Sedentary vs lightly active

Sedentary.

Lightly active.

Lightly active. Especially if you’re ravenous

My experience of babies and toddlers (I have 2 adult children and four grandchildren 8 years old and under) is that you will be quite active while they are around, "watching" is only possible while they are sleeping, the rest of the time you will be up and down and running around after the 2 year-old. Only you know how much time you spend with them and how active they are but I'm sure you will be at least lightly active overall.

charlottemilton wrote: »

@AnnPT77 My current weight is 255 and I am 5'4". My goal is set to 2 lbs a week but I think that is reasonable as heavy as I am. I was recently diagnosed with gastritis and non alcoholic fatty liver. Both of these require dietary changes if I am to improve, so my doctor has given me a set of guidelines which can work with MFP. Mostly it is a list of things NOT to eat and eating them does cause pain right now so I am staying away from those. Most days my macros are almost spot on the defaults. If anything my fats are low, sometimes very low, and sugars a little over but not but by a more than 5-10 grams usually from fruit.

Two pounds a week should be OK for a while, as long as you feel OK (energy level, strength, etc.) doing it. Your health conditions are physical stressors, and a calorie deficit is a physical stressor; but your medical conditions may also improve with weight loss. Has your doctor endorsed your plan to lose 2 pounds a week? I'm glad s/he's given you guidelines to work with.

It sounds like you're doing well with the macros, from a nutritional standpoint: Kudos! If fats are very low, you might want to work at that a bit, unless one of your doctor's guidelines is to minimize fat. (I don't/won't pretend to know anything about the dietary restrictions that are recommended for your medical situation. You doctor, or perhaps even better a registered dietitian your doctor might refer you to, would be a good source.)

If macros are on point but you begin to have some ravenous days, it might be useful to ask yourself what's different on those days: Sometimes food choices or timing of eating can have an important effect on cravings or fullness, and those patterns tend to be very individual. If you can see a pattern, then adjustments to eating, based on that pattern, can help. If you have discretionary calories left after getting the minimums, you might try eating a bit more protein (if not in conflict with the guidelines) for a bit to see if that's more filling, as many people find it so. Others find fat more filling, some find high volume or high-fiber foods (like veggies) more filling. Since it's very individualized, experimenting within your guidelines, and monitoring how you feel, is a good way to go.

Beyond food, things like poor/inadequate sleep or high stress can also increase appetite or cravings. If that applies to you, on some days, it may help to address those things directly, if feasible.

Unless your doctor has suggested you limit total sugars (as distinct from added sugars), it should be OK to be over the MFP default sugar goal from things like fruit (full of nice micronutrients and fiber!), as long as your protein and fat are on point (with first, the guidelines for your health conditions, but also, if not conflicting, the default minimums).

Wishing you all the best!

joyanna2016 wrote: »

My app doesnt have "sedentary as an option. It has "not very active" as the lowest option.

Yeah, good point. Some versions of the app use one term ("not very active"), some the other ("sedentary"). It makes communication difficult.

I believe they both result in the same activity multiplier/calorie goal, however.

joyanna2016 wrote: »

My app doesnt have "sedentary as an option. It has "not very active" as the lowest option.

Just to make things more confusing, the terminology changes within MFP depending on whether you are using the app or the web. It is sedentary on the laptop but not very active on the app.

that's a question I have and have gotten a lot of confusing answers. My normal routine is definitely sedentary as I have a desk job at work. About a month or so ago, I started trying to get more active by purchase a step counter and working to increase my steps per day. My starting count averaged at about 2,500 a day, so I set a goal for myself to try to get it at a minimum of 5,500 a day. I have to do this by using a purposeful walk in.

Since I have to do purposeful exercise to get my step count up, I think with the method that MFP uses to calculate calorie goals, I can account for it by 1 of 2 ways:

1) leave my setting at sedentary and then eat back a portion of the walk calories
2) get my step count up consistently every day and set my setting to lightly active

However, what I can't get a firm answer on is what step count would equate to lightly active?

PAV8888 wrote: »

bmeadows380 wrote: »

However, what I can't get a firm answer on is what step count would equate to lightly active?

That's because there is no TRUE answer for everyone as a lot depends on the accuracy of your food logging and on your individual deviation from the statistical predictions made by the caloric estimation models used.

That said... the MFP sedentary activity level represents an activity factor of 1.25 (your calories are 1.25x BMR). Most people using trackers seem to get positive adjustments (in other words the calories spent exceed MFP sedentary) at around 3 to 3.5k. Most people start getting positive adjustments from MFP lightly active at above 7.5K.

So, to MY mind MFP calories for SEDENTARY represent 3.5K steps. And MFP calories for lightly active represent 7.5K steps. If you're in-between... you're in between.

Options could range from accepting a slower or faster rate of loss, manual adjustment of goals, or just knowing eating a bit in the red or a bit on the green depending on goals.

Which is why trackers offer the convenience of not having to manually come up with an estimate every day. Of course their estimate can be incorrect; but that's where review of results and adjustment after a few weeks comes in.

I definitely don't trust my tracker's calorie burn estimates, nor the MFP ones. But I have a very difficult time figuring out what I'm actually burning weekly because of water weight fluctuations that are all over the place. According to MFP, I should be eating about 1390 to lose 2 lbs/wk. I've got my setting for 1450 as I've about hit rock bottom on what I can reasonably cut diet wise. So I'm already set to a little under that 2 lb/wk mark. I"ve been trying to get a minimum of 30 minutes aerobic exercise through walking or the elliptical in a day, and only counting 1/4 - 1/3 of that should make up that 60 calorie difference. I"m trying out the HappySacle trend tracker and have been tracking on it now for over 2 weeks. Is its trend lb/wk usually fairly accurate? I could use that to figure out now much I'm losing per week.

@Pav8888 Thanks!

I seemed to hit the on switch in January, as that's when I was able to really stick to my calorie limits and started seeing much better progress. When I look at my weight on 1/27 and compare it to the 259.5 lbs I except to see tomorrow morning or thereabouts, it looks like I"ve been average 1.73 lbs per week instead of 2 lbs/wk. I double checked several different calculators online and they all were fairly close to each other and all 100 calories under what MFP recommends for sedentary and my stats of 5'8" 259 lbs, and they all are much closer to what I'm actually experiencing than MFP's numbers.

I know movement has benefits well beyond weight loss, and I"ve been trying to ramp it up over the last month or so now, going from less than 3,000 steps a day at the end of February to at least 5,500 now and trying to get at least 30 minutes of aerobic activity in. I found a beginner's body weight routine though I"m not sure how much help it will actually be.

But at my weight, if I get in a 45 minutes session and only count 1/4-1/3 of it, I'm still gaining at least 100 extra calories, and that can be a big difference when evening gets around and the snacky drive tries to kick in!