Are all office workers sedentary?

13»

Replies

  • noelkro80
    noelkro80 Posts: 248 Member
    I’m sedentary with my truck driving job, 10 hours a day just driving & not having to move other than to drive but I do walk 30 minutes to work & the same again back home (MFP has me down as burning 527 calories doing that)
  • CassieVoiles
    CassieVoiles Posts: 26 Member
    My job is. But I got a pedal machine for under my desk to keep my legs moving. It burns calories and prevents blood clots. I absolutely love it.
  • Sunshine_And_Sand
    Sunshine_And_Sand Posts: 1,320 Member
    I don’t really like how MFP uses NEAT to give you a calorie target. The idea that the 8000 steps I ran yesterday after I sat at my desk all day are somehow inferior to the 5000 taken by someone who cleaned their house (or whatever) is silly. I know that’s not actually the message MFP is trying to send with using NEAT for the calorie goal, but to me it seems like a lot of people take it that way. I think this is why so many people seem to have a hard time accepting “sedentary” as their activity level.
    I prefer TDEE since I have a pretty consistent purposeful exercise schedule. With NEAT, the amount of calories I get daily look pitiful to me. Even though it would be about the same amount of calories weekly with either method, the higher daily target I get with TDEE mentally helps me stay on track.
    Now for someone who had a high NEAT because of their job but hated “real” exercise, NEAT would probably be a better way to go.
    At the end of the day, it all comes down to CICO.
  • janejellyroll
    janejellyroll Posts: 25,763 Member
    Sunshine_And_Sand wrote: »
    I don’t really like how MFP uses NEAT to give you a calorie target. The idea that the 8000 steps I ran yesterday after I sat at my desk all day are somehow inferior to the 5000 taken by someone who cleaned their house (or whatever) is silly. I know that’s not actually the message MFP is trying to send with using NEAT for the calorie goal, but to me it seems like a lot of people take it that way. I think this is why so many people seem to have a hard time accepting “sedentary” as their activity level.
    I prefer TDEE since I have a pretty consistent purposeful exercise schedule. With NEAT, the amount of calories I get daily look pitiful to me. Even though it would be about the same amount of calories weekly with either method, the higher daily target I get with TDEE mentally helps me stay on track.
    Now for someone who had a high NEAT because of their job but hated “real” exercise, NEAT would probably be a better way to go.
    At the end of the day, it all comes down to CICO.

    I'm having trouble seeing how the steps you took running are being judged "inferior" under NEAT. Like you said, you're getting the same amount of calories with either method.
  • lemurcat2
    lemurcat2 Posts: 7,885 Member
    Sunshine_And_Sand wrote: »
    I don’t really like how MFP uses NEAT to give you a calorie target. The idea that the 8000 steps I ran yesterday after I sat at my desk all day are somehow inferior to the 5000 taken by someone who cleaned their house (or whatever) is silly.

    Why on earth do you interpret MFP as saying any steps are inferior? MFP is taking daily activity before exercise as stable for most people, and exercise as more variable day to day. That may or may not be correct, but it has nothing to do with any value judgment.

    The woman who cleaned her house, unless that is a near daily occurrence, wouldn't count her 5000 steps toward activity level either, btw. Someone who is a professional house cleaner and logs 15,000+ steps per day just doing that (before exercise) would be considered active or very active under MFP's system, however.
    I know that’s not actually the message MFP is trying to send with using NEAT for the calorie goal, but to me it seems like a lot of people take it that way. I think this is why so many people seem to have a hard time accepting “sedentary” as their activity level.

    Quite the contrary, I think lots of people are fine with sedentary as their activity level and far more people assume their activity level IS sedentary when it is not, because of how MFP describes it. Based on MFP's description, I should be considered sedentary before exercise, because I have a desk job, but I routinely get 10,000+ steps per day before exercise (or if my exercise is cycle or swim-based, so doesn't add steps). I originally mistakenly chose sedentary and I think many other people (such as parents of young kids) do the same. Given how low MFP's sedentary level is I think the vast majority of users are likely at least lightly active unless they have mobility impairments.
    I prefer TDEE since I have a pretty consistent purposeful exercise schedule. With NEAT, the amount of calories I get daily look pitiful to me. Even though it would be about the same amount of calories weekly with either method, the higher daily target I get with TDEE mentally helps me stay on track.

