I'm a 19 year old girl who wants to lose fat. Is 1300 calories

>>41690533
Post your body so we can provide a better assessment please.

Read the sticky.

>>41690533
Without your current weight and height we can do shit. Read sticky faggot.

>>41690570
OP here, my bad.

I'm 72 kg and 1.70 cm

>>41690576
Post a pic

>>41690578
nah won't do that. i can say that i'm pretty chubby though. mild kind of chubby.

>>41690576
1300 will backfire at you. At least 1500.

>>41690591
The thing is, when I calculate my needs for sedentary days, all calculator give me around 1600-1800 calories a day. When losing weight, it's always recommended to cut about 500 calories. Are you sure cutting 500 from 1600-1800 calories would damage my metabolism?

>>41690588

if you want to lose weight youll post a picture, if you want to be a half assed fat fuck for the rest of your life then don't post one.

>>41690639
>all calculator give me around 1600-1800 calories a day
For the calculator you used, did you already give it info that you wanted to be on a plan to lose, say, 1lb per week or whatever? If so, it may already have factored that in.

Don't listen to these cuckfucks. 1300 will be enough to lose a bit of weight each week, like 0.5 kg per week. The first ~ 2 weeks will be hard for you to deal with the change of eating way fewer calories, and it's likely that you'll accidentally go over a lot, but after the first 2-3 weeks, your body will start getting used to eating less and will likewise help you by not making you crave stuff as much *as long as* your diet is good (eat mainly protein and veges, low amount of carbs, and try to eat as little trash food like sugar and chips as possible).

If you want to burn more calories, you can eat smaller, more frequent meals throughout the day. This helps, because your body uses energy to process food, so the more spaced out your eating is, the more time and energy your body spends processing food. The top calorie burner is your basal metabolic rate stuff, but the second highest is the calories burned processing food.

glhf

>>41690667
No. No calculators I have ever used have had that option. But I assume the calculators already factored in 0.5-1 pound a week.

>>41690667
>>41690831
Those calculators are calculating the basal metabolic rate.

The BMR is the minimum number of calories your body requires to function at the most basic level, stuff like beating your heart, keeping your brain functioning, etc. It's like, how many calories you'd burn if you lay flat, unmoving, with your eyes closed.

To lose weight your net calories (calories taken in - calories burned) has to be lower than your BMR, because then your body will take calories that you already have stored in your fat to fulfil your BMR.

Remember, a calorie is literally an amount of energy. Not a physical object, but a unit of measurement.

>>41690873
No, I know the difference between BMR and daily caloric needs. The calculators I used were for caloric intake, this one amongst others:

https://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/macronutcal.htm

>>41690533
Generally, yeah.

>>41690533
Can you tell me your name ?

idk if this helps, but I'm a 19 y/o female, 64 kg 158 cm, and I've been going to the gym 3-4 times a week for 40-60 mins each session, mainly weight training with some cardio.

My total caloric intake after eating and working out is usually 1200-1400 on gym days and 1300-1800 on non-gym days, and I've been losing about 0.5 kg a week, but I'm also gaining a lot of muscle.

>>41691398
Mathilde

>>41690533
1300 will be fine on sedentary days, but if you are chubby and used to more you will find those days incredibly difficult if you don't keep busy.

>>41691455
Why is your intake higher on rest days?
It shouldn't be, not sure why I'm asking.

>>41692493
[Pukes internally]

Why do retarded thots ask this shit?

If you want to lose weight then try that, if you don't lose any in two weeks then lower calories slightly until you're losing weight it's that fucking simple

>>41692540
>Why do retarded thots ask this shit?
Because they want someone else to blame when they fail besides themselves. It's typical woman logic.

>>41690588
You have to, its the rules hun

>>41692559
Men do it here too though.

>"fit I've never lifted please help me how do I lose weight is [arbitrary number of calories] okay???"

>>41690576
yeah you fat

I'm 182 cm and weigh the same as you.

>>41692648
No, beta males do it. Those aren't men. Those are cucks.

With enough training, red polling, and dedication? A cuck can become a man. But as is they are basically women with penises, except they don't even have the benefit of being cute traps or some shit. Literally scum.

>>41690533
I fucking hate newfags. Did everyone forget the rules? Ass or gtfo

>>41692678
>red polling
pilling*

>>41692648
The best way to learn how to get /fit/ is to just go to the gym and figure shit out by yourself, not ask /fit/.

ask /fit/ once you've gone and got all your beginner retardedness out of you system then do it properly.

>>41692699
ok

>>41692493
D E N M A R K

>>41692713
/fit/ is still horrible. Why use it?

There's better blogs for fitness, better youtube channels, better everything.

>>41690576
shit i really am a manlet aren't i

>>41692766
>There's better blogs for fitness, better youtube channels, better everything.
Here it comes, some youtuber/blogger came here to shill his shit again.

>>41692676
u must be lanky af dude

>>41692795
Not shilling anything, just saying there's people with actual credentials and experience giving advice. Instead of DYEL anonymous novices on here who can't bench 225 for one rep.

File: anonette.png (45KB, 458x402px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 458x402px

>>41690533
Pic related took me, like, 5 fucking seconds. I know it's difficult OP, but read the sticky. It'll clear a lot of stuff up for you.

Anyway, eat between 1370-1620 calories a day and you'll lose fat. Do light cardio with it. You'll become a cardio bunny and be hawt. You'll look even better if you start lifting.


Good luck. Any more questions?

>>41692676
>182cm
>72kg

dyel? most non-lifters at 180cm are like 80kg

>>41692797
I'm 178cm and 68kg.

I certainly don't look lanky, so would 182cm and 72kg look lanky? 182cm isn't that tall so depends if skinny fat or muscular.

>>41692493
Thank you. I was worried for a sec that my crush followed me here.

>>41692742
nope, norway.

>>41690533
L O N D O N
O
N
D
O
N

File: Matheld_Full.jpg (9KB, 190x280px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 190x280px

>>41692493
Not the worst companion, but not ideal.