An easier way to setup goal calories - eating for who you wi

Please forgive me if this is a stupid question, and I don't want to come across as insensitive at all (because I have suffered with an eating disorder before) but how come people get anorexic? I am so confused because I've been trying to stick to 1300 or thereabouts (give or take lots of ups and downs) to try and lose a few pounds, yet people talk about starvation mode, plateaus and messing up the metabolism all of which stop weight loss.

People who become anorexic don't eat do they? Did they have to overcome weight gain and slow metabolism and no weight loss, prior to this?

I am going to try the OP's method, and try to up my intake to 1800, but I have been gaining on less so I can't really see how this is going to work, and my question is always in the back of my mind.

If your metabolism has been underfed for awhile, it will be lower than it's potential.
You will likely see a gain if you just jump into a healthy range.
Try adding a snack of 150-200 cal per day for about a week (Zone or Balance bar before exercise). Then do that again the next week (or increase the size of a couple of meals). Take exercise down to just decent walking for the first two weeks, many days as you like. The the third week add in the last bit of calories, and normal exercise routine again.

Anorexic is a self-image problem first usually, with desired weight loss the solution. Some may never have actually been overweight. But they desire weight loss or thin look, eventually get to the point they don't eat, but it usually starts out lack of required calories, BMR slows down, they still feel they look fat and weight loss stopped, eat less, BMR goes down, muscle is catabolized for energy, weight loss stops again, constant spiral down until it feels like since weight loss stopped and only eating very few calories, last solution must be to stop.

This exact situation can be obtained by eating below BMR, and exercising so much to burn up all calories you eat, not eating your exercise calories in essence. The BMR will slow down, and same possible effects if kept up.
When you hear comments of ones barely able to eat 1000 calories a day, and they exercise 6 days a week for an hour, they have most likely killed their metabolism, and it won't take long to see the sad consequences.
Your body needs fuel, just to be in a coma or sleeping (that is BMR), and if not provided, down it goes.

Plateau's are coming up to the same phenomena usually, at least by those honestly not over eating, but rather undereating, for their current weight and level of activity. You can easily go the same direction, starving yourself when you have 50 lbs to lose, and not losing anymore. Anything eaten over the limit is weight gain because system is so unhealthy.

The other plateau effect is when near the goal weight, and can't drop the last 5 lbs, and you've been eating at a healthy level based on the estimates. At that point, the estimates are probably off, and you decide if food or exercise was too much, and which way to go. Or you find out you've got more muscle than ever imagined, and decide 5 lbs of lean muscle is great!

Age: 32
CW: 170
GW: 130

MFP calculates my BMR at 1447 and the other one you recommend calculates it at 1523. This makes me think even at 1500 net, I'm below my BMR and that's the problem.

I have a FitBit and looked at my activity graph for the past month, which averages as follows per day:
Lightly Active: 5hrs
Fairly Active: 2hrs
Very Active: 1hrs
Leaving 16hrs/day as Resting.

I would translate this into the other activity categories as follows:
Resting: 10hrs (8 sleeping and 1-2 sitting, watching tv, etc.)
Very Light: 7hrs
Light: 6hrs
Moderate: 1hrs
Heavy: 0hrs
It doesn't seem to make a huge difference when I change around the Very Light and Light distribution.

This leaves me with BMR (1523) + Activity (1047) = 2570cals/day for maintainance of future me at current activity level. That seems like a HUGE amount of calories but your methodology seems logical and the math is right there.

Should I really be eating more like 2500cals/day? Never netting under ~1550?

Well, see, you were basically doing this anyway, or at least just made the adjustment lately to do so.

BTW, your height must be 5'1" (I backed into it), and you used your current weight 170 in figures above, not goal weight, to get your BMR and maintenance.

But your way of doing it is interesting, tying in the FitBit levels. I would tend to think you might have some time of Heavy, that FitBit just can't tell is that extreme since it doesn't know HR. Then again, perhaps you don't.

So using your goal weight of 130 and level of activity, I get BMR of 1351 and maintenance of 2280 for current level of activity, if you plan on keeping that up.
Almost 300 cal under your current weight maintenance estimate.
Throw in the fact your exercise will likely be underestimated by those levels, and you may throw in an extra workout of 30 min you don't need account for, you'll be eating down close to current BMR levels, with about the biggest but safest deficit you could squeeze in there.

I would be careful of the 6hrs day tagged as Light level, constant walking. Perhaps your work is on your feet, in which case right on.

But that does sound realistic if you like the system.

For the future, only need to change activity levels if any major permanent changes to the daily routine. Broke leg, on back 22 hrs day for instance. Extreme example, and never may that happen!