Spreadsheet for BMR/TDEE Deficit calc, Macro calc, HRM

This IS the bit that's got me confused at the moment - whether one should or shouldn't be eating below BMR.

My lifestyle (job) is pretty sedentary other than when I exercise so the exercise calories are separate and monitored on a HRM. (Approx 2400 cals a week).

I have lost in the few weeks I've been here but not necessarily at the targeted rate so I'm looking to "tweak" things.

If you are exercising and actually want a positive change from the workouts, especially for what you put into them - do you want to eat at the bare safety standard minimum of 1200 that you may have been assigned, or give your basic metabolism what it needs for the most basic life functions, meaning other calories eaten can be used for good body improvements?

That's the idea of not going below BMR.
Metabolism will slow with big deficit, whether BMR slows slightly, or your body adjusts all your other daily activity to slow down calorie burn, or muscle is burned off if you don't do heavy lifting.

By trying to not have exercise take out those calories before your body gets to use them, by eating enough in the first place on a daily avg (1 day obviously not a problem), then you hove to see max improvement from your effort.

If your effort is merely walking, then you'll gain heart health mainly, so no big deal.

If you have HRM with known calorie burn then, and you want to balance out the weekly routine to daily avg and eat the same amount daily, use the TDEE deficit tab with side area about having known HRM calories, select sedentary, see what the avg daily TDEE is, get a deficit below.

If your workouts are iffy, use the MFP Tweak tab, and still eat back your exercise calories, but you can at least start at foundation of better level than auto-assigned by MFP.

Because using the Katch BMR, is it higher than the Mifflin BMR that MFP uses? Then great, you have more LBM than you are expected to have.
Is Katch BMR lower than Mifflin? Then sadly you have less already, and could actually take less goal than MFP has given.

But do you really want to possibly lose LBM by having a big deficit?

And everyone who starts a diet loses the first week or two, water weight.

If you think the higher goal value than MFP suggestion sounds high - have you compared it to what you were actually eating before that got you into trouble? Eating below that is what will lose weight if you knew precisely what that value was.

Hi Bales. I had originally posted more info from my side (3hours 16 mins before your post to me - not sure what time it would reflect as for you) but it didn't all get re-quoted when dlwyatt82 responded.
Katch (1620, based on average BF% from gymgoal calculator) is lower than Mifflin (1787).
I don't want to eat considerably less NOR lose LBM which is why I'm querying.
As for what originally got me in trouble - total lack of portion control in the past combined with no exercise.

Ok, so you have a tad less LBM than avg for person your age/height/weight.
But that's good to know, and great reason you don't want to eat too little and possible lose more. You need it all.

So you need to figure out which is more motivating to you.
I scheduled 5 hrs of weekly exercise into my daily avg eating amount.
or
I want to eat some extra each day and that motivates me to work out.

If the former, use the BMR/TDEE tab and be realistic for the amount of hours you can get yourself to workout weekly.
Take which ever deficit method is appropriate.

If the latter, use the MFP Tweak tab and use the RMR as lower value to hit each day, and since using a HRM eat back extra when you burn extra. Don't worry about getting it eaten within that day before midnight, but before the next workout at least in 24 hrs. So in the green one day, in the red the next.

So, are you saying it's really about how you want to manage your diet? But with the TDEE formulas you are more likely to conserve LBM? Also, I noticed I can eat more and do cardio with the way the formula calculated, but I would have a smaller rate of loss that way (ave .54/week) compared to if I did heavy lifting I could lose at a higher rate on average but eat less (ave. 1 lb/loss per week)?

MFP had me set to 1230 cal at a rate of 1 lb/week, last year this worked for a few weeks and then "stalled." I am looking more into getting into shape and burning body fat, so what is going to better for working out and dieting to lose fat? I like the idea of a more stable nutirional intake. I do cardio (running 3-5x/week at 30 mins each) and also incorporate weight lifting 2-3x a week.

I had been at the current plan of 1230 for 3 weeks and haven't really lost I look better though! I'm looking into getting a tap measure and some way to mesure BF% for more accurate measurement of results since my weight fluctuates considerably..

These deficit methods are more conservative and not so aggressive, so the best chance of not losing LBM.

As the study shows for the bigger deficit, they lifted heavy and maintained LBM (actually gained), so there's your best chance.
Also because lifting may burn less during the workout, but the fat burned later during the recovery period is much better.

So you would be better served keeping the cardio to 2 x week if you just enjoy it, in the aerobic zone, and lifting for sure 3x week, making them longer sessions lifting heavy.
Use the bigger deficit then.
For the activity level, notice that is hrs, and since you may be at the 4hr range of 3-5 hrs now.

For sure get your bodyfat% estimate too, as that could change things by 100-200 calories either direction, and could be important to maintaining what you already got.

On the Macros tab, if you do the bigger deficit, you should also take the default values for tweaking the diet.