Can I survive on 1300 calories with exercising?

katijjaa

Hello,

Before posting this question, I did lots of research and used lots of formulas and calculators to figure it out, but I'm still confused.

I'm 4,11 (152 cm), 147 lbs (67kg), female, 28. I'm currently doing slim in 6 (six times a week) and I want to add Cardio Party (from cardio jam) to it. I'm not sure yet how many calories should they burn, I plan to buy hrm soon. I wanted to be 59kg (140lbs) by end of July but after reading about the calories deficit I think it will be quite hard. Every calculator gave me totally different BMR/TDEE. I decided to go for the lowest which is 1486. I want to lose wight quick but if its not the sustainable and long-term way, then I want to do it slowly. I figured out if I consume 1300 calories a day, burn 500 kcal via sport, I will have a deficit of 686 which will make me lose about a pound a week, which is very low.

My question is, do you think 130 calories is enough or too much? what numbers do you suggest, considering that because of my hight I gain weight much quicker? Also what clean food do you suggest or specific diet do you suggest to fill these 1300?

Thank you very much.

Phrick

1) 1 pound a week is fantastic, not "very low" in fact since you only have 7 pounds to lose, 1 pound a week is still too aggressive. 0.5 pounds a week is much more realistic.

2) is 1486 from the calculator your total TDEE or is that your TDEE - a percentage?

3) if you only eat 1300 and burn off 500 with exercise (which will be very difficult, 500 is a LOT to burn via exercise for most people), your daily NET calories will be well below 1200 which is generally not advised. Given your short stature some will argue that you can safely go below 1200 Net and be ok, and I'm not going to argue for or against that, but 1300 -500 would leave your net at just 800 and that's too low no matter HOW short you are. That's "needs doctor supervision VLCD" territory.

Oh as far as what to eat, if you consume so few calories it will be much much harder to get in all the macro and micro nutrients your body needs, you will need to be meticulous in your food choices to ensure you're not depriving your body of something vital.

Iwishyouwell

1) 1 pound a week is fantastic, not "very low" in fact since you only have 7 pounds to lose, 1 pound a week is still too aggressive. 0.5 pounds a week is much more realistic.

No. She doesn't "only have 7 pounds to lose", that's just her goal by the end of July.

She's a very short woman, not even five foot tall. Depending on her frame size and LBM it's quite possible she could be around 100 lbs and still be quite healthy.

Unless the OP has a far greater than expected amount of muscle mass for a woman of only 4'11", than there is a possibility that at almost 150lbs she could very well lose 1-2lbs a week just fine. It all depends on how much fat she actually really does have on her body, not her arbitrary July goal weight.

Phrick

1) 1 pound a week is fantastic, not "very low" in fact since you only have 7 pounds to lose, 1 pound a week is still too aggressive. 0.5 pounds a week is much more realistic.

No. She doesn't "only have 7 pounds to lose", that's just her goal by the end of July.

She's a very short woman, not even five foot tall. Depending on her frame size and LBM it's quite possible she could be around 100 lbs and still be quite healthy.

Unless the OP has a far greater than expected amount of muscle mass for a woman of only 4'11", than there is a possibility that at almost 150lbs she could very well lose 1-2lbs a week just fine. It all depends on how much fat she actually really does have on her body, not her arbitrary July goal weight.

You are correct. I find myself having difficulty when people give their goal but don't specify it as the final goal vs a short-term goal on the way to a larger ultimate goal, I tend to just see the numbers. Thanks.

margannmks

Agree short women have it rough there is so little leeway between maintanence and deficit you have to especially diligent in your tracking. I exercise 5-6 days a week hour plus and at 5'2" i eat 1400-1500 not adding in exercise. Im barely losing a .5 every two weeks,but i dont have much left to lose.So if 1300 gives you enough energy to maintain those workouts your good, youll know if it isnt and its always better to include protein at each meal because it keeps you full longer and decreases sugar cravings for me anyway.

