on their feet, such as sales clerks and custodians, to be one level up from me.
Or why you assumed I hadn't ever read the MFP descriptions in the first place.
4 -
kshama2001 wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »It is the way this tool is designed. Your exercise isn't accounted for in your activity level...it would make sense that it should be accounted for in some way. Also, why does everyone seem to think MFP is trying to trick them...makes no sense.
Have you seen men think exercise shouldn't count? I've only noticed women, and so I suspect something cultural specific to women.
Yes, many times. Usually they are eating far less than they should too, like 1200 calories. It is not specific to women.2 -
I eat all or most of mine that come from fitbit synced. I found the fitbit workout estimates to be more accurate for me than when I entered workouts on MFP.0
-
I love this threads. I do not eat my exercise calories. I never have. By the time I got on MFP, I had already been on my weight loss program for a few months. When I started out I exercised just to say I was moving and it was about all I could do was about 10-15 minutes per day. I now average about an hour a day of vigorous exercise.
I use a Charge 2 now and I sync my calories at the end of the day. I have been on 1800 calories for 2 years and I try to stay right around their for my daily goal. It may be true, but I don't know think that if I ate even half of my exercise calories, that I would be continually losing weight.
I feel that everyone has to find out what works for them. I exercise because I like the way I feel mentally, physically and emotionally after doing so. I will also say that if I did not exercise I do not think that I would be able to eat as much as I do and still lose weight.
Another thing for me is that by the time I have gotten close to my 1800 calories I am pretty much full. If there are days when I feel that I need more food then I eat.0 -
I lost a lot of weight on MyFitnessPal 4 years ago but ended up gaining it back. I'm giving it another try and now it seems like the system is different. I remember that last time I ate my calories back when I exercised because if I didn't I plateau'd. This time, I lost 4 pounds the first week, but then gained a half pound the next week and gained 1 pound this week. I don't get what I'm doing wrong! On paper, I'm staying within my limits and getting plenty of exercise so why am I not losing? All I can think of is maybe I shouldn't be eating my calories back this time.
I noticed that last time when I started at about this same weight, I was getting between 1,400 and 1,500 calories per day. This time, they put me on 1,290, which seems really low. Other websites say I should be getting closer to 1,700 calories to lose 2 pounds a week.
I wish they hadn't changed the formula! It worked so well for me last time. I'm not going to give up but this is frustrating. I just need to find the magic formula of calories to exercise so I can get the weight coming off again.0 -
I lost a lot of weight on MyFitnessPal 4 years ago but ended up gaining it back. I'm giving it another try and now it seems like the system is different. I remember that last time I ate my calories back when I exercised because if I didn't I plateau'd. This time, I lost 4 pounds the first week, but then gained a half pound the next week and gained 1 pound this week. I don't get what I'm doing wrong! On paper, I'm staying within my limits and getting plenty of exercise so why am I not losing? All I can think of is maybe I shouldn't be eating my calories back this time.
I noticed that last time when I started at about this same weight, I was getting between 1,400 and 1,500 calories per day. This time, they put me on 1,290, which seems really low. Other websites say I should be getting closer to 1,700 calories to lose 2 pounds a week.
I wish they hadn't changed the formula! It worked so well for me last time. I'm not going to give up but this is frustrating. I just need to find the magic formula of calories to exercise so I can get the weight coming off again.
Usually when people have problems with their exercise calories, it's because they have some logging errors than mean they are eating more than they think or because they're using a method that over-estimates the amount of calories they're burning via exercise.
For your logging: It looks like you're using a mixture of weights and item counts to measure things (fruit is in grams, but then you've logged things like "4 cookies" or "16 crackers"). Are you using a scale for solid foods? You also have some entries that look very vague (like the Jason's Deli entry that lists salad bar, chicken salad, and chocolate mousse as one meal for 400 calories -- how do you know the person who created this entry had the same portions that you did? This seems incredibly low for these items).
Are your exercise calories being synced from something like a Fitbit?1 -
@PikachuFL I'm guessing you're weighing weekly? (Nothing wrong with that, just checking.)
Four pounds down, followed by one and a half pounds up could be normal fluctuations in weight. I think the first week's loss might have included water-- which you gained back, because the human body is supposed to contain that!-- but the fat has stayed gone? There is also digestive waste retention to be considered and temporary water retention in aching muscles.
1 -
I never intentionally eat back exercise calories although this is "unpopular" with many MFP "purists" to say the least.
