You've tried different calorie targets for years. One app said 1,500. An online calculator said 2,200. Your friend follows 1,800. Meanwhile, you're not losing weight, gaining muscle, or feeling energized.
Here's the truth - most calculators are guessing. They use outdated formulas or treat everyone the same. A nurse walking 20,000 steps gets the same calories as an office worker walking to the bathroom.
We fixed this.
When building Mofilo, we tested everything. Harris-Benedict from 1919 (seriously, 1919). The WHO equations. Katch-McArdle for the bodybuilders.
Then we found the research. A 2005 systematic review compared all the major formulas [1]. The winner? Mifflin-St Jeor predicted within 10% accuracy for more people than any other equation.
Is it perfect? No. Nothing is. But it's the most reliable starting point we have.
Here's the actual math if you're curious.
Men: (10 × weight in kg) + (6.25 × height in cm) - (5 × age) + 5
Women: (10 × weight in kg) + (6.25 × height in cm) - (5 × age) - 161
This gives you BMR. What you'd burn in a coma. Not super useful alone.
This is where most apps fail. They give you four vague options and call it done.
We ask real questions.
Then we calculate your actual multiplier.
Sedentary (under 5,000 steps, desk job): BMR × 1.2 Lightly active (7,500 steps OR 1-3 gym days): BMR × 1.375 Moderately active (10,000 steps OR 3-5 training days): BMR × 1.55 Very active (manual labor OR 6+ hard training days): BMR × 1.725 Extremely active (athlete or construction worker who also trains): BMR × 1.9
Not sure? Start conservative. Better to underestimate and adjust up than overshoot and wonder why you're not losing.
Maintenance calories tell you nothing about change. You're here to transform.
We typically start with 15-20% below maintenance. For most people, that's 300-500 calories. Enough to lose 1-2 pounds weekly without feeling like death.
Aggressive deficit? Sure, we can do 25-30%. But you better be ready for hunger, crappy workouts, and your coworkers asking if you're okay.
Add 10-15% above maintenance. About 200-400 calories. Any more and you're just getting fat with extra steps.
Some guys think they need 1,000 extra calories to bulk. They don't. They need patience and consistency.
Stay at maintenance or slightly below. Progress crawls but it's sustainable. Good for people who look fine but want to look better.
Your initial calculation? It's educated guesswork. Good guesswork based on research, but still guesswork.
The magic happens after two weeks.
Eating your target calories but losing faster than expected? Your metabolism runs hot. We bump up calories.
Weight stuck despite perfect tracking? Your body's more efficient than average. We adjust down.
This is where Mofilo beats static calculators. We learn your actual metabolism, not what some equation thinks it should be.
Calories determine weight change. Macros determine what kind of weight.
We start with proven ratios.
Cutting: Higher protein (40%), moderate carbs (30%), moderate fat (30%) Building: Balanced protein (30%), higher carbs (40%), moderate fat (30%) Maintaining: Even split (30-35% each)
But here's the key - protein stays priority. We set it at 0.7-1.2g per pound first, then divide the rest between carbs and fats based on your preference.
Why? Because losing 10 pounds of fat is different from losing 10 pounds including muscle. One makes you look better. The other makes you look sick.
After two weeks of honest tracking, here's what to look for.
Losing 1-2 pounds weekly? Perfect. Don't touch anything.
Losing 3+ pounds? Too fast unless you're very overweight. Add 100-200 calories.
Losing less than 1 pound? Could push harder if you want faster results.
Weight stable when cutting? Time to reassess. Either your tracking is off or metabolism adapted.
But weight isn't everything. Energy matters. Performance matters. Mood matters.
Hitting weight goals but feel terrible? Calories might be too low. Feel great but scale won't budge? Might need to push harder.
The sweet spot is progress with sustainability.
Some people's metabolism doesn't follow the rules. Medication, thyroid issues, PCOS, menopause, chronic dieting history - all can throw off predictions.
If you're tracking honestly for 3-4 weeks and results don't match expectations, the equation isn't gospel. Your real-world data is.
This is why our adjustment system exists. We don't force you into a formula. We use the formula as a starting point, then let reality guide the adjustments.
Mofilo uses Mifflin-St Jeor because research shows it works for most people. We factor in your actual activity because generic multipliers are useless. We adjust based on results because your metabolism is unique.
The initial calculation gets you started. Your tracked data gets you results.
Stop guessing. Start knowing.
Every calorie calculator on the internet gives you a number and abandons you. Mofilo gives you a starting point and then learns.
We chose Mifflin-St Jeor because the research backs it. We ask about your real activity because categories are bullshit. We adjust based on your results because your metabolism doesn't care what equations say.
The truth is, no formula perfectly predicts your needs. But starting with good science and adjusting with real data beats guessing every time.
Your metabolism is unique. Now you have a system that treats it that way.
A 2005 research review tested them all. Mifflin-St Jeor won. It predicted within 10% accuracy more often than Harris-Benedict, Owen, or WHO equations [1]. Good enough for us.
Count your steps. Consider your job. Add your workouts. When in doubt, go lower. You can always increase.
Trust it for two weeks. If you're tracking honestly and results don't match, your metabolism is different than average. That's normal. Adjust based on what actually happens.
No. Your activity multiplier already includes them. Eating them back means counting twice.
Every 10 pounds lost, major activity changes, or when progress stalls for 2+ weeks. Otherwise, let the adjustment system handle it.
[1] Frankenfield D, et al. (2005). "Comparison of predictive equations for resting metabolic rate in healthy nonobese and obese adults." J Am Diet Assoc, 105(5), 775-789.
[2] Mifflin MD, et al. (1990). "A new predictive equation for resting energy expenditure in healthy individuals." Am J Clin Nutr, 51(2), 241-247.
The information provided in this article is for general informational and educational purposes only. It is not intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. Always seek the advice of your physician, physical therapist, or other qualified health provider with any questions you may have regarding a medical condition or fitness program.
While we strive to provide accurate and up-to-date information, we make no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, about the completeness, accuracy, reliability, suitability, or availability of the information contained in this article. Any reliance you place on such information is strictly at your own risk.
External links and references are provided for informational purposes only; they do not constitute an endorsement of any products, services, or opinions of the corporation, organization, or individual. The accessibility of external sources cannot be guaranteed as they are maintained by third parties.
Please note the date of last review or update on all articles. The content may not reflect the most current research or developments in the field.