Change in activity level justified?

Following initial advice, I set my activity level to sedentary and logged my activities on top of that. Having recorded my eatmeter and burnmeter for the last two weeks, I found that after two weeks I had apparently eaten surplus calories of 572. I logged activities on 8 days, logging an average of an extra 300 calories burned on those days. So on sedentary + activities I get a surplus of 572 calories. However, if I set my level to lightly active, I get a deficit of 616 calories over two weeks. The difference is 1188, or 600 calories per week, which can add up in the long run.

So its apparent that my sedentary +logging yields a substantially lower total burn per week than if my activity was set at light. But I am not sure my activity level justifies being at light, seeing as I have a desk job but work out twice a week and take occassional walks. I don't log things like light housework (cooking, sweeping, washing up etc)

Which method is giving a more accurate picture of my total burn?

My suggestion is that you qualify as 'light' as a good working average.  TO make sure of that, simply try to get half an hour of some kind of activity every day.  A good way to do that is to get hold of a cheap pedometer and try to clock 10,000 steps.... means you build more activity into your regular day.

If I did that, would I still log activities on top of the light activity level that I 'earned' through walking 1/2 an hour?

If I changed to light now, I wouldn't log my activities on top, but it would still give me more calories burned than 'sedentary' and logging. I'm just dumbfounded that there is such a large gap between being sedentary and working my @$$ off twice week and a bit of gentle exercise twice a week, and just being lightly active with no extra activities *sigh*

Anyway,  thanks for the good and prompt advice, as usual, and have a lovely weekend.

If you do significantly more than half an hour of exercise then log the additional....