Marlena0708

I looked at your numbers (cuz I'm a numbers kind of gal) and I think you may have forgotten to factor your BMR. The calculator I used gave me a base BMR of of 1439, which is pretty close to the number you came up with. However, that number is the calories you require to simply lay in bed and breathe. To get your actual BMR you need to factor your activity level, i.e. what you do beyond just laying in bed breathing. Since you are doing Slim in 6 and cardio party, I selected the factor "moderately active" (moderate exercise or sports 3-5 days a week) and the factored BMR number is actually 2230. If you eat 1300 cal a day your actual deficit works out to 930 calories per day. Here's the link:

http://www.caloriesperhour.com/index_burn.php

ninav1980

I am 5'1, female, 34 years old. Started in Jan at 145, but I didn't get really serious with logging until March so I kind of only consider March as the start of my weight loss journey.

I started out at 145lbs and 3 months later I am at 130 lbs and down from a size 8 to size 6 in pants. I started out at 1200 calories daily, but quickly realized this would simply not work with all the working out. I bumped up to 1400 and it made a huge difference and it works for me. I don't really pay attention to my workout calories. Its simple for me, 1400 calories on workout days and 1200 on rest days. I don't eat more if I burn a lot of calories. Thats just my personal plan and it has worked for me. I am hoping to lose another 5 lbs this month so I can feel confident in a bikini in Hawaii June 30!!

For reference, this is an example of my workout routine with 1400 calories

Monday-one hour Personal Trainer + 3 mile run
Tuessay-5 Mile run
Wednesay-one hour Personal Trainer + 3 mile run
Thursday-one hour outdoor boot camp
Friday-5 mile run
Sat-3-5 miles run (depending on how I feel)
Sunday-Rest

Hope this helps!

Francl27

First, 59 kilos is 130 pounds, not 140.

Second, if you consume 1300 calories and burn 600 (which is highly unlikely with slim in 6... maybe 300. I've done it), your net will be 700, which is way too low. It's not recommended to net less than 1200. I wouldn't eat under 1500, personally. Honestly the poster above is a perfect example of eating way too little and not an example to follow.

Third, assuming you want to get to 130, one pound a week is the most you should aim for.

ahoy_m8

You can survive on 1300 kcal. I am 5'7" and eat 1300 maintenance. I run 4 mi/day, do a little weight training (should do more!). That allows me room for a few glasses of wine on weekends.

As for food choices that leave you satisfied and full of energy on 1300 kcal, I aim for calories for macronutrients to be equal (33-33-33%), and I pay special attention to getting enough protein and at least 25g fiber every day. My protein basics are smoked/roasted/grilled chicken, broiled fish, eggs, Greek yogurt. I eat bacon and other meat, just not very much of it. For fiber, a little legume almost every day, ground flax on yogurt, chia in soups/salads. My total weakness are nuts. 1 oz almonds will ward of sweet cravings for me. Vegetables take up the most room on my plate. They provide a huge volume of food with very few calories and lots of nutrients. I eat 1 serving whole grains 1x/week and don't eat processed foods at all.

You can do it. Good luck.

ninav1980

First, 59 kilos is 130 pounds, not 140.

Second, if you consume 1300 calories and burn 600 (which is highly unlikely with slim in 6... maybe 300. I've done it), your net will be 700, which is way too low. It's not recommended to net less than 1200. I wouldn't eat under 1500, personally. Honestly the poster above is a perfect example of eating way too little and not an example to follow.

Third, assuming you want to get to 130, one pound a week is the most you should aim for.

not follow an example that works? lol

margannmks

First, 59 kilos is 130 pounds, not 140.

Second, if you consume 1300 calories and burn 600 (which is highly unlikely with slim in 6... maybe 300. I've done it), your net will be 700, which is way too low. It's not recommended to net less than 1200. I wouldn't eat under 1500, personally. Honestly the poster above is a perfect example of eating way too little and not an example to follow.

