Is eating 4% below BMR really that bad?

CM9178

So I constantly hear that it is bad to eat below BMR - but some say it is ok.

My activity level right now is sedentary. I have 41 lbs to lose til goal.

My BMR is 1547.
My TDEE is 1856.

TDEE - 20 % = 1484 - this is 63 calories below BMR and about 4%.
I'd like to just set my daily calorie goal at 1484, is this still considered an awful thing to do, and if so, why?

Yes, I could eat at a lower deficit - but with it being so close - I'm curious if it even matters right now.

Paco4gsc

I'm curious about this too because I discovered today that I was doing the same thing unintentionally.

CM9178

I'm curious about this too because I discovered today that I was doing the same thing unintentionally.

I didn't know anything about TDEE and BMR when I first started - and lost 40 lbs. Now I want to do it correctly.

Bonny619

I say just set it to 1500 and be done with it. I like nice even numbers!

jonnythan

No. 1484 is a perfectly appropriate calorie goal for you.

However, you should not find yourself actually eating that many calories often. 1856 is your *sedentary* TDEE, so you need to add exercise calories on top of that. If you spend half an hour on the treadmill, your TDEE for that day will be morelike 2156. This means you'll have to eat about 1784 calories that day.

IMO you should set your calorie goal in MFP to 1484 and add exercise calories. If you find yourself eating fewer than 1547 calories often, it means you need to start getting a little more exercise. The fact that 1484 is below 1547 is completely irrelevant.

Paco4gsc

I'm curious about this too because I discovered today that I was doing the same thing unintentionally.

I didn't know anything about TDEE and BMR when I first started - and lost 40 lbs. Now I want to do it correctly.

I'm with you on that. My BMR is around 1777 (according to MFP) and the goal it set was 1720. I bumped it to 1900 just to be safe.

@Bonny619, 1500 would still be below her BMR. I think the concern is if being just a little below BMR consistently is ok.

Bonny619

I understand that it's still below her BMR and I feel it's ok. But I wouldn't go below that. And like Jon said, add some more cals on higher exercise days.

CM9178

No. 1484 is a perfectly appropriate calorie goal for you.

However, you should not find yourself actually eating that many calories often. 1856 is your *sedentary* TDEE, so you need to add exercise calories on top of that. If you spend half an hour on the treadmill, your TDEE for that day will be morelike 2156. This means you'll have to eat about 1784 calories that day.

IMO you should set your calorie goal in MFP to 1484 and add exercise calories. If you find yourself eating fewer than 1547 calories often, it means you need to start getting a little more exercise. The fact that 1484 is below 1547 is completely irrelevant.

My activity level is sedentary right now, as I stated above. I am not exercising at this time - so I would be eating 1484 every single day. (or average for the week).
So is that a problem then?

Also, in your example, if I ate 1784 and then burned 300 calories exercising, I'd still only be netting 1484 anyway. So how is that any different?

jonnythan

No. 1484 is a perfectly appropriate calorie goal for you.

However, you should not find yourself actually eating that many calories often. 1856 is your *sedentary* TDEE, so you need to add exercise calories on top of that. If you spend half an hour on the treadmill, your TDEE for that day will be morelike 2156. This means you'll have to eat about 1784 calories that day.

IMO you should set your calorie goal in MFP to 1484 and add exercise calories. If you find yourself eating fewer than 1547 calories often, it means you need to start getting a little more exercise. The fact that 1484 is below 1547 is completely irrelevant.

My activity level is sedentary right now, as I stated above. I am not exercising at this time - so I would be eating 1484 every single day. (or average for the week).
So is that a problem then?

I don't recommend trying to lose weight while living a completely sedentary lifestyle. If you simply can't exercise for some reason, IMO it's better to try to maintain your weight, or lose very slowly (TDEE-10% or so).

CM9178

No. 1484 is a perfectly appropriate calorie goal for you.

