Can I really EAT MORE????

Ill be 30 this week...5'6" and 165....yes, that is how I understood NET...I have been thinking lately to just eat 1300 and burn as much as I can without eating it back...or this other school of thought of eating more...eating more sounds like more fun! Just can't believe it would get me to my goal

There is all sorts of debate about this, but since my stats are similar I will share my experience. 29 years old, 5'7" and started at 175, have lost 33 lbs in about 9 months (technically 3 lbs below my original goal weight). Similar approach to eating - trying to eat more healthy overall but not "clean" and still have treats. I ate back my exercise calories the entire time; but I think that only works if you are honest with yourself and also have a HRM to get an accurate calorie burn with working out. I have logged every morsel/drop that crossed my lips for 295 days and counting, and I have always eaten my calories back. My weight loss has been basically linear - I lost EXACTLY how much weight I expected throughout the entire process based on my net calories.

My net calorie goal was approximately 1300 when I first started out, gradually increased to 1450 and now I have my goal set at 1550 but that is to build in some wiggle room to go over and be at my actual maintenance goal of about 1650 or 1700. I would think eating only 1300 and then not eating back your exercise calories would be too low in your case.

If you do increase, mentally prepare yourself for some potential "gain" right away but it isn't real weight gain. It will be water weight and your body adjusting. Biggest way to prevent this is to increase gradually, and drink lots of water. I'd say net 1350/day for a week, then 1400/day for a week, then 1450/day, then 1500/day.

Also, consistent logging is huge - you mention you don't always stick with it. I have logged for 295 straight days now and that is a huge reason my weight loss has been successful. It's not always perfect when I eat out, or don't know portion sizes, but I at least get something in my log for every item/beverage I eat or drink.

That's why it's HeyBales, not haybales, which is just a bunch of bad carbs.

One suggestion for several on here thinking of going this direction, which if you have a semi-consistent weekly and exercise routine, can work better as you learn to eat a set amount daily, and planning always helps to stick to goals.

If you have very irregular routine, still some help below to be more realistic in goals.

Several of these requests mention some very low calorie for the level of activity being done, for some time in the past.
And while it's hard to impossible to build muscle while in a deficit of any decent amount - it's all too easy to burn a pound or more off - that's a rough loss, because include what else goes with that lb of muscle, more blood volume, more stored glucose, ect, so more than a lb can be lost sadly. That's lost metabolism right there.
Include in to that what your body suppresses when deficit is too great, really bad combo.

What that means is the BMR estimate as the foundation of the math, and especially if overweight by 70+ lbs, could be inflated by 200-400 calories when based on age, weight, height - which has an assumed fat to non-fat ratio, which doesn't apply when overweight.

Well, you take 200-400 inflated Mifflin or Harris BMR x activity factor to get TDEE, and take off deficit, you could actually have no real deficit in place.
So eating at maintenance really. Great if you are lifting, inches will drop, strength will go up, but no loss.

So best to start math with Katch BMR based on bodyfat %.

So as to have this all in one place with best estimate of BF%, BMR, and have a better Activity Calculator that includes daily activity more than sedentary desk job for better TDEE, and an eating goal based on weight to lose and exercise type, and to track progress, you might want to use this.

Don't be shocked by the colors and what appears to be a busy screen.
5 of your stats you know. 8 measurements you should really know and track. And 4 levels of exercise type that maybe only 1 applies.

Then instructions on what to change where in MFP for eating goal and macro's.

This is all to encourage NO loss of muscle mass, but indeed lose fat and weight. You won't keep setting lifting records eating at this level if that's important. You won't keep getting faster running if that matters, except moving less weight makes you faster anyway.
This is minimum goal to maintain muscle mass. or at least get you started on that method.

Read whatever of this post you need for knowledge, link for spreadsheet at bottom.

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/813720-spreadsheet-bmr-tdee-deficit-macro-calcs-hrm-zones

the idea that eating 'too few' calories is going to prevent you from lossing weight has just been blown way out of proportion.

True, you can lose weight eating under your BMR, but you're likely going to feel lousy while you do it. You can lose just as well by eating a sane amount, with the added benefit that you should feel less of a need to stab anyone.