BodyMacros
Get the app
Menu

Data sources

Nutrition values in the app come from these public databases. Each one is credited here.

USDA FoodData Central

Public domain

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service. FoodData Central.

Canadian Nutrient File

Used with attribution

Canadian Nutrient File, Health Canada.

TACO

Used with attribution

Tabela Brasileira de Composição de Alimentos (TACO), 4ª edição, NEPA/UNICAMP.

IBGE household measures

Used with attribution

Tabela de Medidas Referidas para os Alimentos Consumidos no Brasil, IBGE (POF 2008–2009).

Open Food Facts

ODbL / DbCL

Contains data from Open Food Facts, available under the Open Database License (ODbL); individual contents are available under the Database Contents License (DbCL).

How the calculators estimate

The calculators on this site and the targets in the app use these equations and studies. The numbers they give are estimates, not medical or dietary advice.

  • Resting energy (BMR): Mifflin MD, St Jeor ST, Hill LA, Scott BJ, Daugherty SA, Koh YO. A new predictive equation for resting energy expenditure in healthy individuals. Am J Clin Nutr. 1990;51(2):241–247.
  • Lean-mass BMR (Katch-McArdle, BMR page only): 370 + 21.6 × lean body mass in kg, from McArdle WD, Katch FI, Katch VL. Exercise Physiology: Nutrition, Energy, and Human Performance. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.
  • Harris-Benedict, for comparison only: Harris JA, Benedict FG. A Biometric Study of Human Basal Metabolism. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 1918;4(12):370–373.
  • How close BMR equations come: Frankenfield D, Roth-Yousey L, Compher C. Comparison of predictive equations for resting metabolic rate in healthy nonobese and obese adults: a systematic review. J Am Diet Assoc. 2005;105(5):775–789. Mifflin-St Jeor came within 10% of measured resting energy in more people than the other equations, though not in everyone.
  • Activity factors (1.3 to 1.75, by training days a week) and goal rates (about 0.5% of body weight a week to lose fat, 0.25% to build muscle) are the app's own starting choices, not measured values. The app's weekly check-in corrects them from your weight trend.
  • The calorie deficit calculator's paces (about 0.25%, 0.5%, 0.75% and 1% of body weight a week) and the floor every calculator holds (1,200 kcal a day or 1.2 times BMR, whichever is higher) are also our own starting choices, not medical or dietary advice.
  • Energy per kg of weight change: about 7,700 kcal per kg, a common approximation that overstates weight change over long periods: Hall KD. What is the energy deficit required per unit weight loss? Int J Obes (Lond). 2008;32(3):573–576.
  • Protein: Morton RW, Murphy KT, McKellar SR, et al. A systematic review, meta-analysis and meta-regression of the effect of protein supplementation on resistance training-induced gains in muscle mass and strength in healthy adults. Br J Sports Med. 2018;52(6):376–384. Gains in lean mass levelled off at about 1.6 g of protein per kg a day (95% confidence interval up to about 2.2 g per kg).
  • Protein per meal: Schoenfeld BJ, Aragon AA. How much protein can the body use in a single meal for muscle-building? Implications for daily protein distribution. J Int Soc Sports Nutr. 2018;15:10. It suggests about 0.4 g per kg per meal over at least four meals to reach 1.6 g per kg a day.
  • General protein recommendation for adults: 0.8 g per kg of body weight a day (Institute of Medicine, Dietary Reference Intakes for Energy, Carbohydrate, Fiber, Fat, Fatty Acids, Cholesterol, Protein, and Amino Acids. National Academies Press; 2005).
  • Protein during a calorie deficit: Longland TM, Oikawa SY, Mitchell CJ, Devries MC, Phillips SM. Higher compared with lower dietary protein during an energy deficit combined with intense exercise promotes greater lean mass gain and fat mass loss: a randomized trial. Am J Clin Nutr. 2016;103(3):738–746.
  • Fat share: the Institute of Medicine's acceptable range for adults is 20–35% of calories (Dietary Reference Intakes for Energy, Carbohydrate, Fiber, Fat, Fatty Acids, Cholesterol, Protein, and Amino Acids. National Academies Press; 2005). The low-carb option uses 40%, above that range.
  • Calories per gram: 4 kcal for protein and carbohydrate and 9 kcal for fat, the general factors used on nutrition labels.
  • Losing fat from one area: Vispute SS, Smith JD, LeCheminant JD, Hurley KS. The effect of abdominal exercise on abdominal fat. J Strength Cond Res. 2011;25(9):2559–2564. Six weeks of abdominal exercise did not reduce abdominal fat compared with no abdominal exercise.
  • One-rep max (Epley): estimated 1RM = load × (1 + reps ÷ 30). Epley B. Poundage Chart. In: Boyd Epley Workout. Lincoln, NE: Body Enterprises; 1985. The app uses it for each lift, with reps capped at 12.
  • One-rep max (Brzycki), for comparison: estimated 1RM = load × 36 ÷ (37 − reps). Brzycki M. Strength testing: predicting a one-rep max from reps-to-fatigue. J Phys Educ Recreat Dance. 1993;64(1):88–90.
  • How accurate 1RM estimates are: Reynolds JM, Gordon TJ, Robergs RA. Prediction of one repetition maximum strength from multiple repetition maximum testing and anthropometry. J Strength Cond Res. 2006;20(3):584–592. Predictions from a 5-rep max were more accurate than from 10 or 20 reps.
  • Training loads: American College of Sports Medicine. Progression models in resistance training for healthy adults. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2009;41(3):687–708. It recommends loads of 8–12 RM for beginners; for trained people, 1–12 RM with an emphasis on 1–6 RM for strength and on 6–12 RM for muscle size; and 40–60% of 1RM for more than 15 reps for muscular endurance.
  • RPE based on reps in reserve: Zourdos MC, Klemp A, Dolan C, et al. Novel resistance training-specific rating of perceived exertion scale measuring repetitions in reserve. J Strength Cond Res. 2016;30(1):267–275; and Helms ER, Cronin J, Storey A, Zourdos MC. Application of the repetitions in reserve-based rating of perceived exertion scale for resistance training. Strength Cond J. 2016;38(4):42–49. Helms et al. note that experienced lifters rate more accurately than novices and that reps at a given % of 1RM vary between people and lifts.
  • The RPE calculator and chart are our own estimate: they add the reps in reserve (10 − RPE) to the reps done and apply the Epley formula above to that number of reps to failure (one rep to failure is the max itself). They are not a measured conversion table.
  • Rate of loss while cutting: Helms ER, Aragon AA, Fitschen PJ. Evidence-based recommendations for natural bodybuilding contest preparation: nutrition and supplementation. J Int Soc Sports Nutr. 2014;11:20. For lifters keeping muscle, it suggests losing about 0.5–1% of body weight a week.
  • Body recomposition: Barakat C, Pearson J, Escalante G, Campbell B, De Souza EO. Body recomposition: can trained individuals build muscle and lose fat at the same time? Strength Cond J. 2020;42(5):7–21. It reviews studies where people lost fat and gained muscle at the same time, including trained lifters, with resistance training and enough protein.
  • Rate of gain while bulking: Iraki J, Fitschen P, Espinar S, Helms E. Nutrition recommendations for bodybuilders in the off-season: a narrative review. Sports (Basel). 2019;7(7):154. For novice and intermediate natural bodybuilders it suggests a surplus of about 10–20% above maintenance and a gain of about 0.25–0.5% of body weight a week, and being more conservative when advanced. The bulking calculator's two paces are those two rates; the gain estimate uses the same 7,700 kcal per kg approximation.
  • Fat-free mass index (FFMI) and normalized FFMI: FFMI = fat-free mass in kg ÷ (height in m)²; normalized FFMI = FFMI + 6.1 × (1.8 − height in m). Kouri EM, Pope HG Jr, Katz DL, Oliva P. Fat-free mass index in users and nonusers of anabolic-androgenic steroids. Clin J Sport Med. 1995;5(4):223–228.
  • FFMI reference values: Schutz Y, Kyle UUG, Pichard C. Fat-free mass index and fat mass index percentiles in Caucasians aged 18–98 y. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 2002;26(7):953–960. In 5,635 Swiss adults measured by bioelectrical impedance, the median FFMI at ages 18–34 was 18.9 kg/m² in men and 15.4 kg/m² in women.
  • Body fat (U.S. Navy method): Hodgdon JA, Beckett MB. Prediction of percent body fat for U.S. Navy men (Report No. 84-11) and women (Report No. 84-29) from body circumferences and height. San Diego: Naval Health Research Center; 1984. With measurements in cm, men: % body fat = 495 ÷ (1.0324 − 0.19077 × log10(waist − neck) + 0.15456 × log10(height)) − 450. Women: 495 ÷ (1.29579 − 0.35004 × log10(waist + hip − neck) + 0.22100 × log10(height)) − 450. The calculator converts inches to cm first. It estimates body fat from a tape measure, so it can be off by several percentage points for any one person, especially at very low or high body fat.
  • Body fat categories (essential fat, athletes, fitness, average, obese): American Council on Exercise, as summarized by ACE in "Body Fat Percentage: Charting Averages in Men and Women" (Feb 26, 2024). Women: 10–13%, 14–20%, 21–24%, 25–31%, 32% and above; men: 2–5%, 6–13%, 14–17%, 18–24%, 25% and above.
  • Lean body mass (W = weight in kg, H = height in cm): Boer P. Estimated lean body mass as an index for normalization of body fluid volumes in humans. Am J Physiol. 1984;247(4 Pt 2):F632–F636; men 0.407W + 0.267H − 19.2, women 0.252W + 0.473H − 48.3. James WPT. Research on obesity: a report of the DHSS/MRC group. London: HMSO; 1976; men 1.1W − 128(W/H)², women 1.07W − 148(W/H)². Hume R. Prediction of lean body mass from height and weight. J Clin Pathol. 1966;19(4):389–391; men 0.32810W + 0.33929H − 29.5336, women 0.29569W + 0.41813H − 43.2933. With a body fat %, lean body mass = weight × (1 − body fat). The formulas predict an average for a height and weight, so they can't tell a muscular person from an average one. The calculator leaves out the James result above the weight where that formula peaks (about BMI 36 for women and 43 for men), because past it the formula gives less lean mass for more weight.
  • Body mass index (BMI): weight in kg ÷ (height in m)². Adult categories: World Health Organization. Obesity: preventing and managing the global epidemic. Report of a WHO consultation. WHO Technical Report Series 894. Geneva: WHO; 2000. Underweight below 18.5; normal range 18.5–24.9; pre-obese 25.0–29.9; obese class I 30.0–34.9, class II 35.0–39.9 and class III 40.0 or more. Our pages call the normal range "healthy weight" and pre-obese "overweight". The same cut-offs apply to adult women and men; children and teens are assessed on BMI-for-age growth charts. BMI uses only height and weight, so it doesn't tell muscle from fat.
  • DOTS points: total × 500 ÷ (a + bW + cW² + dW³ + eW⁴), W = body weight in kg. Men: a = −307.75076, b = 24.0900756, c = −0.1918759221, d = 0.0007391293, e = −0.000001093, W held within 40–210 kg. Women: a = −57.96288, b = 13.6175032, c = −0.1126655495, d = 0.0005158568, e = −0.0000010706, W held within 40–150 kg. Formula by Tim Konertz for the German powerlifting federation BVDK; constants and bounds as implemented by the OpenPowerlifting project (opl-data, coefficients crate).
  • Wilks points (the original formula by Robert Wilks, not its 2020 revision): total × 500 ÷ (a + bW + cW² + dW³ + eW⁴ + fW⁵), W = body weight in kg. Men: a = −216.0475144, b = 16.2606339, c = −0.002388645, d = −0.00113732, e = 7.01863 × 10⁻⁶, f = −1.291 × 10⁻⁸, W held within 40–201.9 kg. Women: a = 594.31747775582, b = −27.23842536447, c = 0.82112226871, d = −0.00930733913, e = 4.731582 × 10⁻⁵, f = −9.054 × 10⁻⁸, W held within 26.51–154.53 kg. Constants and bounds as implemented by OpenPowerlifting.
  • IPF GL points: total × 100 ÷ (A − B × e^(−C × W)), W = body weight in kg (none below 35 kg), with A, B and C set by the International Powerlifting Federation. Raw total: men 1199.72839, 1025.18162, 0.00921; women 610.32796, 1045.59282, 0.03048. Equipped total: men 1236.25115, 1449.21864, 0.01644; women 758.63878, 949.31382, 0.02435. Raw bench only: men 320.98041, 281.40258, 0.01008; women 142.40398, 442.52671, 0.04724. Equipped bench only: men 381.22073, 733.79378, 0.02398; women 221.82209, 357.00377, 0.02937. As implemented by OpenPowerlifting, which reproduces the IPF's published examples (a 122.5 kg raw bench by a 70.5 kg woman: 96.78 points).
  • Progressive overload and load steps: American College of Sports Medicine. Progression models in resistance training for healthy adults. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2009;41(3):687–708. Lists progressive overload among the principles of resistance training, and recommends a 2–10% increase in load when the current load can be lifted for one or two repetitions over the desired number on two consecutive training sessions.
  • Adding reps or weight: Plotkin D, Coleman M, Van Every D, et al. Progressive overload without progressing load? The effects of load or repetition progression on muscular adaptations. PeerJ. 2022;10:e14142. In 43 resistance-trained adults over 8 weeks, adding repetitions at the same load and adding load while staying at 8–12 repetitions led to similar muscle growth; strength gains slightly favored adding load.
  • Deloading: Bell L, et al. Integrating deloading into strength and physique sports training programmes: an international Delphi consensus approach. Sports Med Open. 2023;9:87. An expert panel of strength and physique coaches agreed that a deload is a period of reduced training demand, through fewer sets, lighter loads or less effort, to manage fatigue and prepare for the training that follows.
  • Weight loss plateaus: Sarwan G, Daley SF, Rehman A. Management of Weight Loss Plateau. In: StatPearls. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing; 2024 (NBK576400). It describes plateaus as common after an initial loss, linked to biological adaptations, a lower resting metabolic rate, hormonal changes and more hunger, and lists strategies such as adjusting intake and exercise.
  • Diet breaks: Byrne NM, Sainsbury A, King NA, Hills AP, Wood RE. Intermittent energy restriction improves weight loss efficiency in obese men: the MATADOR study. Int J Obes (Lond). 2018;42(2):129–138. In 51 men with obesity, alternating 2-week blocks of energy restriction with 2-week blocks at energy balance led to more weight and fat loss than continuous restriction.
  • Reverse dieting: Da Silva VR, Muniz M, Shelton G, et al. The effects of reverse dieting on mitigating weight regain after a caloric deficit: a preliminary analysis. J Int Soc Sports Nutr. 2025;22(sup2):2550185. In 49 resistance-trained adults who had lost 5% of their weight, a gradual weekly increase in calories, an immediate return to estimated maintenance and eating freely showed no significant difference in regain over 15 weeks.