However, you should not find yourself actually eating that many calories often. 1856 is your *sedentary* TDEE, so you need to add exercise calories on top of that. If you spend half an hour on the treadmill, your TDEE for that day will be morelike 2156. This means you'll have to eat about 1784 calories that day.

IMO you should set your calorie goal in MFP to 1484 and add exercise calories. If you find yourself eating fewer than 1547 calories often, it means you need to start getting a little more exercise. The fact that 1484 is below 1547 is completely irrelevant.

My activity level is sedentary right now, as I stated above. I am not exercising at this time - so I would be eating 1484 every single day. (or average for the week).
So is that a problem then?

I don't recommend trying to lose weight while living a completely sedentary lifestyle. If you simply can't exercise for some reason, IMO it's better to try to maintain your weight, or lose very slowly (TDEE-10% or so).

And what exactly is the reason for that? You don't have to exercise to aid in weight loss, it just prevents muscle loss.

Roll_Tide_Meg

No. 1484 is a perfectly appropriate calorie goal for you.

However, you should not find yourself actually eating that many calories often. 1856 is your *sedentary* TDEE, so you need to add exercise calories on top of that. If you spend half an hour on the treadmill, your TDEE for that day will be morelike 2156. This means you'll have to eat about 1784 calories that day.

IMO you should set your calorie goal in MFP to 1484 and add exercise calories. If you find yourself eating fewer than 1547 calories often, it means you need to start getting a little more exercise. The fact that 1484 is below 1547 is completely irrelevant.

My activity level is sedentary right now, as I stated above. I am not exercising at this time - so I would be eating 1484 every single day. (or average for the week).
So is that a problem then?

My thoughts exactly! I am not exercising either yet and I wonder the same thing. I am eating at about 1538 according to my TDEE. I was just about to post and ask if there was anyone NOT exercising and sticking to their TDEE.

jonnythan

Also, in your example, if I ate 1784 and then burned 300 calories exercising, I'd still only be netting 1484 anyway. So how is that any different?

The difference is the fact that you're exercising. Exercise precipitates a whole host of hormonal responses and changes that push your body to maintain muscle mass and metabolism. This helps maintain metabolism and circulatory health.

If you do no exercise while losing weight, your metabolism slows rather dramatically, you lose a lot more muscle mass, etc.

Netting 1480 calories while exercising regularly is very different from netting 1480 while not exercising.

CM9178

No. 1484 is a perfectly appropriate calorie goal for you.

However, you should not find yourself actually eating that many calories often. 1856 is your *sedentary* TDEE, so you need to add exercise calories on top of that. If you spend half an hour on the treadmill, your TDEE for that day will be morelike 2156. This means you'll have to eat about 1784 calories that day.

IMO you should set your calorie goal in MFP to 1484 and add exercise calories. If you find yourself eating fewer than 1547 calories often, it means you need to start getting a little more exercise. The fact that 1484 is below 1547 is completely irrelevant.

My activity level is sedentary right now, as I stated above. I am not exercising at this time - so I would be eating 1484 every single day. (or average for the week).
So is that a problem then?

My thoughts exactly! I am not exercising either yet and I wonder the same thing. I am eating at about 1538 according to my TDEE. I was just about to post and ask if there was anyone NOT exercising and sticking to their TDEE.

Wow, so we are very similar then. Is 1538 your TDEE - 20%?
What is your BMR?

CM9178

Also, in your example, if I ate 1784 and then burned 300 calories exercising, I'd still only be netting 1484 anyway. So how is that any different?

The difference is the fact that you're exercising. Exercise precipitates a whole host of hormonal responses and changes that push your body to maintain muscle mass and metabolism. This helps maintain metabolism and circulatory health.

If you do no exercise while losing weight, your metabolism slows rather dramatically, you lose a lot more muscle mass, etc.

Netting 1480 calories while exercising regularly is very different from netting 1480 while not exercising.

