What exercise to log

Well, what did you set your activity level at when you set up the account? If it is anything above "not very active" wandering slowly through the supermarket aisles may, basically, be already assumed in your movement. ( even if it is, monitor if you lose weight at the expected rate if you log your shopping trip and adjust what you lig as exercise if needed.)

If you lift a lot of stuff at work and move around a fair lot you definitely should put your activity level at higher than "not very active" and, hopefully, have your daily work calories already added as an allowance from the beginning. Again, you can monitor weight loss and adjust as needed (after a few weeks, not directly within one week).

Not sure about using the gadgets you mentioned, as I have no experience using them.

CJ912020 wrote: »

Yea so when I mean going shops, I don't mean grocery shopping, I'm talking about window shopping, walking around looking at different stores etc, something we don't normally do on a regular basis, should those be logged or just count it as regular everyday already logged in calorie intake number?

I'll have to check what I set up the account as, I believe it was the one above not very active (forgot the name).

Would it be better off just not counting any walking? If I go for a slow walk outside for exercise is it null and void if its the same speed people walk around doing grocery shopping? It doesn't make much sense to pick and choose what is "loggable" exercise if the thing you're doing isn't a regular thing.. should I be not counting a % of a jog because part of it should be allocated to the "initial daily intake"?

You have to decide what level of accuracy you choose to aspire to (but that effort is normally far more valuable applied to logging your intake accurately TBH) but no I wouldn't log general bimbling around window shopping as exercise.
On the flip side I also wouldn't take off any calories for a bit of a lazy day either when I did less movement than normal. Smoothing an average over an extened period of time is perfectly fine.

The speed of your walking can be a fitness factor but it's distance that is really significant for calorie burns. Some people do walk a long way for exercise plus adding movement to your life is simply very beneficial for your health long term - it's a great habit to cultivate. Walking really isn't a big calorie burner by time so not worth agonising over too much unless you are doing a lot of it. When I started on MFP the extra walking I built into my day meant although I had a desk job sedentary was too low an activity setting and I was easily lightly active.

Jogging I would call exercise but I suppose if I'm running a short distance to catch a train rather than exercise I wouldn't bother.

CJ912020 wrote: »

Yea so when I mean going shops, I don't mean grocery shopping, I'm talking about window shopping, walking around looking at different stores etc, something we don't normally do on a regular basis, should those be logged or just count it as regular everyday already logged in calorie intake number?

I'll have to check what I set up the account as, I believe it was the one above not very active (forgot the name).

Would it be better off just not counting any walking? If I go for a slow walk outside for exercise is it null and void if its the same speed people walk around doing grocery shopping? It doesn't make much sense to pick and choose what is "loggable" exercise if the thing you're doing isn't a regular thing.. should I be not counting a % of a jog because part of it should be allocated to the "initial daily intake"?

I think you're poking over the border into overthinking, here. You pick your activity level by considering what you normally do on average, over an average week. (Many people's jobs are 5 days a week, and weekends are different, but we don't urge people to change their activity level setting based on day of week, just sort of mentally average it out.) Activity level setting doesn't need to be perfect, but it helps if it's reasonable, i.e., someone whose job involves physical labor isn't sedentary, and even someone chasing toddlers at home is probably at least lightly active. Just make a good guess.

There are a very few people here who like to set activity level very low, then try to log every little thing they do all day that isn't sitting/lying down. Personally, I'd find that fussy and annoying. I prefer to do what the MFP designers envisioned: Get a base calorie goal based on average daily life, then add intentional exercise. (It's worked fine for me through just under a year of weight loss, and 5+ years of maintenance since.)

What we're trying to do with activity level (+ exercise logging) is just get a *starting estimate* for calorie intake, one that will likely yield weight loss, but not be so extreme as to create health risk, energy loss, "hanger", giving up, etc. Then, we follow the MFP estimate for 4-6 weeks, calculate average weekly weight loss, and adjust from there based on personal experience. (If the first couple weeks are very unusual compared to later, throw those out and go for a couple more weeks before adjusting. If premenopausal female, compare bodyweight at same relative time in at least two different menstrual cycles.)

Underscoring: You're getting a *starting estimate* from MFP, which you test drive for long enough to get valid personal data, then use that personal data to determine calorie goal.

In that context, I think it becomes easier to think about exercise estimating. In general, it's more important to be *consistent* than it is to be *exact*. Sure, it helps if you use an exercise estimating method that's likely to give you a *reasonable* estimate: For steady state cardio, a HRM if you have one; for cycling, a power meter if you have one; for machines that estimate in watts and know your age/size, the machine estimate may be decent; for walking/running on fairly moderate terrain a distance formula; etc. A reasonable estimate is plenty good enough. (If you're set up to lose a pound a week, you have to overestimate exercise by 500 calories daily - quite a lot - to wipe out your deficit.) Consider the relative size of the numbers you're working with, before worrying about chasing accuracy of estimates in ways that would require high effort (and extra angst).

Close is workable, and being consistent (estimating the same exercise the same way every time, even if the basis is a little iffy) is what gives a person repeatable data on which they can base their calorie adjustment after that 4-6 weeks. If, instead, a person keeps switching up estimating methods and calorie intakes, tweaking it in a frantic pursuit of improbable perfection . . . all they get is messy data that is a less-valid guide to their future successful course.

So: Relax. Make a reasonable stab at estimating activity level based on routine life. Make a reasonable stab at estimating intentional exercise on top of daily activity, then log and eat that (or a consistent percent of it, if you're worried it's overestimated and want to be super-cautious). Then stick with it for 4-6 weeks, monitor and adjust. It'll work fine.

Best wishes!