Can I survive on 1300 calories with exercising?

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.

ninav1980

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.

i completely agree. Playing around with the numbers and doing what works for your body. There is no right or wrong way

Ang108

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.

I am the same height as you and just want to point out that 4'11· is not 152 cms, but 149.87. In everyday life it does not matter, but plays a small role when figuring out how many calories to eat and awhen figuring fitness/health related factors like MBR, BMI and others.
And btw; no, we short people do not gain weight much quicker, because no matter how tall we are a pound of extra weight is always produced by approximately 3500 extra calories. How fast we igain weight from those extra calories has nothing to do with height , but with how much we eat.

UNLESS19

I'm 4 ft 9ish and i eat 1,200ish or 1, 300 if i've done a good workout. it's doable but if you're getting too hungry/tired and so on i'd up the calories a bit to boost you Play around a bit cause it depends on how your body works.
Hope this helps! & Nice to see a fellow shortie

TeaBea

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.

Yes! .......many people don't seem to get that there is a price for weight loss that is too aggressive for THEM.

If the number on the scale is the main goal....then "survive" on the least number of calories. If losing body fat (and keeping most muscle) is important....then personalize the pounds per week to your situation.

aldousmom

survive? ha ha, sure. you can survive on way less, as long as you also have water.

MissNayMalmoe

So, I am just going to hop on here and say this: Everyone's bodies are totally different on what they need to thrive and be strong and healthy. Because of my obesity and my low activity level following the injury a few years ago, I am only to take in 1200 per day. My doctor and I came up with a plan and I am working on it.

It isn't a motivating thing to get on here and see everyone slamming each other for recommending what works for them. If it works for them, then it works for them.

What I would say for you to do is talk to your doctor and tell them your plan. Have labs drawn and about two to three weeks into the routine you are considering, have your labs drawn again. This will let you know if you are depleting anything or if you are maintaining what you need.

CoffeeNBooze

it was ok for me. I didn't exercise but i ate 1300 calories for 4 months and lost around 20lbs. But later, I lost faster when I exercised and ate back a portion of the exercise calories.

Francl27

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?

They also give me a higher BMR than Scooby.

So, I am just going to hop on here and say this: Everyone's bodies are totally different on what they need to thrive and be strong and healthy. Because of my obesity and my low activity level following the injury a few years ago, I am only to take in 1200 per day. My doctor and I came up with a plan and I am working on it.

It isn't a motivating thing to get on here and see everyone slamming each other for recommending what works for them. If it works for them, then it works for them.

What I would say for you to do is talk to your doctor and tell them your plan. Have labs drawn and about two to three weeks into the routine you are considering, have your labs drawn again. This will let you know if you are depleting anything or if you are maintaining what you need.

Doctors are clueless about weight loss and nutrition.

_lyndseybrooke_

Can you SURVIVE? Of course you can. Will you be hungry? Probably. 1300 definitely isn't too high. Too low? Probably.

Allup2Me78

I eat 1300-1350 on non exercise days and when I exercise as stated on here I eat some of them back. You can survive on 1300 calories with or without exercise. I too am a shorty 4'10