So then are you saying, if you aren't exercising, it isn't ok to eat below BMR, even if it is only 4% below?
And it is ok, if you are exercising?

da_bears10089

No. 1484 is a perfectly appropriate calorie goal for you.

However, you should not find yourself actually eating that many calories often. 1856 is your *sedentary* TDEE, so you need to add exercise calories on top of that. If you spend half an hour on the treadmill, your TDEE for that day will be morelike 2156. This means you'll have to eat about 1784 calories that day.

IMO you should set your calorie goal in MFP to 1484 and add exercise calories. If you find yourself eating fewer than 1547 calories often, it means you need to start getting a little more exercise. The fact that 1484 is below 1547 is completely irrelevant.

My activity level is sedentary right now, as I stated above. I am not exercising at this time - so I would be eating 1484 every single day. (or average for the week).
So is that a problem then?

I don't recommend trying to lose weight while living a completely sedentary lifestyle. If you simply can't exercise for some reason, IMO it's better to try to maintain your weight, or lose very slowly (TDEE-10% or so).

And what exactly is the reason for that? You don't have to exercise to aid in weight loss, it just prevents muscle loss.

it just prevents muscle loss? ohhhh, that's it? This makes it sound like you are far more concerned with the number on the scale rather than if you are losing fat or muscle. plus, do you lay around on a couch all day long? very few people are truly sedentary.

CM9178

No. 1484 is a perfectly appropriate calorie goal for you.

However, you should not find yourself actually eating that many calories often. 1856 is your *sedentary* TDEE, so you need to add exercise calories on top of that. If you spend half an hour on the treadmill, your TDEE for that day will be morelike 2156. This means you'll have to eat about 1784 calories that day.

IMO you should set your calorie goal in MFP to 1484 and add exercise calories. If you find yourself eating fewer than 1547 calories often, it means you need to start getting a little more exercise. The fact that 1484 is below 1547 is completely irrelevant.

My activity level is sedentary right now, as I stated above. I am not exercising at this time - so I would be eating 1484 every single day. (or average for the week).
So is that a problem then?

I don't recommend trying to lose weight while living a completely sedentary lifestyle. If you simply can't exercise for some reason, IMO it's better to try to maintain your weight, or lose very slowly (TDEE-10% or so).

And what exactly is the reason for that? You don't have to exercise to aid in weight loss, it just prevents muscle loss.

it just prevents muscle loss? ohhhh, that's it? This makes it sound like you are far more concerned with the number on the scale rather than if you are losing fat or muscle. plus, do you lay around on a couch all day long? very few people are truly sedentary.

Well it is the truth. Exercise is not required in order to lose weight. I never said you shouldn't exercise. And I also never said why I'm not exercising.
And yes, I am currently probably about 95% sedentary.

jonnythan

Also, in your example, if I ate 1784 and then burned 300 calories exercising, I'd still only be netting 1484 anyway. So how is that any different?

The difference is the fact that you're exercising. Exercise precipitates a whole host of hormonal responses and changes that push your body to maintain muscle mass and metabolism. This helps maintain metabolism and circulatory health.

If you do no exercise while losing weight, your metabolism slows rather dramatically, you lose a lot more muscle mass, etc.

Netting 1480 calories while exercising regularly is very different from netting 1480 while not exercising.

So then are you saying, if you aren't exercising, it isn't ok to eat below BMR, even if it is only 4% below?
And it is ok, if you are exercising?

I'm saying that it's not good, IMO, to eat a significant calorie deficit if you are not exercising.

Whether you're eating above or below BMR is irrelevant. There's nothing magic about the BMR number as compared to your calorie intake.

It's OK to eat a significant calorie deficit if you exercise regularly. It's not OK to eat a significant calorie deficit if you never exercise.

Does that make sense?

jonnythan

No. 1484 is a perfectly appropriate calorie goal for you.