    That makes sense, I am the same, but for people without consistent exercise NEAT + exercise may make better sense, and for some the calorie increase can help as an encouragement for exercise.

    It ends up the same at the end.
  • Sunshine_And_Sand
    Sunshine_And_Sand Posts: 1,320 Member
    janejellyroll wrote: »
    Sunshine_And_Sand wrote: »
    I don’t really like how MFP uses NEAT to give you a calorie target. The idea that the 8000 steps I ran yesterday after I sat at my desk all day are somehow inferior to the 5000 taken by someone who cleaned their house (or whatever) is silly. I know that’s not actually the message MFP is trying to send with using NEAT for the calorie goal, but to me it seems like a lot of people take it that way. I think this is why so many people seem to have a hard time accepting “sedentary” as their activity level.
    I prefer TDEE since I have a pretty consistent purposeful exercise schedule. With NEAT, the amount of calories I get daily look pitiful to me. Even though it would be about the same amount of calories weekly with either method, the higher daily target I get with TDEE mentally helps me stay on track.
    Now for someone who had a high NEAT because of their job but hated “real” exercise, NEAT would probably be a better way to go.
    At the end of the day, it all comes down to CICO.

    I'm having trouble seeing how the steps you took running are being judged "inferior" under NEAT. Like you said, you're getting the same amount of calories with either method.
    janejellyroll wrote: »
    Sunshine_And_Sand wrote: »
    I don’t really like how MFP uses NEAT to give you a calorie target. The idea that the 8000 steps I ran yesterday after I sat at my desk all day are somehow inferior to the 5000 taken by someone who cleaned their house (or whatever) is silly. I know that’s not actually the message MFP is trying to send with using NEAT for the calorie goal, but to me it seems like a lot of people take it that way. I think this is why so many people seem to have a hard time accepting “sedentary” as their activity level.
    I prefer TDEE since I have a pretty consistent purposeful exercise schedule. With NEAT, the amount of calories I get daily look pitiful to me. Even though it would be about the same amount of calories weekly with either method, the higher daily target I get with TDEE mentally helps me stay on track.
    Now for someone who had a high NEAT because of their job but hated “real” exercise, NEAT would probably be a better way to go.
    At the end of the day, it all comes down to CICO.

    I'm having trouble seeing how the steps you took running are being judged "inferior" under NEAT. Like you said, you're getting the same amount of calories with either method.

    I don’t consider either non exercises or purposeful activity better or worse than the other. I’ve just always found it ironic to have someone with purposeful exercise classified as less active than someone with possibly less activity overall who happens to have more non exercise activity. As far as classifying as sedentary, lightly active, moderately active, or very active, it just seems silly to me to call someone who does purposeful cardio multiple times per week less active than someone who does the same amount (or maybe even less) movement, steps, activity, etc in non exercise activity.
    That’s where I got the running being deemed inferior to non exercise activity, because of the way they classify activity with NEAT. Yes, I get that you can “eat it back”, and it ends up being the same just the terminology of calling a runner, biker, swimmer, hiker, or whatever as less active because they have a desk job on the surface makes it look like NEAT values non exercise activity more, especially for new people who are filling out their activity level to get the calorie goal.
    I understand why they use NEAT, and I know that for some people it is absolutely the best method to use; I just prefer TDEE for the reasons above.
  • janejellyroll
    janejellyroll Posts: 25,763 Member
    PAV8888 wrote: »
    I don't think that the label used to describe the physical activity multiplier that best approaches your caloric expenditure is a value jugement.