Third, assuming you want to get to 130, one pound a week is the most you should aim for.

not follow an example that works? lol

I mean really your doing what works for you and have similar stats as op and someone thinks your not eating enough. I would like to hear from them if they are short cause it is different and it gets worse as you get older. In 7 yrs when im 60 ill still have to work out 6 days a week hard and if im at my goal of 120 im,5'2" ill even get less than 1400. Hope my old bod and joints can still handle this intensity of exercise.lol

IcanIwill1

First, 59 kilos is 130 pounds, not 140.

Second, if you consume 1300 calories and burn 600 (which is highly unlikely with slim in 6... maybe 300. I've done it), your net will be 700, which is way too low. It's not recommended to net less than 1200. I wouldn't eat under 1500, personally. Honestly the poster above is a perfect example of eating way too little and not an example to follow.

Third, assuming you want to get to 130, one pound a week is the most you should aim for.

Wow...You are so wrong I don't even know where to start.
If I ate more than 1300, I will not lose a single ounce...and there is absolutely nothing wrong with my metabolism.
Everybody is different, what works for you, may be a disaster for another person, and I exercise every day and my energy levels are through the roof.

ThatMouse

I'm 5'0" and started at 155lbs (70kg) - somewhat similar stats, I think. Now, I'm down to 123lbs (~56kg).

I eat approx 1350cal a day (maybe under or over individual days of the week, but as an average it's what I eat eat day) and work out like hell.

M, W, F - Bodyweight training
T, R - Cardio or boxing
T, S - Karate

So, total, I work out 6 days of the week, with doubles on Tuesday (most days - sometimes karate is super light or I skip the morning cardio/boxing).

My TDEE is in the 1800s and I eat a pretty severe deficit. So far, I'm on track losing about 1lb a week or so. Personally, I'm fine. I don't expect to make massive progress in the gym, as I'm not focusing on building muscle, but I'm able to get enough effort and return out of my workouts for me to consider myself fine at 1350cal.

If you're fine at 1300, give it a go. But if you feel tired or emotional or off somehow, try upping your calories. Even just by 100cal a day. Give it a shot, see how it feels. Only you can tell what your body needs, so just pay attention to it and adjust as needed and you'll be fine.

Second, if you consume 1300 calories and burn 600 (which is highly unlikely with slim in 6... maybe 300. I've done it), your net will be 700, which is way too low. It's not recommended to net less than 1200. I wouldn't eat under 1500, personally.

From everything I can figure from how the poster is stating her goals, she's likely not using MFP in the way it was designed (which is a very stupid system, in my opinion, and I don't use it as it was designed either). Her caloric goal is factored using her BMR and TDEE - the TDEE already incorporates her exercise. So "burning" that in MFP isn't actually what's happening. If she ate back those calories, she'd kill her deficit and not lose weight or lose it at a drastically reduced pace.

1300 > 1200, so why you mentioned that second point I have no clue.

At 1500cal, that's your personal preference. If the OP is fine eating at 1300cal, that's above her BMR and just fine. I ate 1500cal when I was 25lbs heavier. Eating that now for me would result in a slowed weight loss - still a loss, but one that I'm personally dissatisfied with.

Ninav's not a bad example. She's doing just fine. If it works for her, it works. There's nothing wrong with something that's working and something that feels right to the person doing it. Again, I eat 1350cal and work out with medium to hard intensity 6x a week. It works for me and there have been no adverse effects eating this - again, it's between my BMR and TDEE. Safe, in other words.

liffy17

Hi I have just joined but It will mostly depend on how you feel. 1300 is low and not sustainable but for the short run it is a good idea. Also I like to cycle my calories to keep my body working. I used to be very thin and I am working on getting back to that. I am setting a 1200 goal for myself and I exercise everyday. However, I will do a day or two a week with higher calories like 2000 that will shock my body and keep it losing weight. Also alternate what you eat and EAT CLEAN so you can eat a lot more. So I eat a lot of veggies and lean protein and light fruite

SaltNBurnBoys

I guess the real question is whether "surviving" is all you want out of this.

If 1300 calories a day only makes you feel like you're "surviving", it's likely not enough food. Eating better isn't supposed to be some kind of suffering. You're supposed to feel GOOD about it. It's possible that you'll "survive" on 1300 calories, but you should really be finding the number that helps you THRIVE.

