I've been using Lightman's guide found here: http://forums.d2jsp.org/topic.php?t=61584284&f=60
Height: 6 feet, 0 inches [183 cm]
Weight: 190 lbs [86 kg]

My question is addressed towards point 3


Would it be safe (trying to maintain as much lean mass as possible) if I lower that slightly further (i.e. by an additional 200-300 calories, making total daily caloric deficit ~700 calories)
I've read numerous places online it is "safe" to lose up to two pounds per week (~1000 calorie/day deficit)

History: Lost weight from 230 lbs to 170 lbs, then mistakenly dreamer bulked to where I am currently. I feel rather uncomfortable with the amount of fat mass that I am currently carrying, thus why I have been attempting a fat loss procedure. If I had to judge, I would place my body fat at 18-20%, based solely off being able to see minor chest, delt, striations and slight outline of abs when flexed.
To get to 10% body fat, if my math is right, I would need to be ~168.8 lbs [assuming I am at 20% bodyfat]

Cliffs: Bolded
- Safe to further reduce deficit?

Thank you very much for any and all responses.

For clarification, I am aware of the basic principles of how to lose weight, however this time around I am determined to maintain as much muscle mass as possible.

it is safe to lose around 2 lbs a week but not sure if 1,000 cal deficit is that much... seems like you would lose more with 1000 kcal deficit.

I would prolly start off at like 500 than reduce it as needed....

This post was edited by sryan66611 on May 22 2013 10:38pm

Don't play around with it. 500/20% is already an optimal maximum.

those people losing 2 pounds + a week are 30 - 40% bf and can lose fat much faster than you stick with lightmans guide for sure

This post was edited by Noizz on May 23 2013 02:37am

i lost alot more then that and was probably 20% bf.

its possible, but at the end of the day whats the rush.
most people who lose weight really fast with a stupid diet will end up putting it back on, you have to change your lifestyle

weight loss and fat loss are 2 different things

One last question regarding the activity Multiplier
Say my BMR is 2000 exact (as in your example), is it possible for me to need less than a 1.2 multiplier due to a very sedentary lifestyle (I only exercise on Monday + Thursday for about 3 hours each day)

I don't know why you'd want to minimize the outcome numeric. 1.2 is just an overall estimate for the sedentary life individual, regardless of sedentary levels.

In the grand scheme of things, starting from a higher caloric starting point is always better and safer, BMR wise.

Alright sounds good, I figured I would play it safe and assume I am even more sedentary then what you had suggested.