I choose to do it this way because it is easier not eat food than it is to estimate how many calories my training burned during the week.
Upside is that I always have wiggle room calorie-wise for a snack or treat with no worries.
Works for me.0 -
I never intentionally eat back exercise calories although this is "unpopular" to say the least.
You're not kidding.I choose to do it this way because it is easier not eat food than it is to estimate how many calories my training burned during the week.
Works for me.
Same here. If I'm doing a lot of exercise I might eat a little more but it's not with the intent of reaching a particular percentage. It hasn't hindered my training at all. I've actually made a lot of progress with both distance and pace in the last year of running, and have not had any decline in lifting.
1 -
I eat some of them back but not all I basically eat only when hungry I figure if I have a day that I am hungry and I eat them back I am ok but normally I don't0
-
VintageFeline wrote: »estherdragonbat wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »estherdragonbat wrote: »I eat half. 1) I've lurked enough in the forums to notice all the post (and the infamous flow chart) saying that MFP and fitness machines can overestimate the burns. 2) I've always used measuring cups for solids. As much as I recognize that this is less accurate than weighing, I use American cookbooks a lot and sometimes, I can't be bothered to Google 'weight of 1 cup flour' or the cup of grapes I have with my Greek yogurt in the morning. Not eating back all my calories gives me a bit of a cushion that is—thus far—helping the weight come off. (If and when I plateau, tightening up my weights and measures will probably be the first thing I do.)
I have this page bookmarked: http://www.kingarthurflour.com/learn/ingredient-weight-chart.html
Plus the bag of flour has the grams for 1/4 C, so I just multiply that by 4.
I label other foods.
I do use cups for white sugar, as it is very consistent.
I definitely weigh brown sugar. Most of my recipes call for "packed" brown sugar, which must be super smashed in there!
Thanks! I've added it to my bookmarks, too. I think a lot of it is habit and conditioning. I've been involved with recipes since I was a pre-schooler (Mom taught me to read when I was three and had me reading recipes, measuring, and stirring from about that age; she'd take over when it came time to move on to the oven). It's always been with cups and spoons for dry measures. And, of course, when the cookbook tells you to use cups and spoons and you've always done it, it's easy to just keep going like you always have. Eventually I'll do this often enough that I'll form a new habit and stop patting myself on the back to congratulate myself each time I remember...
Anyone know how it came about? The whole cups as measures for everything thing? We pilfer a lot of things from the US here in the UK but this never made it (for which I am eternally grateful).
The USA started using cup measurements because there was continuous expansion to the west in the 19th century.
Kitchen scales were an expensive and heavy item to take along. Most basic recipes, ie: pastry- half fat to flour, could be worked using an equal volume measure. As cups and spoons were needed for eating these were the general measurements used.
The cups and spoon measurements were standardized in the 20th century.
That is the story I have always known. As a Brit in Canada I have never been able to work with a recipe that is purely in cups and spoons- too alien
Cheers, h.5 -
WinoGelato wrote: »HeliumIsNoble wrote: »
Thanks! But yeah, have seen the MFP definitions. Very sparse aren't they? They're what I used to pick my settings initially, which turned out to be wrong. Since then, I've looked for more detailed descriptions elsewhere, and found them.fitmom4lifemfp wrote: »HeliumIsNoble wrote: »Reassess your activity level to "lightly active"? After I noticed I was losing at my desired rate, despite going way over on calories most days, I ended up looking for a better description of what sedentary and lightly active might comprise elsewhere, and realised I was definitely in the wrong category.
You might have a desk job, but do you actually sit there like an immobile blob for eight hours a day?
http://krupp.wcc.hawaii.edu/BIOL100L/nutrition/energy.pdf
Well, my desk job does require that I be seated in order to actually work. And there is plenty of disagreement out there from that definition.
This is right off of the MFP site.
http://www.sedentarybehaviour.org/what-is-sedentary-behaviour/
The MFP ones are brief and easy to use, which naturally gives a lot of room for error.For example, "sitting most of the day" could mean Anne who really does sit there all day, but it also includes Sharon who gets the coffee, fetches new paper for the printer from the stationery cupboard on the next floor and brings Anne, Georgie and Ellen their print-outs on her way back to her own desk
Exactly. I got the good advice a few years ago on these forums, when I had recently synced a FitBit to MFP for the first time - that even though I was following the MFP definitions of "sedentary" because I have a desk job - since I was averaging 10K steps/day and now more like 15K steps/day - I really wasn't sedentary. It's a starting point, and one that might make sense to adjust based on more specific real life situations and results. When I changed my activity level, it addressed one of the issues I was having which was high exercise adjustments from FitBit - by selecting a more appropriate activity level for my whole day, not just the time I spend at work - I got a higher baseline calorie target and then the adjustments became more representative of the actual purposeful exercise I was doing. It also serves the purpose of making sure that I stay active, with those negative calorie adjustments enabled, now I have to get at least 10K steps just to get any positive adjustment.