However, you should not find yourself actually eating that many calories often. 1856 is your *sedentary* TDEE, so you need to add exercise calories on top of that. If you spend half an hour on the treadmill, your TDEE for that day will be morelike 2156. This means you'll have to eat about 1784 calories that day.

IMO you should set your calorie goal in MFP to 1484 and add exercise calories. If you find yourself eating fewer than 1547 calories often, it means you need to start getting a little more exercise. The fact that 1484 is below 1547 is completely irrelevant.

My activity level is sedentary right now, as I stated above. I am not exercising at this time - so I would be eating 1484 every single day. (or average for the week).
So is that a problem then?

I don't recommend trying to lose weight while living a completely sedentary lifestyle. If you simply can't exercise for some reason, IMO it's better to try to maintain your weight, or lose very slowly (TDEE-10% or so).

And what exactly is the reason for that? You don't have to exercise to aid in weight loss, it just prevents muscle loss.

it just prevents muscle loss? ohhhh, that's it? This makes it sound like you are far more concerned with the number on the scale rather than if you are losing fat or muscle. plus, do you lay around on a couch all day long? very few people are truly sedentary.

Well it is the truth. Exercise is not required in order to lose weight. I never said you shouldn't exercise. And I also never said why I'm not exercising.
And yes, I am currently probably about 95% sedentary.

Get some exercise.

CM9178

Also, in your example, if I ate 1784 and then burned 300 calories exercising, I'd still only be netting 1484 anyway. So how is that any different?

The difference is the fact that you're exercising. Exercise precipitates a whole host of hormonal responses and changes that push your body to maintain muscle mass and metabolism. This helps maintain metabolism and circulatory health.

If you do no exercise while losing weight, your metabolism slows rather dramatically, you lose a lot more muscle mass, etc.

Netting 1480 calories while exercising regularly is very different from netting 1480 while not exercising.

So then are you saying, if you aren't exercising, it isn't ok to eat below BMR, even if it is only 4% below?
And it is ok, if you are exercising?

I'm saying that it's not good, IMO, to eat a significant calorie deficit if you are not exercising.

Whether you're eating above or below BMR is irrelevant. There's nothing magic about the BMR number as compared to your calorie intake.

It's OK to eat a significant calorie deficit if you exercise regularly. It's not OK to eat a significant calorie deficit if you never exercise.

Does that make sense?

Ok, now at least I understand what you are saying. But...I don't understand why it isn't ok. Or at least you haven't explained why?

Why do all of the TDEE calculators out there include "sedentary" as an activity level and give you a TDEE - 20% option if it isn't ok to do?

cwolfman13

So I constantly hear that it is bad to eat below BMR - but some say it is ok.

My activity level right now is sedentary. I have 41 lbs to lose til goal.

My BMR is 1547.
My TDEE is 1856.

TDEE - 20 % = 1484 - this is 63 calories below BMR and about 4%.
I'd like to just set my daily calorie goal at 1484, is this still considered an awful thing to do, and if so, why?

Yes, I could eat at a lower deficit - but with it being so close - I'm curious if it even matters right now.

Being slightly below isn't a big deal really...plus, if you use the Katch McCardle formula you're going to get a somewhat lower number than that anyway. It's when people have a BMR of 1400 but they're netting like 700 calories that it becomes a big problem.

CM9178

No. 1484 is a perfectly appropriate calorie goal for you.

However, you should not find yourself actually eating that many calories often. 1856 is your *sedentary* TDEE, so you need to add exercise calories on top of that. If you spend half an hour on the treadmill, your TDEE for that day will be morelike 2156. This means you'll have to eat about 1784 calories that day.

IMO you should set your calorie goal in MFP to 1484 and add exercise calories. If you find yourself eating fewer than 1547 calories often, it means you need to start getting a little more exercise. The fact that 1484 is below 1547 is completely irrelevant.

My activity level is sedentary right now, as I stated above. I am not exercising at this time - so I would be eating 1484 every single day. (or average for the week).
So is that a problem then?