    It's not. I'm an overall very active person, but I don't feel at all judged by the (truthful) observation that my office job is inactive. That I choose leisure activities that result in a higher calorie burn overall doesn't make me better or worse than someone who has an active job. It's all the same at the end of the day.
  • Sunshine_And_Sand
    Sunshine_And_Sand Posts: 1,320 Member
    lemurcat2 wrote: »
    Sunshine_And_Sand wrote: »
    I don’t really like how MFP uses NEAT to give you a calorie target. The idea that the 8000 steps I ran yesterday after I sat at my desk all day are somehow inferior to the 5000 taken by someone who cleaned their house (or whatever) is silly.

    Why on earth do you interpret MFP as saying any steps are inferior? MFP is taking daily activity before exercise as stable for most people, and exercise as more variable day to day. That may or may not be correct, but it has nothing to do with any value judgment.

    The woman who cleaned her house, unless that is a near daily occurrence, wouldn't count her 5000 steps toward activity level either, btw. Someone who is a professional house cleaner and logs 15,000+ steps per day just doing that (before exercise) would be considered active or very active under MFP's system, however.
    I know that’s not actually the message MFP is trying to send with using NEAT for the calorie goal, but to me it seems like a lot of people take it that way. I think this is why so many people seem to have a hard time accepting “sedentary” as their activity level.

    Quite the contrary, I think lots of people are fine with sedentary as their activity level and far more people assume their activity level IS sedentary when it is not, because of how MFP describes it. Based on MFP's description, I should be considered sedentary before exercise, because I have a desk job, but I routinely get 10,000+ steps per day before exercise (or if my exercise is cycle or swim-based, so doesn't add steps). I originally mistakenly chose sedentary and I think many other people (such as parents of young kids) do the same. Given how low MFP's sedentary level is I think the vast majority of users are likely at least lightly active unless they have mobility impairments.
    I prefer TDEE since I have a pretty consistent purposeful exercise schedule. With NEAT, the amount of calories I get daily look pitiful to me. Even though it would be about the same amount of calories weekly with either method, the higher daily target I get with TDEE mentally helps me stay on track.

    That makes sense, I am the same, but for people without consistent exercise NEAT + exercise may make better sense, and for some the calorie increase can help as an encouragement for exercise.

    It ends up the same at the end.

    I get why people use NEAT, and I know the housework type stuff doesn’t count towards NEAT unless it’s done everyday. That was a mistake, and I should have said “cleans” instead of “cleaned” to reflect it as it counts towards activity level with NEAT whereas purposeful exercise does not. I’m also not saying professional cleaners don’t deserve to claim active or very active because I know it’s a LOT of work, just saying it seems silly to me to call someone with a desk job who exercises a lot only lightly active.
    I say people seem to have issues with being classified as sedentary because I do see a lot of people asking about and mentioning the desk job and sedentary connection. I agree that it is common for people to choose a lower activity level than they really have using NEAT, and I don’t think this is as much of an issue with TDEE because purposeful exercise is factored in.
    I agree that NEAT is best for some people and said so in my original post.
  • Sunshine_And_Sand
    Sunshine_And_Sand Posts: 1,320 Member
    PAV8888 wrote: »
    I don't think that the label used to describe the physical activity multiplier that best approaches your caloric expenditure is a value jugement.

    I see your point. Maybe instead of saying value, I should have said NEAT does not factor purposeful exercise into your activity level, whereas TDEE does.
    For me, it is more helpful that the purposeful exercise is factored in. I don’t want to eat less food on the days I don’t exercise. I’d rather have a higher daily target leading to that same weekly goal than feel like I’m being punished for taking a rest day from exercise. I know that’s not actually the case, but I imagine I’m not the only one who doesn’t like to see a lower daily target using NEAT.
    I also get that TDEE needs to be re-evaluated if activity level changes, and for lots of people that would cause issues making NEAT the better method.
  • WinoGelato
    WinoGelato Posts: 13,454 Member
    But if you’re using MFP as designed, logging and eating back the purposeful exercise calories, then it should be the same as your TDEE method? In fact for people who don’t exercise daily or whom have variable exercise calorie burns, using NEAT plus exercise cals when they apply avoid the situation where their overall target is inflated I’d they don’t exercise that day.
  • lemurcat2
    lemurcat2 Posts: 7,885 Member
    edited February 2020
    Sunshine_And_Sand wrote: »
    PAV8888 wrote: »
    I don't think that the label used to describe the physical activity multiplier that best approaches your caloric expenditure is a value jugement.