Iwishyouwell

First, 59 kilos is 130 pounds, not 140.

Second, if you consume 1300 calories and burn 600 (which is highly unlikely with slim in 6... maybe 300. I've done it), your net will be 700, which is way too low. It's not recommended to net less than 1200. I wouldn't eat under 1500, personally. Honestly the poster above is a perfect example of eating way too little and not an example to follow.

Third, assuming you want to get to 130, one pound a week is the most you should aim for.

not follow an example that works? lol

MFP is packed to the gills with bonafide food addicts whose every solution is "eat more food".

kgeyser

First, 59 kilos is 130 pounds, not 140.

Second, if you consume 1300 calories and burn 600 (which is highly unlikely with slim in 6... maybe 300. I've done it), your net will be 700, which is way too low. It's not recommended to net less than 1200. I wouldn't eat under 1500, personally. Honestly the poster above is a perfect example of eating way too little and not an example to follow.

Third, assuming you want to get to 130, one pound a week is the most you should aim for.

not follow an example that works? lol

MFP is packed to the gills with bonafide food addicts whose every solution is "eat more food".

It has nothing to do with being a "food addict," it has to do with eating to achieve your goals. Most of us would like to look good when we lose the weight as well as improve our fitness, so we eat more to train well and do not go for huge deficits in order to retain the most muscle mass.

OP: 1 lb per week is really good for where you are now, not slow by any means.

DanaDark

OP:

You are using BMR/TDEE interchangeably... they are completely different numbers.

Without knowing your Body Fat percentage, I get your BMR to be abour 1450 and your TDEE with absolutely no exercise (sitting at a desk all day) to be 1640.

If you are aiming for 1 pound a week weight loss WITHOUT exercise, you'll need to eat about 1140 calories a day.

If you exercise, you can eat more than that.

My suggestion to you is: Set MFP for 1200 calories a day, exercise like you plan to, log in your exercises and count only half the burned calories. So if your HRM says you burned 500, put in only 250.

ninav1980

First, 59 kilos is 130 pounds, not 140.

Second, if you consume 1300 calories and burn 600 (which is highly unlikely with slim in 6... maybe 300. I've done it), your net will be 700, which is way too low. It's not recommended to net less than 1200. I wouldn't eat under 1500, personally. Honestly the poster above is a perfect example of eating way too little and not an example to follow.

Third, assuming you want to get to 130, one pound a week is the most you should aim for.

not follow an example that works? lol

MFP is packed to the gills with bonafide food addicts whose every solution is "eat more food".

good for them!! whatever works for them is great! Im losing a respectable 5 lbs a month at a decent pace. Nothing extreme. Im not hungry, have tons of energy. If it aint broke.......

Francl27

First, 59 kilos is 130 pounds, not 140.

Second, if you consume 1300 calories and burn 600 (which is highly unlikely with slim in 6... maybe 300. I've done it), your net will be 700, which is way too low. It's not recommended to net less than 1200. I wouldn't eat under 1500, personally. Honestly the poster above is a perfect example of eating way too little and not an example to follow.

Third, assuming you want to get to 130, one pound a week is the most you should aim for.

not follow an example that works? lol

MFP is packed to the gills with bonafide food addicts whose every solution is "eat more food".

good for them!! whatever works for them is great! Im losing a respectable 5 lbs a month at a decent pace. Nothing extreme. Im not hungry, have tons of energy. If it aint broke.......

Probably because you're eating more than you think you are. If you really ate that little for your activity level, you'd be losing 2 pounds a week... Just saying.

Francl27

OP, go to http://scoobysworkshop.com/calorie-calculator/.

For your stats, your BMR is 1440. Your TDEE for light exercise is 1980. A 20% deficit would put you at 1584... which is still more than I said earlier, and that's with 'light exercise 1-3 hours a week', when you're exercising 6 days a week.

I stand by what I said, but if you really want to starve yourself, and not really benefit from your workouts because of it, be my guest.

ninav1980

First, 59 kilos is 130 pounds, not 140.