Now, you could be a total dork like me who just hates the negative adjustments
To be fair, I use MFP with my Fitbit in an interesting way to arrive at a TDEE method, and that necessitates keeping it at a baseline sedentary level. I start with my calories at sedentary maintenance. I have both Fitbit and MFP set to sedentary (this way, Fitbit isn't starting me with a big daily number for my early morning run nor is it subtracting anything for going to bed early). It sends over a daily adjustment. I leave calories on the table to create a deficit (or eat at maintenance - my choice).
This isn't for everyone, of course. Just for weirdos who are pretty active. My baseline sedentary maintenance is pathetic.1 -
The more calculations that are done, the higher chance of something being wrong. I typically don't trust the exercise calories and so don't eat them back. Just a conservative way of doing it since I know my logging is probably not as accurate as it could be.
By assuming that your exercise burns 0 calories, you're guaranteeing that you're wrong. The chance of being wrong is 100 % this way. Accuracy is not a good reason to under eat.8 -
kshama2001 wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »It is the way this tool is designed. Your exercise isn't accounted for in your activity level...it would make sense that it should be accounted for in some way. Also, why does everyone seem to think MFP is trying to trick them...makes no sense.
Have you seen men think exercise shouldn't count? I've only noticed women, and so I suspect something cultural specific to women.
I would have to agree. I'm a woman and I eat back exercise calories. The human body needs fuel. The calculations on MFP are basically for people who sit around all day but probably walk 10,000 steps...ish. When you burn more than that, your body needs more back. I actually find that if I don't eat the calories back I have a more difficult time losing weight because then my metabolism slows down to match my energy consumption. But I do find that I see these types of questions pretty exclusively from women. And women tend to get defensive about answers that say that exercise calories should be eaten back. But I suppose that it also depends on the original baseline for calories. Like, mine is 1200. If I only eat 1200 calories and burn 500 in a workout, that leaves me with only 700 calories to fuel the rest of my day. Seems like starvation.
I think too many people (rewind: too many WOMEN) use MFP to keep themselves from eating too much, but really we should all be using MFP to ensure we're eating enough, and enough of the right things. Macros count too!4 -
middlehaitch wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »estherdragonbat wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »estherdragonbat wrote: »I eat half. 1) I've lurked enough in the forums to notice all the post (and the infamous flow chart) saying that MFP and fitness machines can overestimate the burns. 2) I've always used measuring cups for solids. As much as I recognize that this is less accurate than weighing, I use American cookbooks a lot and sometimes, I can't be bothered to Google 'weight of 1 cup flour' or the cup of grapes I have with my Greek yogurt in the morning. Not eating back all my calories gives me a bit of a cushion that is—thus far—helping the weight come off. (If and when I plateau, tightening up my weights and measures will probably be the first thing I do.)
I have this page bookmarked: http://www.kingarthurflour.com/learn/ingredient-weight-chart.html
Plus the bag of flour has the grams for 1/4 C, so I just multiply that by 4.
I label other foods.
I do use cups for white sugar, as it is very consistent.
I definitely weigh brown sugar. Most of my recipes call for "packed" brown sugar, which must be super smashed in there!
Thanks! I've added it to my bookmarks, too. I think a lot of it is habit and conditioning. I've been involved with recipes since I was a pre-schooler (Mom taught me to read when I was three and had me reading recipes, measuring, and stirring from about that age; she'd take over when it came time to move on to the oven). It's always been with cups and spoons for dry measures. And, of course, when the cookbook tells you to use cups and spoons and you've always done it, it's easy to just keep going like you always have. Eventually I'll do this often enough that I'll form a new habit and stop patting myself on the back to congratulate myself each time I remember...
Anyone know how it came about? The whole cups as measures for everything thing? We pilfer a lot of things from the US here in the UK but this never made it (for which I am eternally grateful).
The USA started using cup measurements because there was continuous expansion to the west in the 19th century.
