| Metric | Value | Copy |
|---|---|---|
| {{ row.label }} | {{ row.value }} |
{{ benchSummaryLead }}
{{ benchSummarySupport }}
| Goal profile | Target | Daily delta | Weekly change | Pace | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
{{ row.label }}
{{ row.adjustDisplay }}
|
{{ row.targetDisplay }} | {{ row.deltaDisplay }} | {{ row.weeklyDisplay }} | {{ row.pace }} | Current {{ row.note }} |
| Formula | BMR | Maintenance | Target | Delta vs selected | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| {{ row.label }} | {{ row.bmrDisplay }} | {{ row.maintainDisplay }} | {{ row.targetDisplay }} | {{ row.deltaDisplay }} | Selected {{ row.note }} |
| Macronutrient | Grams | Calories | Percent | Copy |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| {{ row.name }} | {{ row.gramsDisplay }} | {{ row.caloriesDisplay }} | {{ row.percentDisplay }} | |
| Daily total | {{ macroTotalGramsDisplay }} g | {{ formatNumber(target_kcal, 0) }} kcal | 100.0% |
Basal metabolic rate is the energy your body uses to stay alive at rest. Daily calorie planning gets harder because real life adds training, work, digestion, and the difference between maintaining weight and deliberately changing it. This calculator brings those pieces together into a practical intake target you can actually compare with your routine.
The package estimates BMR from age, sex, height, weight, and a selected equation, then scales that value into total daily energy expenditure. From there it can add an optional thermic effect of food adjustment, apply a goal percentage, and translate the final target into protein, fat, and carbohydrate amounts. You also get BMI context, a projected weekly rate of change, a calorie breakdown view, a macro distribution view, and a structured JSON summary.
That combination is useful when you need a planning baseline rather than a laboratory measurement. Someone setting up a first cut can compare maintenance against a modest deficit, while someone with a credible body-fat estimate can switch to Cunningham or Katch-McArdle and see how a lean-mass-based equation shifts the starting point.
The result should not be mistaken for a direct metabolism measurement. Predictive equations can miss high or low for people whose activity, body composition, recovery, medication use, or health status differ from the average populations those formulas were built from. The BMI field is broad screening context as well, not a direct measure of body fat or training readiness.
Use the output as a starting plan, then tune it with real intake logs, body-weight trend, performance, and recovery over time. This tool provides informational estimates and does not replace individualized medical or nutrition advice.
A strong first pass is simple: enter your usual body measurements, choose the activity level that matches an ordinary week rather than your best week, keep the thermic effect at its neutral default, and start with the balanced macro preset. That gives you a maintenance-style baseline anchored to TDEE + TEF (kcal) before you decide whether the goal needs a deficit or surplus.
If you care about body composition more than broad calorie planning, open the advanced panel before judging the equation choice. Katch-McArdle and Cunningham both react to lean body mass, so a reasonable body-fat entry makes those formulas more personal. If you change the formula, activity factor, and goal percentage all at once, it becomes much harder to tell which assumption actually moved the target.
TDEE + TEF (kcal) already looks unrealistic, fix Activity level before pushing Goal adjustment harder.Estimated weekly change shows a pace you could not sustain in training or appetite management, reduce the goal percentage before trying to solve it with macro ratios.Lean body mass does not appear, the tool can still run Katch-McArdle or Cunningham from its built-in fallback estimate, but the result is no longer based on your own body-fat input.BMI and the strategy map look harsher than your physique or sport context suggests, treat those outputs as background context rather than a verdict.The best trust check is what happens after two or three weeks: compare the plan against measured weight trend, gym performance, hunger, and recovery, then adjust the calorie target instead of chasing a new formula every few days.
The tool separates resting needs from whole-day needs. BMR (kcal) is the resting estimate from the chosen equation. TDEE (base, kcal) multiplies that estimate by the selected activity factor, and TEF (kcal) optionally adds a percentage uplift for digestion-related energy cost. The planning target is then created by applying Goal adjustment (%) to the post-TEF total.
Equation choice changes what the calculator treats as the main driver of resting needs. Mifflin-St Jeor and Revised Harris-Benedict use sex, age, body weight, and height. Katch-McArdle and Cunningham use lean body mass instead. When you provide a valid body-fat value between 0 and 70, lean body mass is derived from it. If you do not, the package still computes those lean-mass equations from a fallback assumption equal to 80% of body weight, which keeps the tool usable but makes the result less personal.
Macro planning is deterministic and simple. Protein is grams per kilogram using either body weight or lean body mass, fat is a chosen percentage of target calories, and carbohydrate receives whatever calories remain. If protein and fat already consume the whole target, carbohydrate is clamped to zero rather than going negative. The weekly change field is a rule-of-thumb projection from the calorie delta, not a physiology model.
The result views reflect that structure. Calorie Metrics focuses on the energy chain from BMR to target intake, Macro Targets converts the plan into grams and calories, Calorie Intake Outlook splits the daily energy picture into resting, activity, optional TEF, and goal adjustment, Macro Ratio Trends summarizes calorie share by macronutrient, and Calorie Strategy Map plots the current daily calorie delta against BMI bands. The JSON view exposes the same inputs and computed fields in a structured format. All calculations stay on your device, and the package has no network helper.
