Beginning to think it's Calories consumed vs. NET instead

I am honestly having a hard time seeing the difference between eating above BMR and not eating exercise calories back and eating below BMR but consuming exercise calories...

You eat above. You exercise. You land between 1200-1300 cals per day. You lose.
You eat below. You exercise. You eat back exercise calories. You land with a net between 1200-1300 per day. You lose.

See why I'm having a hard time seeing what you're saying?

Because take me for example...

BMR 1500
TDEE 2500

If I eat 2000 ( 500 deficit) , exercise off 600 than eat that back....total consumed is 2600, above my TDEE = don't lose

If I eat 1200, exercise off 600,... eat that back, that's 1800, still higher than BMR, don't lose.....

If I eat 1800( higher than BMR but yet not TDEE) , exercise off 600, don't eat anything back..( netting less than BMR).. I lose !..

That's not quite right. Your TDEE goes up when you exercise, so if you burned another 600 and ate another 600, you're still at a 500 deficit, and should lose an average of a pound a week or thereabouts.

Which one of my calculations are you refering to ? 1,2, or 3 ??

I think all of them had the same flaw, but it's hard to tell because you only referred to eating more than your TDEE in the first one. You stated your TDEE is 2500 and treated that as a static number, but any time you log exercise, your TDEE for that particular day has also gone up.

Using the numbers from all 3 examples you gave:

1) You eat 2000 calories (500 deficit before exercise). You burn 600 calories of exercise, and eat another 600. Your numbers for the day are: 2600 calories eaten, 3100 TDEE. 500 deficit, good spot for sustainable weight loss.

2) You eat 1200 (1300 deficit before exercise). Burn 600 doing exercise, and eat another 600. Your numbers are 1800 calories eaten, 3100 TDEE. 1300 deficit, which is more than recommended, but may work for you (You'd be targeting between 2.5 and 3 pounds a week at that rate).

3) You eat 1800 (700 deficit before exercise). You burn another 600 but don't eat anything else. Final numbers for the day are identical to 2: 1800 consumed, 3100 TDEE, 1300 deficit.

It's my TDEE exercise included, TDEE with no exercise is 2000. if I don't eat it back than I have been told I am creating too high of a deficit because I already subtracted 500.....

So if that TDEE figure is avg daily 2500, and you took off 500 to eat at 2000.

You exercise 600. You net 1400.

You are indeed 100 below BMR of 1500.

And on rest day? You eat at 2000.

500 above BMR.

So 1 rest day takes care of 5 workout days.

So if you selected Mod active level for this experiment for 5 workout days at 600 each - probably correct with 2 rest days then.

Weekly avg - 14000 eaten, 3000 exercise burned off, 11000 NET calories available for metabolism - 10500 desired by BMR.

Covered by 500 calories for stressful daily activity not logged as exercise, but not really low key.

See, it does work even using your example.

ok, so I did that for 5 weeks...... not one pound lost, inches yes and pant sizes and visual difference.... however, I am approx 50lbs from the high end of my healthy weight table..... so..... I need lose weight, If I had only 20lbs to lose I would not be creating this thread

Ahhhhh.

So your focus is on exercise right now given what you are actually doing - 5 x 600 cal workouts then. That's pretty good.

But you really want your focus on weight loss.

You need to stop providing a harder load to your body so it doesn't have to keep improving. Then only the fat and weight can melt off.

So you are losing inches, that means fat, but now you want scale weight too. Understandable.

Fine - back off the workouts, make them less intense, and eat a tad less.

Keep 2 rest days.
The days before the rest days, make it weight lifting but not heavy, or true intervals. You'll need the recovery from either.
The days before the intense day, make it a cardio workout in the aerobic zone no longer than 40 min, 10 min walking warmup and cooldown. This is above the fat-burning zone, but still a decent 40-45% fat burned.
The other workout day following a rest day, easy intervals, 2 min in anaerobic zone, 2 min in fat-burning zone, 20 min following a 10 min walk. The 30 min of core or lifting stuff.

So spread out the rest days.
easy intervals/core - cardio - lifting - rest - cardio - intervals/lifting - rest

Should be less of a burn by decent amount, less of a load on system, or different load, which is good too.

ok, so I did that for 5 weeks...... not one pound lost, inches yes and pant sizes and visual difference.... however, I am approx 50lbs from the high end of my healthy weight table..... so..... I need lose weight, If I had only 20lbs to lose I would not be creating this thread

Just realized.

Your BMR - estimated by age/weight/height, or bodyfat% method?

Because age/weight/height is over estimated, unless you have managed to keep the same LBM / fat ratio of someone at healthy weight - which is unlikely the more you have to lose.

That Katch BMR method much better base to build from.

That's why it said obese can eat under their BMR - their estimated BMR is inflated, they actually aren't undercutting their real BMR by that much. Hopefully none if doing it right.