Overestimating Exercise?
On an average day, I walk at a moderate pace anywhere from 30-60 minutes. Additionally, I am a rather energetic person and often find myself pacing around the house and what not. Finally, I am a teenager. All of that said, do the previous things qualify as at least light (or low) active? Specifically, I would like to know for this calculator:http://www.bcm.edu/cnrc/bodycomp/energy/energ yneeds_calculator.htmThanks!
Edit: So, let me get something straight, does walking count as being active? I mean, you'd think that, however, what if someone is "active" for as long as you are, but the difference is that the other person enagages in vigorous exercise as opposed to mere walking? Wouldn't that make it so that the calculator underestimates the needs of the more active person, while someone like me has their needs overestimated? If the answer turns out to be that the calculator leans in favor of the less active person, then I would happily start walking for 60 minutes on a regular basis, and in turn, eat more. However, I don't want to make the mistake of doing more and eating more, and yet burning no extra calories. I really don't feel like gaining anymore weight.
Walking for 30-60 minutes a day at a moderate pace definitely puts you at least at light activity. According to that website, if you're active for an hour a day you qualify as "active," so you could probably use that to calculate your daily burn. It's better to slightly overestimate than underestimate your burn in my opinion.
I believe that I will stick with light activity, as I have been gaining some weight as of late. Anyway, thanks for your input. Choosing the right activity level has always been a point of confusion for me, as so many different sites define it in different ways. For instance, some sites do not even include a light activity level, and instead, go from bedridden, to moderate, to heavy. Talk about uncertainty!
Just a thought: if CC has changed their calculator to reflect a supposedly more accurate formula, is it possible that the calculator mentioned in my original post overestimates calories? I am well aware that the tools on this site are intended for use by adults. That said, it makes sense that, if the old formula overestimated the calorie needs of adults, then might a similarly dated formual overestimate the needs of "children" as well? Like I said, it's just a thought.
I have found at least one site where a person can put in every single activity such as sitting and talking, brushing teeth, doing dishes, etc. etc to try to get an exact measure of calorie burn. It is somehat tedius to do that, however. The other thing I would say is that I think many of us who diet/exercise sometimes forget or ignore how important it is to rev up the metabolic engine by drinking one or two large glasses of water first thing in the morning and by having a really good, protein rich breakfast. For my part, from what I have charted about myself, I seemed to lose weight faster and keep it off better when I have a good first meal of lean beef, elk, bison, red beans, eggs, etc--something rich in protein.
Nope, I never do that. I just stick to the number given based on light activity, even if there is an odd day where I do a little more.
So, let me get something straight, does walking count as being active? I mean, you'd think that, however, what if someone is "active" for as long as you are, but the difference is that the other person enagages in vigorous exercise as opposed to mere walking? Wouldn't that make it so that the calculator underestimates the needs of the more active person, while someone like me has their needs overestimated? If the answer turns out to be that the calculator leans in favor of the less active person, then I would happily start walking for 60 minutes on a regular basis, and in turn, eat more. However, I don't want to make the mistake of doing more and eating more, and yet burning no extra calories. I really don't feel like gaining anymore weight.
Even though I know for a fact that I am 'moderately active', I put down sedentary, and then input individual activities (ie aerobics for 45 minutes, walking for 2 hours, etc). I don't really want CalorieCount to 'guess' at how active I am. I feel like it's more precise this way. In the end, I might be estimating my calorie burn for the day to be too low by 100 calories or so, but I'd rather have a low estimate than a high one.
Original Post by asphyxiac:
Even though I know for a fact that I am 'moderately active', I put down sedentary, and then input individual activities (ie aerobics for 45 minutes, walking for 2 hours, etc). I don't really want CalorieCount to 'guess' at how active I am. I feel like it's more precise this way. In the end, I might be estimating my calorie burn for the day to be too low by 100 calories or so, but I'd rather have a low estimate than a high one.
The problem here is that the tools on Calorie Count are intended for an adult, which I am not. Thus, my original post references a different calculator, which is frequently recommended for use by teenagers like myself. Unlike CC, this calculator does not allow you to input individual activities, so I am presently trying to figure out which activity level most accurately applies to me. However, if you are under 21 and find that the tools on this site work well for you, then I would be interested to hear about your experiences.
Original Post by vincent_louis:
The problem here is that the tools on Calorie Count are intended for an adult, which I am not. Thus, my original post references a different calculator, which is frequently recommended for use by teenagers like myself. Unlike CC, this calculator does not allow you to input individual activities, so I am presently trying to figure out which activity level most accurately applies to me. However, if you are under 21 and find that the tools on this site work well for you, then I would be interested to hear about your experiences.
I'm 22, so I am definitely an adult. However, you might want to try a website like this: http://www.chipkids.com/health_calculators/ca lories_burned_in_sports_activities.html
It tells you the number of calories burned by activity, and it's for younger people. I would guess that you could add the calories you get for 'walking' (or whatever your exercise of choice is) to the number of calories burned on a sedentary day, and get a pretty accurate estimate. Hope this helps!
Original Post by asphyxiac:
Original Post by vincent_louis:
The problem here is that the tools on Calorie Count are intended for an adult, which I am not. Thus, my original post references a different calculator, which is frequently recommended for use by teenagers like myself. Unlike CC, this calculator does not allow you to input individual activities, so I am presently trying to figure out which activity level most accurately applies to me. However, if you are under 21 and find that the tools on this site work well for you, then I would be interested to hear about your experiences.
I'm 22, so I am definitely an adult. However, you might want to try a website like this: http://www.chipkids.com/health_calculators/ca lories_burned_in_sports_activities.html
It tells you the number of calories burned by activity, and it's for younger people. I would guess that you could add the calories you get for 'walking' (or whatever your exercise of choice is) to the number of calories burned on a sedentary day, and get a pretty accurate estimate. Hope this helps!
Thanks!