The package uses one predictive equation for resting energy, then applies the same downstream planning steps regardless of which equation you choose.
| Equation path | Primary inputs | How this package uses it |
|---|---|---|
| Mifflin-St Jeor | Sex, age, weight, height | Default resting estimate when you want a general starting point. |
| Revised Harris-Benedict | Sex, age, weight, height | Alternative weight-and-height equation for comparison against Mifflin-St Jeor. |
| Katch-McArdle | Lean body mass | Uses derived lean mass from body fat, or the built-in 80% body-weight fallback. |
| Cunningham | Lean body mass | Also uses derived lean mass or the same fallback estimate when body fat is missing. |
| Output | Boundary | Meaning in this package |
|---|---|---|
| BMI | < 18.5 | Underweight |
| BMI | ≥ 18.5 and < 25 | Normal |
| BMI | ≥ 25 and < 30 | Overweight |
| BMI | ≥ 30 | Obesity |
| Daily delta vs maintenance | ≤ -250 kcal | Deficit zone on the strategy map |
| Daily delta vs maintenance | > -250 and < 250 kcal | Maintenance zone on the strategy map |
| Daily delta vs maintenance | ≥ 250 kcal | Surplus zone on the strategy map |
Numeric output is stable for identical inputs. Heights are converted internally to centimeters, weights to kilograms, weekly change is also shown in the currently selected weight unit, and BMI is left blank if height or weight is not usable.
Use the calculator as a planning loop: establish maintenance, decide on a goal, then make sure the macro plan still looks realistic.
Age, Gender, Height, and Weight, including the correct units. Once those are valid, the summary and BMI field should populate instead of showing —.Activity level and a Formula. If you want a lean-mass-based estimate, open Advanced and add Body fat (%) before judging Katch-McArdle or Cunningham.TEF (thermic effect) and Goal adjustment only after maintenance looks sensible. Watch TDEE + TEF (kcal), Target calories (kcal), and the goal message update together.Macro preset or switch to custom values for Protein (g/kg), Protein basis, and Fat (%). Then open Macro Targets to confirm the split still matches your eating style.Calorie Metrics before trusting the plan. Compare Daily delta vs maintenance (kcal) with Estimated weekly change. If the projected pace looks too aggressive, reduce the goal percentage rather than forcing the macros to compensate.Calorie Strategy Map and JSON as final checks. If Carbohydrate falls to zero, your protein and fat settings already consume the whole target; lower one of those inputs and check the macro table again.A good outcome is not just a calculated target. It is a target you can follow consistently enough to test in the real world.
The most decision-relevant outputs are Target calories (kcal), Daily delta vs maintenance (kcal), and Estimated weekly change. Together they tell you the size and direction of the plan. The macro table then shows whether that calorie plan can be expressed in a way you would actually eat.
Target calories (kcal) is the planning intake. It is not proof that you will maintain, lose, or gain at exactly that number.Estimated weekly change is a fixed-rule projection from the calorie delta. Treat it as a pace estimate, then verify against several weeks of body-weight trend and training recovery.BMI and the strategy map add context, but they do not tell you whether body composition, sport demands, or health status make that plan appropriate.False confidence usually shows up when the math looks neat but the assumptions are loose. If switching formulas or activity levels changes the result a lot, pick one consistent setup and test that setup instead of averaging several conflicting predictions.
A 30-year-old male at 175 cm and 75 kg chooses Moderately Active, Mifflin-St Jeor, no TEF adjustment, and the balanced macro preset. The calculator returns about 2633 for TDEE + TEF (kcal) and the same value for Target calories (kcal), so Daily delta vs maintenance (kcal) is 0 and Estimated weekly change is effectively flat. The macro table lands near 135 g protein, 88 g fat, and 326 g carbohydrate, which is a practical maintenance template rather than an aggressive diet.
A 35-year-old female at 165 cm and 68 kg enters 24% body fat, selects Cunningham, sets TEF to 10%, applies a -15% goal adjustment, and uses a higher-protein setup based on lean body mass. The result shows about 51.68 kg for Lean body mass, roughly 2105 for Target calories (kcal), and about -0.34 kg/wk for Estimated weekly change. That is a real deficit, but still a moderate one. The useful reading is not just that the plan is lower than maintenance. It is that the lean-mass path and the weekly pace still look coherent together.
A 40-year-old male at 178 cm and 90 kg sets a 20% calorie reduction, then pushes Protein (g/kg) to 3.0 and Fat (%) to 70. The calculator still returns a valid calorie target, but Macro Targets shows Carbohydrate at 0 g. That is not a hidden low-carb recommendation. It is the package telling you that protein and fat already consumed the entire target. The corrective path is to lower the fat percentage or protein rate until the macro table reflects the pattern you actually meant to build.
No. BMR (kcal) is the resting estimate. TDEE (base, kcal) adds the selected activity factor, TEF (kcal) adds the optional digestion-related uplift, and Target calories (kcal) applies the goal percentage on top of that.
For a general first pass, Mifflin-St Jeor is the most straightforward starting point in this package. Use Katch-McArdle or Cunningham when you have a body-fat estimate you trust and want a lean-mass-sensitive comparison rather than a broad weight-and-height estimate.
The visible Lean body mass field only appears when Body fat (%) is a valid value between 0 and 70. If that field is blank, Katch-McArdle and Cunningham still run, but they use the package fallback estimate based on 80% of body weight.
Because the package converts the weekly calorie delta with one fixed rule. It is useful for scale and direction, but it is not a promise of exact fat loss or muscle gain. Check the projection against several weeks of real measurements before treating it as your expected pace.
Check units before anything else. A height entered in inches while cm is selected, or a body weight entered in pounds while kg is selected, will distort every downstream field. If BMI shows —, start with height and weight validity.