What's my Activity Level?

MFP's activity level is meant to reflect non exercise activity (work, commute, housework...).

And then exercise is logged separately in your diary which gives you extra calories.

Walking is a bit in between, imho:
- if you give us your average step count, we could give you an indication of what activity level it corresponds with.
- or you could choose sedentary and log your walks

If your walks vary, the second option might be better, theoretically. I wouldn't log 30min walking personally though, even sedentary includes some steps and it's not likely to make a big difference.

(I use neither of those options, by the way: a third option is using a step counter or fitness tracker which will automatically adjust based on how active you are)

yirara wrote: »

KieranONeill7307 wrote: »

Lietchi wrote: »

MFP's activity level is meant to reflect non exercise activity (work, commute, housework...).

And then exercise is logged separately in your diary which gives you extra calories.

Walking is a bit in between, imho:
- if you give us your average step count, we could give you an indication of what activity level it corresponds with.
- or you could choose sedentary and log your walks

If your walks vary, the second option might be better, theoretically. I wouldn't log 30min walking personally though, even sedentary includes some steps and it's not likely to make a big difference.

(I use neither of those options, by the way: a third option is using a step counter or fitness tracker which will automatically adjust based on how active you are)

From talks with my doctor and various other bits of research, I have been told/seen that it's actually better from what I can tell not not eat the 'extra calories' you get from exercise and just keep to the set amount that day. I'm curious if there is more to it then just 'gaining more food (calories) I can eat)

As for average steps, that a little hard right now as I have just recently started the health kick. So I started with 5,000 on Tuesday, 5,600 on Wednesday, 8,500 on Thursday and today I put in 11,500. Whilst I plan on keeping up with my walking, how much I do will depend on the day and how much free time I have. But I have set time aside for at least two walks

Most calorie calculators include exercise. MFP doesn't. Yeah, your exercise calories might be too high, but it's still a good idea to eat at least a part of it if you're already on a very low calorie number. Say you're a woman, and you want to lose really fast, hence mfp gave you 1200 calories. Now you exercise on top. Just an easy 5km run every other day. Might be about 300 calories. No problem, no? But not eating those calories back is pretty much the same as not exercising and only eating 900 calories. Now try to get sufficient nutrition from only 900 calories, or try to avoid binging on so little food, and then give up in frustration because you feel miserable. Weightloss is not meant to be a miserable undertaking, but should be as easy as possible.

"Easy" 5 km run. 😂 Sorry, can't help myself. Pretty sure I'd die trying to run 5k. That being said, I think you're absolutely right.

It works for me to pick the setting worded closest to “sedentary” then track my walks on my Apple watch. It syncs calories burned to MFP if you connect them in settings. Of course plenty of people will say it’s not an accurate read, you shouldn’t always eat back exercise calories, etc. Hasn’t been an issue for me. If it had, then I would just adjust my eating or estimated calories burned as necessary. It’s a process.

KieranONeill7307 wrote: »

Lietchi wrote: »

MFP's activity level is meant to reflect non exercise activity (work, commute, housework...).

And then exercise is logged separately in your diary which gives you extra calories.

Walking is a bit in between, imho:
- if you give us your average step count, we could give you an indication of what activity level it corresponds with.
- or you could choose sedentary and log your walks

If your walks vary, the second option might be better, theoretically. I wouldn't log 30min walking personally though, even sedentary includes some steps and it's not likely to make a big difference.

(I use neither of those options, by the way: a third option is using a step counter or fitness tracker which will automatically adjust based on how active you are)

From talks with my doctor and various other bits of research, I have been told/seen that it's actually better from what I can tell not not eat the 'extra calories' you get from exercise and just keep to the set amount that day. I'm curious if there is more to it then just 'gaining more food (calories) I can eat)

The point I'd make - in line with what others have suggested - is that there are two different mathematical models used in calorie counting. I think best results come from picking one of them, understanding its pros and cons, and following it as it was designed to work.

Both use one of the same range of research-based formulas to estimate basal metabolic rate (BMR) calories; adjust that BMR estimate upward to account for activity (using an activity-level multiplier); then subtract some calories to create a calorie deficit if a person wants to lose weight.

Model #1, TDEE method: The activity estimate includes planned exercise, and averages those calories into the daily calorie goal.

Model #2, MFP method: The activity estimate includes only daily life activity, i.e., things like job, home chores, and other such average hum-drum routine movement. When the person does intentional exercise, they add the net exercise calories, and eat more accordingly.

Either method can work, and with accurate estimates they'll result in about the same weight loss rate. One method or the other may suit specific people better. Mixing up the models may not be a great plan.

I'm firmly in camp "Model #2" because much of my exercise activity is weather-dependent, and it also varies seasonally. That makes exercise calories vary somewhat unpredictably. I lost weight fine (obese to healthy weight) and have maintained a healthy weight for 8 years since, eating all my separately-estimated exercise calories.

Other people will be happier with "Model #1", and do fine that way.

The implication of "never eat back exercise calories" is that it's always good to let exercise activity make weight loss happen faster. It's not. Fast loss increases health risks, among other potential downsides.

I'm a recreational athlete, and value my performance in my sport (not to mention liking to have a good energy level for daily life stuff). I could use either method to fuel my activity adequately. If I used the Model #2 activity estimate, and let exercise increase my deficit for faster loss, I'd crash and burn, personally.

Of course, that risk varies depending on the amount of exercise, and how fast the person's trying to lose weight in the first place. Select a fast loss rate for one's current size, then do lots of exercise, not fuel the exercise some way? Risky. Select a very moderate loss rate, only do a little exercise, not fuel the exercise but let it trigger slightly faster loss? Probably OK. In between, it's a question of personal risk tolerance. What really matters is reaching a sensibly moderate loss rate for one's situation.

As an aside, "gaining more food I can eat" isn't just about pleasure. More food means potentially better nutrition, too. Nutrition is useful in its own right.

As for average steps, that a little hard right now as I have just recently started the health kick. So I started with 5,000 on Tuesday, 5,600 on Wednesday, 8,500 on Thursday and today I put in 11,500. Whilst I plan on keeping up with my walking, how much I do will depend on the day and how much free time I have. But I have set time aside for at least two walks

Best wishes!