    I see your point. Maybe instead of saying value, I should have said NEAT does not factor purposeful exercise into your activity level, whereas TDEE does.

    NEAT stands for "non exercise activity themogenesis," so of course it doesn't include purposeful exercise. It's in the name. Anyway, I don't disagree with you that TDEE method can be better (or at least preferable) for someone who understands how much exercise they will do or has consistent exercise -- like I said I prefer it myself. I disagree with the claim that it means that non purposeful exercise is valued more.

    I just reran my goal at MFP (I don't log here anyway, I log at Cron) to see how it phrased it, and it asked about "normal daily activities" and then "how much do you plan to exercise." So I don't see from that that they are saying exercise is not valuable.

    In theory if one exercised daily you could include it in the MFP goals like you do with a TDEE calculator, but I'd be worried that many or most would undervalue it while some would overvalue it and it would be less accurate for the average person just starting out than MFP's current method.

    But it wasn't hard for me to switch to TDEE method about halfway through my weight loss (all of which occurred when I was logging at MFP), and I never saw any reason to think MFP was saying it is better to have an active job than to work out (and most of our culture tends to value jobs that are more mental and less physical IME).
    For me, it is more helpful that the purposeful exercise is factored in. I don’t want to eat less food on the days I don’t exercise. I’d rather have a higher daily target leading to that same weekly goal than feel like I’m being punished for taking a rest day from exercise. I know that’s not actually the case, but I imagine I’m not the only one who doesn’t like to see a lower daily target using NEAT.

    I agree with most of this, which is why I switched to TDEE method. What I don't disagree with is that there's some harm or value judgment therefore in MFP doing the guided analysis based on NEAT (and it's not like you have to see NEAT if you don't want to and no longer need MFP to help calculate your goal).

    I think it's much more important to make the system user-friendly to newbies many of whom don't have consistent exercise at all than someone who understands how TDEE works and can easily choose their own goal (like you and me).
  • PAV8888
    PAV8888 Posts: 14,312 Member
    edited February 2020
    Sunshine_And_Sand wrote: »
    I see your point. Maybe instead of saying value, I should have said NEAT does not factor purposeful exercise into your activity level, whereas TDEE does.
    For me, it is more helpful that the purposeful exercise is factored in. I don’t want to eat less food on the days I don’t exercise. I’d rather have a higher daily target leading to that same weekly goal than feel like I’m being punished for taking a rest day from exercise. I know that’s not actually the case, but I imagine I’m not the only one who doesn’t like to see a lower daily target using NEAT.
    I also get that TDEE needs to be re-evaluated if activity level changes, and for lots of people that would cause issues making NEAT the better method.

    So... I think we are all of a sudden converging; though that was not what was originally said.

    Let me re-frame what you're saying and then maybe you can re-frame in your mind the value judgements you may have been assigning to things.

    NEAT doesn't include purposeful exercise in your activity level. TDEE does. THIS IS THEIR DEFINITION. That's why one is called NEAT and why one is called TDEE.

    You may disagree that NEAT suits your needs, which is the second point you raise. Mainly because your brain hamsters feel penalised if you take a day off (which you should to prevent injury) and are told to eat less that day.

    Well, my own brain hamsters are / used to be lazy buggers who were / are only motivated by food. So by 9pm they might eventually take the poor dog out for a walk because all that red was making their eyes ache!

    For every person who doesn't like the obsessive push to chase NEAT increases, there is another person who has benefited from deliberately increasing their NEAT and developing a better balance.

