The spreadsheet activity calculator doesn't ask how many hours you've been sitting.

You may be confused where it tells you what is already assumed level of activity in sedentary.
You only need to add on hours if your work is NOT sedentary.
Otherwise, just add exercise that is planned and done.

You may be confused too about the purpose for diet and exercise. You don't say how frequently you are doing the program, hopefully not daily. Or following the advice for program selection.

Diet is for weight loss, if done right only fat loss. Stop. End of story.
Exercise is for heart health and body improvements, and it can help fat loss, or help muscle loss.

I'm betting that high anaerobic carb burning workouts constantly is not helping with saving muscle.
Their program does at least try to save people by having higher calorie goals, and protein goals - if followed.

I'd suggest get that activity calc done.
If you do not have a 45 hr sedentary desk job/commute, but those hours really are more active, than just get some rough hours in there, you should have noticed that you changing 5 hrs for service trades line doesn't change the TDEE that much, so rough is fine, but include something that is true.
Like if you walk the dog or kids to school for 45 min daily, that counts under walking, though you could count it as labor trades walking too.
If you have a kid around the home all day and always on the move, think about 8hrs of service trades minus whatever time you get to sit down while kiddo is napping perhaps. If nap and lunch is 2-3 hrs daily, then you have only 5-6 hrs daily service trades x 5 or 6 or 7 days a week if the weekends are the same.

And then, when was the last time you took a 1 week workout break that didn't involve being sick?
And when was last diet break for a week, again, not when sick?

May be time to reset if it's been that long on much lower calorie.

I'd suggest you follow their plan.

During a diet is the absolute backwards time to increase exercise intensity because your body is already going to be impaired trying to recover.
You don't allow decent recovery, you are just creating more stress for your body.
Stress fights against fat loss.
It also causes the workouts to not be effective.
If you want your time to really count, at least follow their advice. And if their advice says back off if dieting, backoff.

Here's another truism.

Exercise if done right tears the body down.
It's the rest for recovery and repair that builds it back up, perhaps stronger if diet allows.

Where is your rest?

Also, unless their lifting is traditional lifting, with rests between 2-3 sets of 2-4 minutes, it's not lifting calorie burn that belongs in that line in the activity calc. If they do high reps and little rest and move on to another lift - that's circuit training and more calorie burn than lifting causes, so high cardio line.

Here's the really scary thought to a diet break.

Are you losing weight now?
Sounds like little to none.

Guess who isn't really in much of any deficit already? So guess where the food level would have to go now to cause weight loss? And guess how much improvement from the exercise you'll get then?

At least not with a suppressed metabolism and TDEE.

If the body has already adapted to having too few calories and has suppressed your system to deal with it, it's not about to add on anything that needs more calories, so very little if any improvements.

That's a fight to lose weight, and a fight to see improvements.
Talk about additional stress you don't need, which also fights against fat loss.

Ok, if they say it's fine.
Some of those programs have specific routines if you do it daily, and the inbetween days are easier days to allow the hard days to truly be hard.

You do not understand what a deficit is. You must understand this or you'll never get out of this mess.

A deficit causes you to lose weight. Eating less than you burn in other words.

You have not lost weight.

Therefore you are not in a deficit.

This is simple logic.

Now, the question is, is logging of food just that bad that you are in reality eating at a full burning metabolism and TDEE level of calories?
Or more likely has your body adapted down because of too few calories, even if more than you log, but still too stressful?

If it really is the former, you cut more calories until you lose weight.
But if it's really the latter and you do that, you may see some loss, but then body will adapt again, and may work even lower if attempted again - then where do you go when that stops? Do you really want to be eating the fewest calories possible.
Oh, and that end story is terrible for maintenance eating.

If it is the latter, that's the reason for the reset.

Regarding your workouts, you have no idea what the body needs to recover. If your are truly doing them hard.
That's the problem of no good recovery though - you feel like you are pushing as hard as ever, but compared to a properly recovered body, not even close.
Sedentary outside exercise doesn't really matter, that doesn't aid in faster recovery, especially in a deficit or suppressed state.
But getting up and getting the blood flowing by moving around more, yes, that will aid in recovery.
Did you know a good lifting workout can take 24-48 hrs to recover from. And that's someone eating in surplus, great protein, sleep, ect.
You can tear down the body a lot in 25 minutes.

still confused..according to my bodymedia AND mfp I'm at a deficit..I've ate calories ranging from 1600 to 1900 when working out..none have worked

If you eat less than you burn - you lose weight.

Simple as that. There can be water weight fluctuations obviously, so weight changes with no calories involved, but leave that out of the picture if longer than a week and valid weigh-in days.

If you trust the BodyMedia - then your logging is terrible and you are eating more than you record by decent amount.

If you trust your logging of food - then your BodyMedia is wrong and you are not burning as much as it reports.

Simple as that. You are not in a deficit if you are not losing weight.

I'm really not sure how you can be confused. I'm not sure how you can possibly think MFP knows how much you really burn - you were the one that selected the activity level after all, not it.

If you were eating at a deficit from how much you burned daily - would you not lose weight then?

So 2 simple parts of the equation. Calories in = calories out - no weight change. calories in < calories out - weight loss.

What you obviously don't know is which side is the inaccuracy - or could be a little of both.

Perhaps your food logging is a little bad, and you are eating more than you think.
And your BodyMedia is reporting you burn more than you really do.

You realize the BodyMedia isn't actually measuring how many calories you burn right? Like a HRM doesn't either.
It estimates it. Calculates it. And has to make a bunch of assumptions. You may fall exactly in to those assumptions - and as you prove, you can very easily not.