Kitchen scales were an expensive and heavy item to take along. Most basic recipes, ie: pastry- half fat to flour, could be worked using an equal volume measure. As cups and spoons were needed for eating these were the general measurements used.
The cups and spoon measurements were standardized in the 20th century.
That is the story I have always known. As a Brit in Canada I have never been able to work with a recipe that is purely in cups and spoons- too alien
Cheers, h.
Thank you!0 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »HeliumIsNoble wrote: »
Thanks! But yeah, have seen the MFP definitions. Very sparse aren't they? They're what I used to pick my settings initially, which turned out to be wrong. Since then, I've looked for more detailed descriptions elsewhere, and found them.fitmom4lifemfp wrote: »HeliumIsNoble wrote: »Reassess your activity level to "lightly active"? After I noticed I was losing at my desired rate, despite going way over on calories most days, I ended up looking for a better description of what sedentary and lightly active might comprise elsewhere, and realised I was definitely in the wrong category.
You might have a desk job, but do you actually sit there like an immobile blob for eight hours a day?
http://krupp.wcc.hawaii.edu/BIOL100L/nutrition/energy.pdf
Well, my desk job does require that I be seated in order to actually work. And there is plenty of disagreement out there from that definition.
This is right off of the MFP site.
http://www.sedentarybehaviour.org/what-is-sedentary-behaviour/
The MFP ones are brief and easy to use, which naturally gives a lot of room for error.For example, "sitting most of the day" could mean Anne who really does sit there all day, but it also includes Sharon who gets the coffee, fetches new paper for the printer from the stationery cupboard on the next floor and brings Anne, Georgie and Ellen their print-outs on her way back to her own desk
Exactly. I got the good advice a few years ago on these forums, when I had recently synced a FitBit to MFP for the first time - that even though I was following the MFP definitions of "sedentary" because I have a desk job - since I was averaging 10K steps/day and now more like 15K steps/day - I really wasn't sedentary. It's a starting point, and one that might make sense to adjust based on more specific real life situations and results. When I changed my activity level, it addressed one of the issues I was having which was high exercise adjustments from FitBit - by selecting a more appropriate activity level for my whole day, not just the time I spend at work - I got a higher baseline calorie target and then the adjustments became more representative of the actual purposeful exercise I was doing. It also serves the purpose of making sure that I stay active, with those negative calorie adjustments enabled, now I have to get at least 10K steps just to get any positive adjustment.
Now, you could be a total dork like me who just hates the negative adjustments
To be fair, I use MFP with my Fitbit in an interesting way to arrive at a TDEE method, and that necessitates keeping it at a baseline sedentary level. I start with my calories at sedentary maintenance. I have both Fitbit and MFP set to sedentary (this way, Fitbit isn't starting me with a big daily number for my early morning run nor is it subtracting anything for going to bed early). It sends over a daily adjustment. I leave calories on the table to create a deficit (or eat at maintenance - my choice).
This isn't for everyone, of course. Just for weirdos who are pretty active. My baseline sedentary maintenance is pathetic.
I started doing this last year. Sort of. I have it set to maintenance, whatever is left in the green at the ends of the day is all good. If I eat up to it all good. Eat over I need to be mindful on other days and/or not let it get out of hand.
Garmin sends data a little differently so I don't generally end up with a drastically different adjustment at the end of the day vs the start.0 -
HeliumIsNoble wrote: »
It's great that they work for you, but I'm not sure why your success has made you so doubtful that such broad-brush descriptions might not work for other people, like those who also have desk jobs and get 10K steps without additional purposeful exercise.fitmom4lifemfp wrote: »HeliumIsNoble wrote: »Thanks! But yeah, have seen the MFP definitions. Very sparse aren't they? They're what I used to pick my settings initially, which turned out to be wrong. Since then, I've looked for more detailed descriptions elsewhere, and found them.
The MFP ones are brief and easy to use, which naturally gives a lot of room for error.For example, "sitting most of the day" could mean Anne who really does sit there all day, but it also includes Sharon who gets the coffee, fetches new paper for the printer from the stationery cupboard on the next floor and brings Anne, Georgie and Ellen their print-outs on her way back to her own desk
They seem to work fine for me. I do get a min of 10K steps a day, with my exercise, but I still have a very sedentary day. I consider folks that work on their feet, such as sales clerks and custodians, to be one level up from me.
Or why you assumed I hadn't ever read the MFP descriptions in the first place.
I assumed nothing. I offered what I thought was useful information, for others here. Feel free to ignore it. 0
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
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K 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
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions