The Calorie And Macro Calculator

Hi Ryan, thank you for the question.

Your metabolism will still slow down because you’ll still be in the same caloric deficit — you’ll now just be eating more overall. The issue is that you now have an additional time and recovery burden to your training week, which is not an additional burden you want to have to deal with during a fat loss phase.

More on cardio here: How Much Cardio Should You Do When Cutting?

Hi Chris, thanks for the question.

Tough to say, as the majority of clients still do it. (It’s something I include in a plan by default, unless they opt-out.) It’s not the belief it’s going to lead to a noticeably better outcome (it may), but that it increases diet variety during the week and that can lead to better adherence.

I haven’t looked into them. I’d be surprised if something new came out that changed the game regarding bf% and I hadn’t heard of it though.

The first three articles here dissect the issues with the current body-fat testing methods we have available.

Thank you.

Hi David, thanks for the question. Glad you’re finding the site useful!

First and foremost, if you’re not losing any weight, you’re not in a caloric deficit, no matter what you calculated. Now, that aside:

Muscle re-gain is easier (can happen faster) than new muscle accrual. So, if you’re not losing any weight but are getting leaner (based on body measurements — guide here), it’s likely that you’re gaining muscle at the same time as you’re losing fat.

So now the big question: should you keep your caloric intake as is, or adjust it downward?

I’d do the latter to put yourself in a caloric deficit. At 96 kg you’re still well over your previous 74 kg lean self, so you should be able to regain muscle while you lean out. (Staying as you are won’t lead to much progress for long, because you can’t expect to recomp and be 96 kg of solid muscle.)

If you were closer to 74 kg right now, my answer would be to keep your calories as they are.

Hi Jim, I haven’t made any changes to the calculator in the last day. This is it.

Hi Elelyn, thank you for the question.

Back when I started writing in 2011, I knew almost nothing, yet I thought I knew a lot.

I spoke too broadly, too often, and with too much confidence.

I was wrong about many things, and my writing lacked nuance.

One of the things I was wrong about was that I believed intermittent fasting (the ‘skipping-breakfast-in-the-morning’ type) was superior for fat loss, even when calorie intakes are matched.

Over time, as research came out, I learned that I was mistaken. I updated the articles on my site and moved on to write about nutrition principles more generally.

This wasn’t easy. At the time, I had one of the most popular blogs in the world on intermittent fasting (IF).

But scientific integrity was more important to me, so I changed things.

…or so my internal narrative went.

But upon reflection, I think an equally important factor was that I didn’t want to be seen as just another low-integrity charlatan/idiot among my industry peers and those who I looked up to. For through my writing and helping people, I had finally found meaning and somewhere that I felt I belonged.

Despite this, breakfast-skipping is still something I recommend as an option worth trying to my online coaching clients (if they are open to it). I use it myself, as do many of my friends in the industry.

Why? Because it makes life a lot simpler.

• You don’t have to think about food in the morning, which can save you time.
• Meal planning is easier.
• Fewer meals mean bigger meals, which is a boon for satiety when dieting.
• Fewer meals also means fewer chances to screw up your calorie/macro counting, which people are notoriously bad at.

So while it won’t lead to a better outcome if calories are matched, practically, it helps people to stay more consistent, and consistency over time is what gets people to their goals.

Most welcome, Nicholas. Thank you for sharing! 🙂

Hi Steve, muscle growth potential scales with body size so this it more accurate.

For this also, recommendations based on body weight is best. I recommend a maximum of 1%, but more usually 0.75–0.5%, as this is more sustainable and it’s in that range my work with clients typically finds it’s sweet spot.

“Sweet spot?” I hear you ask.

Yes, the sweet spot. The goal is to progress as fast as you can possibly sustain without losing muscle mass.

^ Simple sentence that, but highly nuanced. There’s a trade-off between hunger, lethargy, and brain fog, with the rate of progress and motivation that people get from that, which makes the discomfort worth it. Any chronic sleep or stress issues will affect these things, and any acute but temporary changes will affect the rate I recommend.

Point being — there is no single number to give as a recommendation and it won’t be static.

What is certain is that the leaner you get, the lower in this 0.5–1% range you’re better off losing weight, if you want to avoid muscle loss. This is because it gets harder and harder for your body to release fat from the fat cells to fuel itself and oxidize it for energy, the less there is.

[I’ve seen a theoretical number on how much fat can be liberated per day — this requires an estimation of body-fat percentage and then calculating how many pounds of fat mass someone has to arrive at a figure — thrown around. How accurate this (aside from the inherent issues of measuring bf%) I really don’t know. Frankly, it doesn’t matter, 0.5–1% is good enough.]

Hi Oliver, thanks for the question. I’m not sure, but let’s do some math and find out.

Let’s say the average bodybuilding workout burns 300 kcal. If you go super hard at CrossFit, you might burn 200-300 kcal more. If you do that 5 times a week, this means you’ll burn 1250 kcal more over a week (250×5), which averages to a difference of ~180 kcal each day (1250/7).

The activity multiplier is set at 0.2 increments, meaning at each level you calculate energy needs to be 20% more on average daily. To keep the math simple, let’s say you calculated your BMR to be 2000. By choosing a higher activity multiplier level, you increase your caloric intake by 400 kcal each day.

Given that you’re training five times a week, you’d need to burn 560 kcal more than the average bodybuilding workout to justify this change (400*7/5). This is highly unlikely.

Therefore, I would not choose a higher activity multiplier based on the fact that you do CrossFit rather than regular bodybuilding/strength training. But you could add in 180 kcal to your diet each day, or 250 kcal just on your CF training days, if you are satisfied with my estimations on the extra calorie burn.

This is as simple as adding 45 g or 60 g of carbs each day, respectively.

However, in general, I don’t recommend people make adjustments like this for the types of workout they do. You’re adding estimations to estimations, unnecessary fiddling which gives a false sense of accuracy. You’ll know soon enough if the caloric intake is appropriate based on how you do over the first 4 weeks of scale weight data and you can adjust from there.

Most welcome, Olivier.

Most welcome, Jessica!

Hi Rui, thanks for the question.

Keep the calories the same, adjust the carbs or fats to do that, as per your preference.

So, if you adjusted your protein intake calculation down from 240 (your weight in pounds) to 180 (your height in cm), consider adding in 60 g of carbs each day to balance the calorie math. Simple.

Hi Daniel, thanks for the question.

1) Take your weight each morning upon waking.
2) Once a week, take your weekly scale weight data, average it, and log it.
3) Look at the trend over time, ignoring any funky fluctuations. (Draw a line if it helps.)
4) Determine your rate of weekly change, compare that to your target, adjust.

Here’s my article on tracking things properly which will give more detail, and other things to log.

Here are my articles on making adjustments when bulking and cutting.

Most welcome!

Hi Chris, thank you. I LOVE comments like this.

Don’t recalculate. You already know your caloric intake level, adjust based on what is happening right now.

Now, it feels extreme (hunger is off the chart, you’re exceptionally irritable), or the number seems extreme (perhaps based on what you have read)?

Ultimately, the test of whether a caloric intake level is appropriate is two-fold:

1. How quickly you are losing weight compared with what we know to be reasonable.
2. How you feel while doing it.

So, if you’re losing weight at the lower end of the recommendations, ~0.5% of body weight per week, then the caloric intake level is not extreme. However, if you feel like total shit when doing it, then you need to either have a diet break or raise calories, accepting a slower, but more sustainable, rate of weight loss (for you).

Note how I’m focusing on the rate of weight loss here, not the calorie intake. Metabolisms adapt and people have varying degrees of counting accuracy. The former is undeniable proof of where the caloric deficit is at; there is no point trying to gauge things from the latter.

I hope that helps!

Hi Justin, thank you.

Better to adjust your current caloric intake based on where you are at, as this will be more accurate/personalized to you. Guide here: How to Find Maintenance Calorie Intake After Dieting.

The reason is the same as I said in point two in the notes section: “…the calculations are based on equations derived from group averages. You might be either side of this average, so consider them a start point from which to adjust.”

Hi Chris, thanks for the question.

Each change to the activity multiplier will add 20% to your calorie intake totals for the week which would be too much.

If this is a new calculation for you, leave it as it is.

If you’ve been tracking things for a while, add in the calories you estimate you’ll burn on those two days. Adding in 50 g of carbs per 30 minutes is a good heuristic, but you can see a table I’ve posted elsewhere in these comments to answer someone if you want to get more granular.

Hi Oliviero, thank you for the comment. I’m working on a much more detailed reply to this, but for now, I’ve updated the calculator so please re-calculate and use it as is.

I’ll get back to you in the next couple of days with a thorough answer.

Hi Oliviero, thank you for your comment and for your patience.

You’re correct, they did not match up. Basically, some of my older guidelines were clashing with the calculations on this page.

I have spent the week fixing this. Let me take you through what has changed and why.

ADJUSTMENTS TO RATES OF WEIGHT GAIN RECOMMENDATIONS

I believe that the guidelines in my ‘How To Bulk Without Getting Fat‘ article were a little too optimistic, and the calculations in the calculator here were a little low. I’ve fixed both now so that they match.

Before I get into the specifics, it’s important to remember that this is not an exact science — any recommendations given are based on observations of what we have seen people achieve, on average, over the years working with clients.

When bulking, it is important to set a realistic rate of weight gain. If this is too high, an unnecessary amount of fat will be gained along with the muscle; if it is too low, the rate of muscle gain will be lower than your potential and the changes are hard to track.

Regardless of what we do, the weight gained when we bulk it’s almost never purely muscle.

In both the ‘How To Bulk’ article and my Muscle and Strength Pyramid: Nutrition book (MSP) you will have seen the following numbers:

• Novice  |  1–1.5% of bodyweight
• Intermediate  | 0.5–1% of bodyweight
• Advanced  |  Less than 0.5% of bodyweight

In the book, these represent our recommended rates of bodyweight gain per month (some of which will be fat). But in the article, I had these listed as estimated rates of muscle growth per month, recommending that people set their bodyweight gain target 75-100% higher, making them:

• Novice  |  1.75–3% of bodyweight
• Intermediate  | 1–2% of bodyweight
• Advanced  |  Less than 1% of bodyweight

So, the article (written nearly five years ago) was more optimistic about what people can achieve than the book.

As the book is nearly 300 pages and targets a more serious trainee, I decided to add a category called ‘Beginner’ which is intended for those who are brand new to training.

Previously, I had each category in the calculator set at 1.5%, 1%, and 0.5% for the novice, intermediate and advanced categories respectively, but I’ve now changed this to 2%, 1.5%, 1%, and 0.5% for the four categories. This uses the upper boundary of the recommendations we have in the MSP books, but by adding the following definitions, I’ve kept things congruent:

Beginner: Totally new to training.
Novice: Able to progress most training loads in the gym on a week to week basis.
Serious intermediate: Able to progress most training loads in the gym on a month to month basis.
Advanced: Progress is evident only when viewed over multiple months or a year.

Why skew to the upper end of the range with the weight gain settings?

1) This is going to be better for genetically lucky people.

2) As I often say to coaching applicants looking to bulk and clients who are about to switch to one, when it comes to goal setting, it is imperative that the outcome is measurable if we are to gauge success and correct our course of action if we fall short of our targets. When results are hard to measure, it is both tough to coach for and tough to stay motivated for.

Most people reading will not be working with a coach with an experienced eye to help them decide whether they are gaining at an appropriate rate. So, by setting things toward the higher end, this makes the changes more apparent, measurable, and manageable.

—–

ADJUSTMENTS TO THE MATH ON THE WEIGHT GAIN

The calculations in the How To Bulk article take into account that one pound of muscle requires 2500 kcal to synthesize it (~5500 kcal/ kg), whereas it takes ~3500 kcal to burn or store a pound of fat. (~7700 kcal/ kg).

I’ve added this expanded section, on the important numbers we need to make our calculations:

———————————–

→ It takes roughly ~2500 kcal to synthesize a pound of muscle. (~5500 kcal/ kg)

A pound of muscle by itself is only 600-800 kcal (protein + glycogen + trace intramuscular adipose tissue). But when you go through the metabolic processes to synthesize 600-800 kcal of muscle protein, those processes themselves consume an extra 1500-2000 kcal. That’s 2100-2800 kcal total. Furthermore, let’s say you’re glycogen super-compensated and well-hydrated. That makes your muscles themselves slightly larger and less dense. — Fewer calories per pound.

→ It takes roughly ~3500 kcal to burn or store a pound of fat. (~7700 kcal/ kg)

Fat takes 3000-3500 kcal to burn or store. But let’s say you have small adipocytes (fat cells) — after being obese and dieting for example – with more organelles and smaller fat droplets (less fat per unit volume). — Fewer calories per pound.

→ It takes roughly a 100 kcal daily surplus to gain 1 lb per month when bulking. (~220 kcal for 1 kg)

If we’re assume a 1:1 ratio of fat and muscle gain, 1 lb of tissue gain will require a 3000 kcal surplus (3500/2 +2500/2). If we say there are 30 days in a month, this gives 100 kcal as the daily calorie surplus needed.

→ To achieve a 100 kcal surplus, you’ll likely need to add 150 kcal. (220 kcal » 330 kcal)

Every time we raise calories, some of that calorie increase will be eaten up by NEAT and not result in a caloric surplus. The NEAT increase will be different from person to person and is impossible to predict, but I suggest we add 50% to these numbers.

———————————–

This differs from the MSP book where we decided to keep the 3500 kcal rule for both fat and muscle, knowing that NEAT would increase some of it.

I’ve added an explanation of this to the fourth note on the calculator.

I hope this helps explain things and thank you for your patience waiting for my answer.

Hi Vince, thanks for the questions.

1. Yes.
2. 1.15, 1.35, 1.55, and 1.75 x BMR respectively.

Completely understandable questions, Vince. You want more detail, whereas I’ve purposefully stripped out all that I could from this calculator to minimize the options for people. This is designed to be an easy entry point to the website and I know that giving too many options paralyzes people. Also, adding further nuance to the calculations leads to such a marginal benefit I didn’t want the trade-off.

Bearing this in mind, here are the answers to your questions:

1. I just want people to use the descriptions given, make a decision quickly, and not worry too much about their choice. In the end, this calculation is an estimation and what matters is that people track the outcome and then adjust — which is something that’s necessary in nearly all cases.

In your case, the second option is likely the right one to choose as the weekend cardio won’t bump you up to the next activity level unless we’re talking about multiple hour sessions.

2. The literature suggests that when at caloric maintenance or above, 0.7–1.0 g/lb of body weight is the range where anabolism is maximized. When cutting, 1.0–1.2 g/lb, slightly higher as there is a muscle-sparing effect.

So, for the sake of simplicity, I chose 1 g per pound (2.2 g per kilogram).

You’ll find all these details in the free book I’ve got linked at the top and bottom of the article. Or, if you wish to go into even more detail, get my book — The Muscle and Strength Pyramid: Nutrition. There are close to 300 references in there.

Hi Evan, thank you for the question.

Lightly active is probably the best fit. Here’s my logic:

1. The gym is already factored into all the latter options, so let’s set that aside and consider the walking. — How many calories does that burn?

Well, ten thousand steps equate to about eight kilometres walking, or an hour and 40 minutes walking, depending on your stride length and walking speed. (I got this from a google search.)

100 minutes of light cardio, based on the calculations in the chart below (which you’ll find from this article), works out to around 400 kcal burned for someone of your size.

2. Comparing the calculations for someone of your size for mostly sedentary, lightly active, and very active gives a ~400 kcal increase at each step. (2712 vs 3114 vs 3516) So, very active seems too high; lightly active seems just right. Go with lightly active.

Make sense?

Hi Timo, thanks for the question.

From my experience this is a big difference, since I am also using my arms on the elliptical.

Makes a big difference to what?

If you are referring to a feeling of soreness in your arms (or the feeling of having ‘worked out’), I’d caution you against assuming this is a sign of an effective workout. Anything new will cause soreness.

If you are referring to an increase in hunger, well, unfortunately, hunger can’t necessarily be trusted as a gauge of calorie burn. Most people find that hunger will increase in proportion to the calories burned from cardio. A minority will find that it blunts hunger or exacerbates it. Based on your comment “a big difference,” you might be in the latter category and it’s probably worth stopping this and sticking with regular gym work.

Have a look at the table above and the numbers may surprise you. Light cardio for 30 minutes will burn ~100 kcal each session. If you average 5.5 times per week, this increases your daily energy expenditure less than 100 kcal on average.

If you play with the calculator you can see that the difference between activity multipliers is far more than 100 kcal (I’ve set it to be 20% increments. So you’re probably looking at a 300–400 kcal difference.) If you want to adjust for this activity, just add 100 kcal to your daily calorie targets and add 25 g to your carb macro number.

As for TEF, the difference this will make is so small it’s not worth trying to calculate.

I can understand you asking, but to do so is to chase the illusion of accuracy and misses the point.

Have you ever played darts?

Trying to fine-tune cardio calculations like this would be like spending 5 minutes perfecting the shape of the flight (the winged bit at the end) before each throw, trying to get more accurate but always getting frustrated. — The issue isn’t the flight, you just lack consistency with which you can throw and this has a far larger effect on the outcome.

Similarly, the following two things have a far larger effect on the outcome:

1. Your body will adapt to any cardio you do often and get more efficient at it, so the energy expenditure will change over time. This cannot be calculated for (outside of a lab).

2. Further, for all the reasons stated in the notes above, your daily energy needs adapt over time depending on calorie intake and output. This cannot be calculated for either.

This is why I recommend we calculate/estimate, track over time, then adjust based on the outcome.

Thank you, Daniel!

Hi Mark, thanks for letting me know.

1. Refresh the page for me and scroll to the top. Does that work?
2. Does changing the browser work?
3. Does changing the device work?

If you can let me know which of these issues it was I’ll get a dev to look into it.

Hi Tim, thank you for the questions.

1) An 800 kcal reduction from your estimated maintenance caloric intake — yes, this sounds about right if you’re aiming for a 0.5% body weight loss per week.

[The math: You’re 97 kg. 0.5% of body weight is 0.485 kg. It takes an 1100 kcal deficit each day to lose 1 kg per week. This is 533 kcal deficit per day needed.]

This is for reasons covered in point 3: maintenance caloric intake is a moving target — we’re anticipating the metabolic adaptation (reduction in energy needs) and thus factoring that in at the outset. Admittedly, we don’t know quite how much that will be as it varies from person to person.

I do this knowing that people generally have a lack of patience and need to see results at the outset in order to stay motivated and follow through. So I figure that it’s better for people to see slightly faster changes than slightly slower changes, week to week, from the start, knowing that this can be corrected for later on. (If this leads to you losing ~0.2 kg more than targeted per week, you can make an adjustment upwards as described.)

But if you wish to add 277 kcal to that at the outset though, feel free. You just have to add ~70 g of carbs each day. If you do this you’re gambling on there being no metabolic adaptation though, which just isn’t realistic.

2) Better this way. The numbers work out similar, and it’s easier. See point 10 on the issues with estimating body fat percentage.

Hi Sebs, thanks for the question. The macros aren’t calculated on a percentage of the caloric intake.

There is an idea out there that ‘golden’ macronutrient ratios exist that can transform a person’s physique. The idea was born in bodybuilding forums by people looking at someone else’s body transformation, asking their macro intake, then reverse engineering it to come up with a macro ratio that is assumed to be somehow special.

I’m not a fan of this idea. It’s logically flawed and here’s why…

Metabolism is adaptive. Calorie needs increase over time when bulking, and decrease over time when cutting.

When cutting it isn’t prudent to decrease the calorie intake by reducing all macronutrients equally, because protein intake is best set according to lean body mass due to the muscle preserving properties when dieting.
When bulking it is neither cost-effective (protein is expensive) nor optimal (fat storage is more likely with higher fat intakes), to increase equally either.

There is a broad scope for personal preference between fat and carbohydrate intake to make up the remainder of the calorie balance for most people, outside of specific situations. But for most serious trainees, once fat intake (tolerance/preference) has been established, carbohydrate increases and decreases will be used as the prime energy balance manipulator.

Macro ratios are therefore a function of the stage of dieting, not something specific to target.

Let’s explain this with one quick and very simplified example:

Take a macro ratio ‘P40/C40/F20’ that has been proposed as perfect for cutting (meaning that 40% of a person’s diet will come from protein, 40% from carbohydrate, 20% from fat).

Take a guy that can initially lose his target rate of fat loss eating 2500kCal per day. As the diet progresses over many weeks he finally needs to adjust to 2000kCal per day, and finally 1500kCal per day by the time he gets on stage.

At the start of the diet, he’ll be consuming 250g of protein at the end of the diet he’ll be consuming 150g a day.

If that guy carries 70kg (154lbs) of lean body mass (LBM), he’ll be consuming ~3.6g/kgLBM of protein at the start, and ~2.1g/kgLBM at the end of the diet, which is an overconsumption of protein initially, and an underconsumption at the end.
Why does it matter if we over or under consume protein?

It’s suboptimal.

Overconsumption costs unnecessary $$ and steals away our ability to have a higher carb intake. Underconsumption when dieting can cost us muscle mass.

There is a similar issue with the other macronutrients also when you fix them as a ratio of the overall calorie intake rather than to lean body mass.

Fat is important hormonally and allowance should be set to lean body mass (and then adjusted per tolerance).

Carbs make up the remaining balance and are important for training intensity and recovery.

Nothing should be arbitrary.

So, we set your macros according to your energy needs, weight decides protein intake, and then tweak the carb to fat ratio for personal preference.