I don't recommend trying to lose weight while living a completely sedentary lifestyle. If you simply can't exercise for some reason, IMO it's better to try to maintain your weight, or lose very slowly (TDEE-10% or so).

And what exactly is the reason for that? You don't have to exercise to aid in weight loss, it just prevents muscle loss.

it just prevents muscle loss? ohhhh, that's it? This makes it sound like you are far more concerned with the number on the scale rather than if you are losing fat or muscle. plus, do you lay around on a couch all day long? very few people are truly sedentary.

Well it is the truth. Exercise is not required in order to lose weight. I never said you shouldn't exercise. And I also never said why I'm not exercising.
And yes, I am currently probably about 95% sedentary.

Get some exercise.

I will be starting to work with some hand weights at home - about 20 minutes, 3 times per week. That is all I can do right now.

AmyRhubarb

I look at it this way -

BMR is coma calories - what you would need to sustain basic functions if you were in a coma. You are not in a coma, even at sedentary (which if you are doing any exercise at all, then I'd say you are not sedentary). So considering that you are lightly active, or even sedentary, it's above coma activity, so your body deserves and needs more than your BMR, certainly not less.

A 15% cut puts you at 1577, barely over BMR. 10% gives you 1670.

From the things I've read, no one should be eating below BMR unless they are well over 200lbs and have a lot to lose, and even then only for a short time.

In my own experience, I've had much better results with eating well above my BMR, but still below TDEE - the fat loss has been wonderful. I've hit goal weight but still want to lower body fat percentage a bit, so am eating at about 10% below TDEE (often more), and I'm still getting results. I feel good, I'm looking better than I have in years, and it's really been quite easy. Slow and steady, yes, but I can do this for life.

jonnythan

Also, in your example, if I ate 1784 and then burned 300 calories exercising, I'd still only be netting 1484 anyway. So how is that any different?

The difference is the fact that you're exercising. Exercise precipitates a whole host of hormonal responses and changes that push your body to maintain muscle mass and metabolism. This helps maintain metabolism and circulatory health.

If you do no exercise while losing weight, your metabolism slows rather dramatically, you lose a lot more muscle mass, etc.

Netting 1480 calories while exercising regularly is very different from netting 1480 while not exercising.

So then are you saying, if you aren't exercising, it isn't ok to eat below BMR, even if it is only 4% below?
And it is ok, if you are exercising?

I'm saying that it's not good, IMO, to eat a significant calorie deficit if you are not exercising.

Whether you're eating above or below BMR is irrelevant. There's nothing magic about the BMR number as compared to your calorie intake.

It's OK to eat a significant calorie deficit if you exercise regularly. It's not OK to eat a significant calorie deficit if you never exercise.

Does that make sense?

Ok, now at least I understand what you are saying. But...I don't understand why it isn't ok. Or at least you haven't explained why?

Why do all of the TDEE calculators out there include "sedentary" as an activity level and give you a TDEE - 20% option if it isn't ok to do?

"Exercise precipitates a whole host of hormonal responses and changes that push your body to maintain muscle mass and metabolism. This helps maintain metabolism and circulatory health."

Those TDEE calculators are assuming you will add exercise calories on top of the calculated "TDEE - 20%." So if your TDEE-20% is 1500, there's your calorie goal... but you're supposed to eat back exercise calories because they weren't included in the initial calculation.

CM9178

Also, in your example, if I ate 1784 and then burned 300 calories exercising, I'd still only be netting 1484 anyway. So how is that any different?

The difference is the fact that you're exercising. Exercise precipitates a whole host of hormonal responses and changes that push your body to maintain muscle mass and metabolism. This helps maintain metabolism and circulatory health.

If you do no exercise while losing weight, your metabolism slows rather dramatically, you lose a lot more muscle mass, etc.

Netting 1480 calories while exercising regularly is very different from netting 1480 while not exercising.