Second, if you consume 1300 calories and burn 600 (which is highly unlikely with slim in 6... maybe 300. I've done it), your net will be 700, which is way too low. It's not recommended to net less than 1200. I wouldn't eat under 1500, personally. Honestly the poster above is a perfect example of eating way too little and not an example to follow.

Third, assuming you want to get to 130, one pound a week is the most you should aim for.

not follow an example that works? lol

MFP is packed to the gills with bonafide food addicts whose every solution is "eat more food".

good for them!! whatever works for them is great! Im losing a respectable 5 lbs a month at a decent pace. Nothing extreme. Im not hungry, have tons of energy. If it aint broke.......

Probably because you're eating more than you think you are. If you really ate that little for your activity level, you'd be losing 2 pounds a week... Just saying.

lol
you have no idea, do you
I weigh everything, I mean everything. mayo, any condiment or dipping sauce, any seasoning added to burgers, every vegatable, slices of turkey, cheese added to my sandwhich. EVERYTHING. Nice theory, but sorry, incorrect. Just ask my husband, he thinks I am nuts.

again, I am 5'1, not 5'5

ThatMouse

Probably because you're eating more than you think you are. If you really ate that little for your activity level, you'd be losing 2 pounds a week... Just saying.

Not necessarily - it's hard to estimate exactly how many calories she'd be burning doing those activities. What if the boot camp isn't as hard as you think? What if the personal training sessions are broken up by several longer breaks to work on form or details?

Also, not to knock Scoob, but that calculator can't be right. I've used IFcalc, Ketocalc and IIFYM.com's calcuator and they all give me a BMR of 1236cal. According to Scoob, I should be at 1400cal around for my BMR. Not to mention my maintenance is 2000cal+ - and that definitely isn't right through experience.

I like IFcalc, Ketocalc and IIFYM.com's calc because they require a BF%, which helps to make that BMR measurement more accurate. For example - at my current weight (123lbs) a BF% of 18% would burn approx 100cal more on a BMR level than someone of the same stats but with 28% BF.

TL;DR - Scoob's calculator may be inflated. Personally, I'd rather not trust it.

maidentl

I mean really your doing what works for you and have similar stats as op and someone thinks your not eating enough. I would like to hear from them if they are short cause it is different and it gets worse as you get older. In 7 yrs when im 60 ill still have to work out 6 days a week hard and if im at my goal of 120 im,5'2" ill even get less than 1400. Hope my old bod and joints can still handle this intensity of exercise.lol

I am about to turn 45, I am 5'2" and currently 195. I am eating 1750 per day and if I have done my math correctly, that will be my maintenance intake at a weight of 129. You're mistaken in your belief that you have to kill yourself in the gym and starve just because you're short.

Francl27

Probably because you're eating more than you think you are. If you really ate that little for your activity level, you'd be losing 2 pounds a week... Just saying.

Not necessarily - it's hard to estimate exactly how many calories she'd be burning doing those activities. What if the boot camp isn't as hard as you think? What if the personal training sessions are broken up by several longer breaks to work on form or details?

Also, not to knock Scoob, but that calculator can't be right. I've used IFcalc, Ketocalc and IIFYM.com's calcuator and they all give me a BMR of 1236cal. According to Scoob, I should be at 1400cal around for my BMR. Not to mention my maintenance is 2000cal+ - and that definitely isn't right through experience.

I like IFcalc, Ketocalc and IIFYM.com's calc because they require a BF%, which helps to make that BMR measurement more accurate. For example - at my current weight (123lbs) a BF% of 18% would burn approx 100cal more on a BMR level than someone of the same stats but with 28% BF.

TL;DR - Scoob's calculator may be inflated. Personally, I'd rather not trust it.

Those sites actually give me a higher TDEE than Scooby.