    Having said that... a few years later, I have a daily goal closer to my TDEE than NEAT and set MFP to very active even though I am sedentary unless I engage in purposeful activity.

    But I also use negative adjustments on my tracker which lowers my "allotment" on lower days. I also find that on lower movement days I am actually NOT as hungry... so there's that to consider too! (essentially using a tracker converts MFP's NEAT+logged exercise into a TDEE calculation based on the tracker's logging).
  • GummiMundi
    GummiMundi Posts: 396 Member
    WinoGelato wrote: »
    But if you’re using MFP as designed, logging and eating back the purposeful exercise calories, then it should be the same as your TDEE method? In fact for people who don’t exercise daily or whom have variable exercise calorie burns, using NEAT plus exercise cals when they apply avoid the situation where their overall target is inflated I’d they don’t exercise that day.

    ^^^^This, exactly. I rather stay away from the guesstimating game, be it in logging calories or logging exercise. No two days are alike, no two weeks are alike either. On some weeks I may exercise 6 days, on others just 3. I don't want having to adjust any TDEE calculations all the time, so NEAT + exercise suits me just fine.

    Also, on the days when I don't exercise and my allotted calories are lower than the day before, I don't see that as a punishment at all. I see it as a simple number that reflects the reality of a given day. That's all. No punishment, no moral value. Just a fact: if I didn't burn as many calories on a given day, then I don't need to eat as many calories.
  • Danp
    Danp Posts: 1,561 Member
    edited February 2020
    'Sedentary' is linked to a specific location or career. It's a function of how physically active you are (or can be) while going about your day.

    An office worker who spends their day walking from meeting to meeting and is generally on the go all day might quite active where as another might be tied to their desk all day and be sedentary. In the same vein a long haul truck driver who sits behind the wheel of his rig on the highway would be very sedentary whereas a truck driver out doing deliveries all day might be active.
  • sijomial
    sijomial Posts: 19,809 Member
    My office job included a lot of choices despite requiring me to spend the majority of my day at my computer screen.

    I live a mile from my home station - I walked. Someone I know who lives at the halfway point would drive despite being able bodied.

    My transfers and the distance from final station to the office was at least another mile walking - many of my colleagues would get a bus.

    I walked between offices - many of my colleagues would choose to get a bus or tube, personally I was quite happy for my employer to be effectively paying me to walk! :wink:

    I always walked the 8 flights of stairs to my office (several times a day) - many of my colleagues never used the stairs.

    When I got home I didn't just flop in front of a TV all evening. That's another choice, several of my colleagues were into gaming or kept up with ALL the latest hit TV programs.

    Yes I had a sedentary job, but I didn't have a sedentary lifestyle and my eating level reflected that.
  • Psychgrrl
    Psychgrrl Posts: 3,177 Member
    I have an office job, but it is on a college campus where I am running (usually with a laptop and bag of files) from building to building with hills and stairs (elevators are soooooo slow).

    I am in maintenance and set to "lightly active." Could probably set the activity level higher because I typically hit my 10,000 steps a day before I get to the gym. My Fitbit is synced and it figures everything out for me.
  • NovusDies
    NovusDies Posts: 8,940 Member
    Having a sedentary job does not make you sedentary. It does not even mean you have a sedentary NEAT.

    You have to start somewhere in calculating your calorie requirements. You put your information into MFP and it gives you an estimate. It will be right the majority of the time. It will be wrong for some. If you have an activity tracker that syncs properly this probably won't be much of a concern. If you do not and you manually enter your exercise and are still losing too fast eating them all back you may need to adjust your activity setting.

    NEAT is basically activity that is hard to manually track. It happens in small segments that are not easily defined. In order for it to count towards calories it has to be consistent. The 500 steps you took today pacing while on that conference call have to be replaced tomorrow with the same amount either doing the same thing or doing something else. As someone with a sedentary job I can tell you it is entirely possible to get a consistent 7 to 8k steps a day in addition to purposeful exercise though.

    If you can afford it and you intend to actively improve your NEAT calories I would suggest an activity tracker.