So then are you saying, if you aren't exercising, it isn't ok to eat below BMR, even if it is only 4% below?
And it is ok, if you are exercising?

I'm saying that it's not good, IMO, to eat a significant calorie deficit if you are not exercising.

Whether you're eating above or below BMR is irrelevant. There's nothing magic about the BMR number as compared to your calorie intake.

It's OK to eat a significant calorie deficit if you exercise regularly. It's not OK to eat a significant calorie deficit if you never exercise.

Does that make sense?

Ok, now at least I understand what you are saying. But...I don't understand why it isn't ok. Or at least you haven't explained why?

Why do all of the TDEE calculators out there include "sedentary" as an activity level and give you a TDEE - 20% option if it isn't ok to do?

"Exercise precipitates a whole host of hormonal responses and changes that push your body to maintain muscle mass and metabolism. This helps maintain metabolism and circulatory health."

Those TDEE calculators are assuming you will add exercise calories on top of the calculated "TDEE - 20%." So if your TDEE-20% is 1500, there's your calorie goal... but you're supposed to eat back exercise calories because they weren't included in the initial calculation.

Um, I don't believe that is correct. The scooby calculator is an example - the activity level is based on your daily activity AND exercise level - it includes the exercise calories in the calculation.
MFP doesn't include the exercise.

Here is another example:
http://www.fitnessfrog.com/calculators/tdee-calculator.html

Activity levels are based on exercise - so those calories are included in the number you get and you're not supposed to eat them back.

GracefulDancer4Christ

what is recommended is to cut to 10-15% of your tdee. you only do a 20-25% tdee cut if you are above 35% in body fat.

CM9178

what is recommended is to cut to 10-15% of your tdee. you only do a 20-25% tdee cut if you are above 35% in body fat.

I am right around 35% body fat (not sure 100% obviously).
But who said this anyway?

da_bears10089

ok, go ahead and eat under your BMR. you won't take the good advice you are getting from people so just eat less than what you would be fed if you were in a coma.

jonnythan

Also, in your example, if I ate 1784 and then burned 300 calories exercising, I'd still only be netting 1484 anyway. So how is that any different?

The difference is the fact that you're exercising. Exercise precipitates a whole host of hormonal responses and changes that push your body to maintain muscle mass and metabolism. This helps maintain metabolism and circulatory health.

If you do no exercise while losing weight, your metabolism slows rather dramatically, you lose a lot more muscle mass, etc.

Netting 1480 calories while exercising regularly is very different from netting 1480 while not exercising.

So then are you saying, if you aren't exercising, it isn't ok to eat below BMR, even if it is only 4% below?
And it is ok, if you are exercising?

I'm saying that it's not good, IMO, to eat a significant calorie deficit if you are not exercising.

Whether you're eating above or below BMR is irrelevant. There's nothing magic about the BMR number as compared to your calorie intake.

It's OK to eat a significant calorie deficit if you exercise regularly. It's not OK to eat a significant calorie deficit if you never exercise.

Does that make sense?

Ok, now at least I understand what you are saying. But...I don't understand why it isn't ok. Or at least you haven't explained why?

Why do all of the TDEE calculators out there include "sedentary" as an activity level and give you a TDEE - 20% option if it isn't ok to do?

"Exercise precipitates a whole host of hormonal responses and changes that push your body to maintain muscle mass and metabolism. This helps maintain metabolism and circulatory health."

Those TDEE calculators are assuming you will add exercise calories on top of the calculated "TDEE - 20%." So if your TDEE-20% is 1500, there's your calorie goal... but you're supposed to eat back exercise calories because they weren't included in the initial calculation.

Um, I don't believe that is correct. The scooby calculator is an example - the activity level is based on your daily activity AND exercise level - it includes the exercise calories in the calculation.
MFP doesn't include the exercise.

Here is another example:
http://www.fitnessfrog.com/calculators/tdee-calculator.html

Activity levels are based on exercise - so those calories are included in the number you get and you're not supposed to eat them back.