Francl27

I mean really your doing what works for you and have similar stats as op and someone thinks your not eating enough. I would like to hear from them if they are short cause it is different and it gets worse as you get older. In 7 yrs when im 60 ill still have to work out 6 days a week hard and if im at my goal of 120 im,5'2" ill even get less than 1400. Hope my old bod and joints can still handle this intensity of exercise.lol

I am about to turn 45, I am 5'2" and currently 195. I am eating 1750 per day and if I have done my math correctly, that will be my maintenance intake at a weight of 129. You're mistaken in your belief that you have to kill yourself in the gym and starve just because you're short.

Thank you :flowerforyou:

ninav1980

Probably because you're eating more than you think you are. If you really ate that little for your activity level, you'd be losing 2 pounds a week... Just saying.

Not necessarily - it's hard to estimate exactly how many calories she'd be burning doing those activities. What if the boot camp isn't as hard as you think? What if the personal training sessions are broken up by several longer breaks to work on form or details?

Also, not to knock Scoob, but that calculator can't be right. I've used IFcalc, Ketocalc and IIFYM.com's calcuator and they all give me a BMR of 1236cal. According to Scoob, I should be at 1400cal around for my BMR. Not to mention my maintenance is 2000cal+ - and that definitely isn't right through experience.

I like IFcalc, Ketocalc and IIFYM.com's calc because they require a BF%, which helps to make that BMR measurement more accurate. For example - at my current weight (123lbs) a BF% of 18% would burn approx 100cal more on a BMR level than someone of the same stats but with 28% BF.

TL;DR - Scoob's calculator may be inflated. Personally, I'd rather not trust it.

exactly. My Personal Training is all about weight training and technique and form. We spend a lot of time (too much time in my opinion) getting the EXACT form for a certain lift or squat..... So, hardly any cals burned. As long as I am getting in my protein, my workouts are not being wasted. Everyones body is different. It doesnt make it right or wrong. Its just the way it works for them

StaciMarie1974

More than likely, yes. But always judge by how you feel. Have the flexibility to change things up if you lack energy, etc. That might mean more calories, or just a different mix of calories.

I typically aim for 1400-1600 (5' 5.5", age 39, now 146-147 pounds). With exercise & daily activity & BMR functions I burn about 2100-2200 each day. Some days (like today) each of my meals happens to be small, and I have the room to fit in extra treats if I want to. Eating more veggies, lean protein helps with that.

ThatMouse

Those sites actually give me a higher TDEE than Scooby.

Then you're probably over-estimating your activity level. TDEE is also very tough to determine accurately - it's also not what we're questioning. What do they give you for BMR?

You're mistaken in your belief that you have to kill yourself in the gym and starve just because you're short.

QFT - no one's gotta starve or kill themselves in the gym. Everyone's goals are different, as are everyone's paths. But no matter what, fitness and health should be fun and enjoyable (mostly - but if you're not breaking a sweat, in my opinion, it ain't worth doing!). Eating what's right for you and doing whatever level of activity makes you smile and feel accomplished - that's what's important.

ninav1980

I mean really your doing what works for you and have similar stats as op and someone thinks your not eating enough. I would like to hear from them if they are short cause it is different and it gets worse as you get older. In 7 yrs when im 60 ill still have to work out 6 days a week hard and if im at my goal of 120 im,5'2" ill even get less than 1400. Hope my old bod and joints can still handle this intensity of exercise.lol

I am about to turn 45, I am 5'2" and currently 195. I am eating 1750 per day and if I have done my math correctly, that will be my maintenance intake at a weight of 129. You're mistaken in your belief that you have to kill yourself in the gym and starve just because you're short.

195 vs 130lbs, hmmmm, if I was 195 I would be eating more as well, but I am not.
Im glad your 1750 daily caloric intake is working for you!

broox80

Yep, same with me!! I am 5'2, 34 years old and need to lose another 30-40. I eat about 1800-2000 a day and exercise 5-7 days a week, for 30 -40 min a day. I lift and I do some circuit training. I also walk on the weekends for a more active rest day. It is all about how your body loses. Everyone is different!! You have to play around with the numbers sometimes. I was just stuck when I was eating 1300 cals a day, then I bumped them up and have lost pretty consistently.