Am on the right track?

I was having issues trying to figure out how many calories I should be consuming, and I decided to figure out my BMR, to kind of straighten things out for myself.

I used an equation I found in another thread:

655+ (4.35*weight in lbs)+(4.7 * height in inches)-(4.7*Age)

which looks like this for me:

655 + (4.35*180)+4.7*68)-(4.7*21)

...and the number came out to 1658. I multiplied that by 1.2 (Sedentary factor) and came up with 1989...which means that my body burn 1989 calories per day. 

If I eat 1658 cals a day, and I do not work out, I have a deficit of 331 calories automatically...which means that I can actually eat 1658 cals a day, work out to burn another 169 calories, and that puts me at 500 cals burned.

If I didn't work out, I could safely eat 1489 cals to leave me at a 500 cal deficit between 1989, what I burn. 

-----------

Am I right here? This means that CC was wrong, saying I could safely eat 1250 cals a day? Does it sound like 1658 cals sounds like too much for a girl like me 5'8, 180 lbs, 21 years old? I think that number is gastronomical for weight loss, but if I calculated it right, then...I guess I am correct?

Sounds right to me, without doublechecking numbers. You might want to eat around 1600 even on days you don't work out, but you can play iwth the numbers.

I started at 168, 5'6", female, 27 - ate 1450-1650 and exercised moderately, and had successful weight loss.

You are starting out a little higher than me, so it makes sense that you'd eat a little more than I. But as you lose weight, remember to recheck the numbers and adjust as you lose.

Many people, including me, find that CC recommends a number too low, and lose at a better rate when they actually eat a little more (closer to or at BMR).

How many lbs do you think I should readjust my cals after? 10 seems like it may be a good idea, but the number probably won't go up or down drastically.

I am still afraid that I am doing something horribly wrong. Maybe I should shoot for 1450-1650 cals, and not beat myself up if I don't eat exactly 1650 one day. I feel like 1450 is too low, because if one day I am stuck, lowering my cals to 1200 isn't far away. I feel 1650 is too high, and will keep my gaining or just stuck. 

Where did you come up with 1450-1650 being a good number for you? Experimentation, or you just calculated it and did it?

I was originally trying to eat 1300, and not being successful, I decided to raise it to at least 1450. With exercise, I was typically burning around 2000 calories, if not a little more, and realistically there were days when I ate more than I planned, especially since I didn't count on the weekends, no time, and often no access to internet. So I decided that having a range made more sense - at least 1450, but as long as I stayed under 1650 (somewhat arbitrary), I wasn't going to worry too much.

10 or 15 pounds, I'd say recalculate (or right now you can see how your burn will change at 170, 160, 150lbs)

I'd say aim for about 1600 most days. If you are a little short one day, that's ok. Also take a look at how long it takes to burn that additional 169 calories - probably less than 20 minutes, depending on the activity. Well, if you exercise 40 min, every other day, you can kinda average that out (40 min every other day kinda equals 20 min every day - so you'll always be getting that 500 deficit, even on days that you don't exercise.

Also, remmber that this is all estimates, from the calories the food package says to the bmr to the treadmill output - so it's all going to be a trial and error to find what works for you.

And lastly, you know that your body burns almost 2000 at sedentary... so you'd have to eat that much just to maintain. As long as you are eating less than that (not too much less), you are going to lose, it just might not go as fast as you'd like. So if you have a day that you eat 2000 - you haven't ruined anything, you'll just reach your goal one day later.

burn numbers are always estimates, so don't stress too much about this.  the best thing is to try it for a couple of weeks and see what happens, then adjust as necessary.

the key is consistency; if you're not consistent, you'll never be able to figure out what works for you.

So, 1600 is a better number to shoot for than 1650? I'd say 1600 sounds good to me as well. I guess I just have to try and see, but I can see that I will have results, just based on the fact that it is lower than what I need to maintain. 

Either - it's all estimates and you'll never be precise.

Just to add my two cents quick: not only is it all estimates, every person burns calories and foods differently. Some people metabolize more quickly than others even if they are the same age, weight and gender.

I agree that a 1600 a day target sounds as if it could work well for you. Especially if you are trying to lose weight. Give yourself at least 2 weeks for your body to get used to the new calorie amount before expecting major changes on the scale. Afterwhich you can play around to see what works for you. I personally like to zig-zag my calories, eating a bit less on one day and a bit more on another. I think it keeps my metabolism higher than if I were to constantly eat the same daily calories.

Good luck!

CC probably recommended 1250 per day for you because of the goal date you entered in when you set up your profile.  CC will give you the fastest safe route to your goals, in this case 1250 calories per day gave you a "safe" deficit (less than 1000), and would get you to your target weight faster than a smaller deficit would.

Personally, I'm not satisfied and happy on 1250 calories per day, so I'm taking a bit slower route, I was at 1450 calories per day, and I just reset it down to 1300, as I've lost 11 pounds.  most days I hit between 1300 and 1400.

regardless, listen to your body, take care of yourself, and Best of Luck to you.