TDEE is a combination of BMR and activity (and two other very small factors we don't need to mention).

If you're completely sedentary, your TDEE is roughly BMR * 1.2. If you do 300 calories of exercise, your TDEE for that day is roughly BMR * 1.2 + 300.

"Sedentary TDEE" means "TDEE with zero exercise." If you use that as your starting point, you need to eat back exercise calories because they weren't included in your TDEE calculation.

wendyrap2

yo debo de comer 1200 cal para perder 15 kilos eso me marco mfp!! y ejercitar minimo 3 horas a la semana! es muy poco entonces????

loves86

The TDEE calculator calculates your BMR and your Lifestyle and puts those numbers together, if you add exercise you need to add those calories, so it doesn't count the exercise calories, it uses your daily lifestyle, how much energy you use in a day..that's it!

CM9178

Also, in your example, if I ate 1784 and then burned 300 calories exercising, I'd still only be netting 1484 anyway. So how is that any different?

The difference is the fact that you're exercising. Exercise precipitates a whole host of hormonal responses and changes that push your body to maintain muscle mass and metabolism. This helps maintain metabolism and circulatory health.

If you do no exercise while losing weight, your metabolism slows rather dramatically, you lose a lot more muscle mass, etc.

Netting 1480 calories while exercising regularly is very different from netting 1480 while not exercising.

So then are you saying, if you aren't exercising, it isn't ok to eat below BMR, even if it is only 4% below?
And it is ok, if you are exercising?

I'm saying that it's not good, IMO, to eat a significant calorie deficit if you are not exercising.

Whether you're eating above or below BMR is irrelevant. There's nothing magic about the BMR number as compared to your calorie intake.

It's OK to eat a significant calorie deficit if you exercise regularly. It's not OK to eat a significant calorie deficit if you never exercise.

Does that make sense?

Ok, now at least I understand what you are saying. But...I don't understand why it isn't ok. Or at least you haven't explained why?

Why do all of the TDEE calculators out there include "sedentary" as an activity level and give you a TDEE - 20% option if it isn't ok to do?

"Exercise precipitates a whole host of hormonal responses and changes that push your body to maintain muscle mass and metabolism. This helps maintain metabolism and circulatory health."

Those TDEE calculators are assuming you will add exercise calories on top of the calculated "TDEE - 20%." So if your TDEE-20% is 1500, there's your calorie goal... but you're supposed to eat back exercise calories because they weren't included in the initial calculation.

Um, I don't believe that is correct. The scooby calculator is an example - the activity level is based on your daily activity AND exercise level - it includes the exercise calories in the calculation.
MFP doesn't include the exercise.

Here is another example:
http://www.fitnessfrog.com/calculators/tdee-calculator.html

Activity levels are based on exercise - so those calories are included in the number you get and you're not supposed to eat them back.

TDEE is a combination of BMR and activity (and two other very small factors we don't need to mention).

If you're completely sedentary, your TDEE is roughly BMR * 1.2. If you do 300 calories of exercise, your TDEE for that day is roughly BMR * 1.2 + 300.

"Sedentary TDEE" means "TDEE with zero exercise." If you use that as your starting point, you need to eat back exercise calories because they weren't included in your TDEE calculation.

I understand that if you use "sedentary tdee" that I need to eat back exercise calories.
But you said that you shouldn't eat at 20% deficit if you are sedentary and not exercising.
My question was why would these calculators even give you a tdee-20% calculation for sedentary, if you shouldn't do that much of a deficit? It doesn't make sense to me that they are just "assuming" that I will exercise on top of that number. If they wanted me to exercise, then sedentary shouldn't even be an option. Do you know what I'm saying?

I want to point out that I'm not arguing with any of the advice being given here. But I see a lot of advice thrown around without an explanation behind it. If I am going to follow the advice of someone - I want to understand the reasoning behind why I should be doing something.