MFP vs. TDEE - 20%

I am also curious about this!

Actually I find that they are roughly the same, and I might end up eating slightly less using TDEE-15% than MFP and eating back exercise cals. I calculated my TDEE-15% and its around 1750-1850 per day exercising 1-3 hrs a week. If I set my MFP to lightly active losing .5 lbs a week it gives me 1750 per day. I don't add exercise cals and this method works for me. I've been tracking cals for a few years and started TDEE-20% on February 1 and have lost 9 of the 17 lbs I want to lose. It's more slow and steady wins the race rather than a dramatic loss. I find it easy to stick with which is why I've had the success I've had. I also weigh in only once a month so as to not get caught up in the numbers.

Actually I find that they are roughly the same, and I might end up eating slightly less using TDEE-15% than MFP and eating back exercise cals. I calculated my TDEE-15% and its around 1750-1850 per day exercising 1-3 hrs a week. If I set my MFP to lightly active losing .5 lbs a week it gives me 1750 per day. I don't add exercise cals and this method works for me. I've been tracking cals for a few years and started TDEE-20% on February 1 and have lost 9 of the 17 lbs I want to lose. It's more slow and steady wins the race rather than a dramatic loss. I find it easy to stick with which is why I've had the success I've had. I also weigh in only once a month so as to not get caught up in the numbers.

^^ THIS

A properly set MFP goal + exercise calories SHOULD BE in the same ballpark range as TDEE- % (a properly set %, 20% is not appropriate for everyone.

The benefit of the TDEE-% method is that your exercise is calculated into that already, you do not have to track exercise every day and figure out how much more to try to eat. I find it more simple and easier to sustain. Also, unless you have an HRM, then exercise burn estimates can be off enough to affect your progress. It's just more complicated.

MFP has me set to 1,340 with light exercise and TDEE-20% has me at 1,674. That's a huge difference for me so I'm not sure which is more accurate and helpful in losing weight.

I guess I just need more assurance of how counterintuitive it is to eat more to lose.

MFP requires that you log your exercise and eat those calories too. So if you exercise burned 300 today, you would be eating 1340 + 300 = 1640.

And your MFP goal may not be set properly. Choosing how many pounds per week you want to lose improperly will knock the calculation off from what it should be.

Do a search in the forum for "in place of a road map" or even "TDEE and BMR" and you should bring up a lot of discussion on this topic. There's a google doc spreadsheet that you can copy to get estimates of BMR (basal metabolic rate) and what your eating goal should be. I was on for about a month and the more I read and the more calculators I tried, the more I thought I was eating below BMR and maybe putting myself into starvation mode (I was targeting 1200 net). I used the Google Sheet which gave me a BMR and target of 1333, so that's what I've been trying for the last couple weeks. I'm not gaining and saw some loss this week. The spreadsheet takes body fat % into account (so having your measurements is useful) and may suggest a bigger % deficit from TDEE and estimate a lower BMR than you might get from other calculators based on BF%. One thing you may notice if you look at the TDEE -20% is it's targeting about 1 lb of loss/week, so be aware that loss may not be as fast. The other thing is that if the TDEE-20% calorie goal is more than 200 calories above your MFP goal, the recommendation is to gradually increase like 100 calories every two weeks (quoting from memory so double check the amount and timing) while you're still losing until you get to the TDEE-20% number.

Good luck and don't get discouraged. This is a long journey and there are occassionally detours. Find something that works for you and that you can maintain. Feel free to friend me.