    Later I will run to the pharmacy. Even though it has a drive-thru I will park and go in because I am not a sedentary person anymore.
  • JaxxieKat
    JaxxieKat Posts: 427 Member
    I am an office worker who also spends about 3-5 hours a day manually moving boxes that weigh 20+lbs around a warehouse, so I consider that lightly active when combined with my exercise, but I don't log my exercise.
  • WinoGelato
    WinoGelato Posts: 13,454 Member
    JaxxieKat wrote: »
    I am an office worker who also spends about 3-5 hours a day manually moving boxes that weigh 20+lbs around a warehouse, so I consider that lightly active when combined with my exercise, but I don't log my exercise.

    Why don’t you log your exercise?
  • JaxxieKat
    JaxxieKat Posts: 427 Member
    WinoGelato wrote: »

    Why don’t you log your exercise?

    Couple of reasons. First one being that my day-to-day energy expenditure on the job can vary. Second is that I find my Fitbit seems very enthusiastic about estimating my daily calorie burn (some days just getting in 10k steps and no extra cardio it says I burned 2900 calories). Since exercise calorie burn is such a finicky thing, I prefer to say I'm lightly active, rather than sedentary, and stick with the calorie allotment given to lose .5lb a week.

  • PAV8888
    PAV8888 Posts: 14,312 Member
    JaxxieKat wrote: »
    WinoGelato wrote: »

    Why don’t you log your exercise?

    Couple of reasons. First one being that my day-to-day energy expenditure on the job can vary. Second is that I find my Fitbit seems very enthusiastic about estimating my daily calorie burn (some days just getting in 10k steps and no extra cardio it says I burned 2900 calories). Since exercise calorie burn is such a finicky thing, I prefer to say I'm lightly active, rather than sedentary, and stick with the calorie allotment given to lose .5lb a week.

    Is your goal to lose 0.5 lbs a week and are you achieving it, or are you overachieving it. How carefully do you log intake?

    Objectively, for most other people in the world based on the common definitions in use, your physical activity at work without any extra exercise (defined as 3+ hours of walking around carrying 20lb boxes) would qualify them in the active to very active category.
  • gentledreams
    gentledreams Posts: 10 Member
    I have an office job and sometimes I can easily park my rear end on my chair at 7AM and realise at 11AM that I have not moved for four hours :D So I try to compensate outside of work, I walk everywhere, going to the gym 2-3 times a week, going to swim once a week when I can. I recently started to get off the bus a mile from home and walk the rest of the way. All this means I now average 10k steps a day but I still put my activity level to sedentary as I feel that is what is natural to me, and all the rest is going out of my way.
  • tinkerbellang83
    tinkerbellang83 Posts: 9,142 Member
    gentledreams wrote: »
    I have an office job and sometimes I can easily park my rear end on my chair at 7AM and realise at 11AM that I have not moved for four hours :D So I try to compensate outside of work, I walk everywhere, going to the gym 2-3 times a week, going to swim once a week when I can. I recently started to get off the bus a mile from home and walk the rest of the way. All this means I now average 10k steps a day but I still put my activity level to sedentary as I feel that is what is natural to me, and all the rest is going out of my way.

    10000 steps is far from sedentary. It's considered Active, if you don't have a tracker synced, that can cause your deficit to be substantially higher than might be considered healthy for your goals. Of course reviewing what your weight does over a period of 4-6 weeks vs what you expected it to do over that same period is the easiest way to evaluate how accurate your activity level truly reflects what you're doing.

    Just know that many people struggle here because they set too high a deficit and/or too low an activity level.

  • dolliesdaughter
    dolliesdaughter Posts: 544 Member
    I am an office worker, but I workout M-F 4:15a with Cathe DVD's and I run 3xs per week after work. I throw in swimming and Zumba as well. I also walk on my breaks and take the steps. I do not less than 15k steps per day, 7 days per week. Sitting on your bum in an office is not good.
This discussion has been closed.

Categories