BodyMedia has your gender, age, height, weight. Guess what they base their foundation calorie burn on? BMR.
Good ole calculated BMR.
Now, that is adjusted by the heat sensors over time to try to get a better true BMR based on heat you put off. Because guess what metabolism is? Heat.
But the sensors may not work well on you, or the foundation BMR may be way off true BMR and they can't adjust enough.

Is that your BMR?
Do you have as much muscle mass as average study participant that help come up with the formula for BMR?
What if through diet you have burned off a decent amount of muscle mass? That would make your BMR lower in comparison.
What if because of undereating by too much your body has made you more efficient than it needed to be, burning less than expected?

Your BodyMedia would be giving inflated calories burns.

What if your exercise made the BM think you were moving more than you really were, like some dance classes moving the arms a lot, or arm ergometer, or chainsawing a tree (that was my eye opener), or driving on a bumpy road (many have seen that in their daily burn log), ect.

So, with the fact that you are eating at TDEE if you are not losing weight, no deficit is in place.

You ate at 1600 for some period of time, and didn't gain or lose.

Was that your real potential TDEE then, or suppressed because of under-eating too much, or because of sloppy logging you were eating more?

You then ate more, say 1800 for some period of time, and didn't gain or lose.

Was that your real potential TDEE then, or suppressed again?
Obviously it means 1600 wasn't your TDEE, because now you are eating 1800 and not gaining weight. Not losing either, but obviously not eating over TDEE and gaining.

Now eating at 1900 and not gaining.
So 1800 obviously wasn't your real potential TDEE either, or you would be gaining by eating at 1900.

So is 1900 your real TDEE, just because you didn't gain, or lose?
Or is it still suppressed?

Are you figuring out the only way you would really know if 1900 is your true potential TDEE?
I hope so, reread the reasoning above if you don't.

Sorry being hard, but you got to understand this - because if you don't I guarantee you will not stick with the program - you will get freaked out and give up, and keep doing the same thing with no results.
What's that called doing the same thing expecting different results?

Look at your BodyMedia stats page, calories burned per min.
Look at the average low over night while sleeping. So if it says 0.85 and 0.86 back and forth, you are 0.855.
Take that average cal / min x 1440. That's the BMR they are using.

How does that compare to the Mifflin BMR that MFP uses?
How about the Katch BMR based on body fat%? (hope you have that)

Now find some time during the day, perhaps a movie or sitting still for a decent time.
What is the cal/min during that time?
Same cal / min x 1440. That should be your RMR, and should be higher than BMR by 150-250 calories, if the sensors are working well.

Look at your MET chart of vigorous activity for the time of a workout.
Is it accurate when the exercise started and ended?

Just trying to help you wrap your mind around the fact you are NOT in a deficit eating diet.
If you were, you'd be losing weight.

If you were logging food sloppily and eating at potential TDEE, and working out hard, you should still be seeing great body changes occurring, and exercise performance improving very well. The body can make great changes eating at true maintenance.
If you are NOT seeing body changes, like inches drop, and performance increases, then you are NOT eating at potential TDEE, because the body isn't going to make improvements much if it's already adapted and suppressed your metabolism/TDEE.

End of story.

If you want to do any program related to eating correctly for your level of activity, and taking a reasonable deficit, like EM2WL - you need to eat more, which is the point.
You need to eat more because your body isn't happy with your routine so far, and it has adapted. You are not burning as much as you think. You are suppressed TDEE. Which is what you are eating.

Here, read what can happen. Most are not aware of how the body can adapt to things.
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/heybales?month=201401

I have thoroughly researched the BodyMedia after my own use of it pointed out some strangeness to my inquiring mind, and scientifically testing the ability, or rather inability, of the sensors to do what they claimed they will do. Several studies on it point on those limitations too.
Free moving daily non-exercise it can be great at.
Some exercise it can be decent at.
Some exercise it can be terrible at.
And for one study they even provided the researchers with different formula to improve the calorie burns of some exercises. But those aren't used in commercial product.

The heat sensors can at least adjust the sleeping calorie burn from the original baseline BMR that is indeed calculated at the start. But it can only adjust so much.
It starts with calculated BMR, and has table of what the temp sensors should be seeing for heat from such a BMR, and if not there adjusts.
The problem being, if your BMR based on say BF% is much less than that calculated with age, weight, height the BodyMedia starts with, then the tables are wrong.

That's for non-moving time. Moving time is based on weight and calculated pace, steps in other words, and calculated stride length, and some sensor action, but not much.

So yes, if you trust your logging, then your BodyMedia is way off. There can be no other answer.

So does that 1296 BMR from the BodyMedia match up with the BMR you have used in the TDEE tables?
Still trust that the BodyMedia would match a BMR calculator? You do realize what BMR means, right? Not sure why you think a calculator is going to be dead on accurate, do you realize where the calculations came from?

Those other results from online calculator are backwards BTW, RMR is always higher than BMR, one is sleeping, one is awake resting.
So if 1442 was actually the BMR figure, the BodyMedia has moved you down 140 calories about. That's interesting. More interesting would be Katch BMR based on BF%.

If you want an eating figure without understanding what may be going on, and don't like the suggestion of the direction I was giving - eat 250 less than you currently eat gross, in total.

If no results after a month, eat 250 less again.

Watch carefully your energy levels, your hair & nail growth, and skin condition, ability to stay warm, ect. I'm betting you see differences. Bad ones.

Or reread what this group is trying to get you to realize, reread my comments trying to help you, and don't crash your metabolism into the ground, regretting for a long time down the road the effects of that.

Pretty sure while you did a great job with current weight lost, you accomplished it with all the negative effects that can be had during a diet and not realizing those consequences to methods used.
You can do a lot wrong at the start of weight loss with a lot to lose and still see good results, ie inches and weight.
But later that won't work, especially if the earlier set the later up to be more difficult.