I’m pretty sure everybody is saying the same thing here (like….we are right?). I was coming from “no way is it as simple as cico”. Which….I guess it is actually that “simple”. The problem is that can’t really know calories out. And I’m not entirely sure what you get in a bomb calorimeter is the same as in your body so calories in are suspect too!
Joe
I don’t know if this is helpful but;
Well that is weird, but I also tracked my waist which hasn’t changed since the beginning of February and this morning I’ve lost 2cm since middle of last week
Works on Firefox for Android. Entering durations and intensities of training sessions makes the screen go to top and scroll down to where it used to be. Can be quite irritating.
The targets feel a little too high in my case. I’ve tracked calories before and the numbers I’m seeing are close to when I tried to gain weight while also training more. I’m quite sure I’m underfuelling from the tool’s perspective. Yet, my weight and body composition seem stable, with the only fluctuations coming from creatine periodization.
In my partner’s case, she’s way down on her calories. Like, 1000 kcal less than what the tool suggests. Her body seems quite stable as well and she’s a very good performer. I do think that she’s undereating, but not by that much. I think that she compensates with more sleep. Less food → less active hours. The body finds ways to cope.
I find the tool useful to catch a glimpse, but not for daily use, and not in isolation. You’d need some kind of a tracker to get a hold of your macros. I’d imagine that training hours are not consistent week to week for a lot of people, too.
As mentioned, a big turn off is the e-mail requirement. Subscribers should have a way to circumvent it.
What I’d find useful, would be the following: imagine that X% of your FTP can be fuelled by fat. The rest would require carbs. You can integrate that over a workout and arrive at a carb requirement for said workout. You could then have an info field, along with calories, IF, …, saying “This workout requires at least Y amount of carbs". To say “at least” here you’d need to take the highest reasonable value of X, i.e. assume you’re working with the most fat-adapted athlete there is, as you will have them on the platform: marathon runners, ultra distance runners/cyclists, …
I tried this. It seems simple enough. I was able to easily figure out the inputs and the results were what I expected. I am not sure if I will use it or not. I cook for me and my spouse and weighing things out would be a bit of a hassle especially with my busy schedule. I will likely keep this info handy as a quick reference though.
I guess I’m just still super confused about this whole “exercise burns calories” thing. Using that super expensive water, these guys found not much difference in the daily calorie burn of hunter gatherers vs. sedentary people. Exercise paradox - Wikipedia
What is up with that?
Joe
Try not to worry about it, and fuel your workouts 
I stumbled across that study too and I seem to remember that there was no mention on the body composition of the hadza people - i.e. they may very well burn through the same number of calories as sedentary people - but I bet they are a lot more lean….
Thanks for all of the feedback!
And yes, I was on vacation, hence the late response. 
#1 Issue: Calorie recommendations are too high
One thing I want to make clear is that the calculator’s recommendations are 100% science-based, NOT based on any of our individual opinions.
It is not using a basic CICO or BMR+Exercise approach. It is using the Energy Availability framework.
Put simply, the EA framework views nutrition intake from a perspective that aims to provide enough fuel for your fat-free mass (ie: muscles, bones, organs, endocrine function, etc.).
The 3 studies cited on the landing page of the calculator serve as ample scientific evidence of the Energy Availability framework, and the benchmarks in place are based on that research as well.
Personally speaking, when I first started using the Energy Availability framework (after years of measuring my calorie intake) I was 100% certain the calorie recommendations were too high. However, a prerequisite for using that framework is carefully managing your macros with controlled fat and protein intake, with carbohydrate intake being the main flexibility variable.
I usually tracked macros along with calories, but I was usually in too much of a deficit after big days and would make up for it on days thereafter, and in that pendulum swing would usually let my macro adherence slip in the pursuit of calories.
Since following the EA framework last year leading into Leadville and again this year, I can say that despite my initial certainty that it was too much, I’m not an exception to the research. In other words, it works for me (ie: body comp optimizes and performance on the bike increases without detrimental effects on health).
Not saying my experience represents that of anybody else, but I think it’s a good example of how tricky measuring calorie intake is when trying to hit calorie and macro goals with big calorie expenditures from training, and that higher carb intake is productive whereas just higher calorie intake can lead you astray.
That said, I don’t want this to turn into a CICO vs. X debate thread, so if there is desire to debate the validity of the Energy Availability framework, let’s start a different thread for that 
.
#2 Issue: Mandatory Email / Marketing Opt-In
For now, this tool is primarily meant to serve as a lead gen tool for us. We could build this functionality into the product in a much more integrated way in the future (syncing with all of your training, built in recommendations, etc.), but as of now, this is just meant to be a lead gen tool for us.
As a result, we won’t be making the email opt-in optional, but we will look into a way for it to remember if you have entered your email, allowing you to skip that step.
#3 Issue: Missing Inputs & Personalization
From the current body of published research, there isn’t a strong consensus yet on the impact of sex differences on Energy Availability thresholds. Disruption of the menstrual cycle is a useful early warning sign of low energy availability for women, but since men don’t have this, it’s harder to pinpoint if men’s needs are different. Empirical evidence seems to indicate that men generally take in less than suggested by the EA framework, but the same could be said for women as well, so it’s tricky and not yet conclusive.
With that in mind, we haven’t included gender as a filter, but may do so. We’ll keep monitoring and consulting with those doing the research and applying it in the field.
Age is another variable that was noted in the feedback here, but no specific guidance is in place with the EA framework in regards to age differences. One note is that typically you see lower calorie requirements for aging athletes due to loss of lean mass and lower activity levels. This calculator should control for that as it calculates your fat-free mass and has you input your activity levels.
For other activities like strength training, this is a current shortcoming of the calculator. Not sure how or if we will address this for now (maybe just wait for it to be integrated into the product for that?), but great to get the feedback.
#4 Carb-Timing / Day-Before Loading
I think this is another feature we’d add if/when this would be built into the product.
I’m a male, it has me around 1000 per day over what I know maintains my weight!
I believe that was only true to a certain point. Around 600-800 kcal if I remember correctly. Meaning that you have to hit that 800 kcal threshold before exercise burns calories for weight loss. If your exercise is only 500 kcal, then it doesn’t contribute to your daily allowance and your body adjusts.
For those stating the numbers appear too high, have you considered the adaptation by the body to whatever fuel you give it. Due to physiological evolution and survival. Energy expenditure is prioritised for exercise/biomechanics. Your body will simply reduce energy expenditure in other non essential activities such as bone turnover, hormone production, gastrointestinal motility and cognition. You may not be losing weight but you may still be low-key under fuelling.
Far better to overdo the calories on workout days in and around your sessions and cut back during down time from a RED-S point of view.
I’ve had several fractures and poor recovery for years and have come to accept my terrible fuelling despite being weight stable. I am a v low body fat though ~10-12% @5ft 11in/62kg.
Eat pasta ride faster 
@OatyPedaller Nailed it!
I know you don’t want to consider the accuraccy, but I believe that model has fudge factors for intensity and others. It seems like there should be some feedback just in case not every individual exaclty fits the one model. Science was all about 220 - your age too.
This looks good and the idea gave me more inputs in my own tracking. That said this focuses on purely optimizing your current body composition. In my case I’m trying to drop some weight while hoping to optimize the composition on the way.
Currently 78kg and looking to drop to around 74kg then maintain it there. I entered my current weight and I’m under eating apparently but when I put in the target weight, it’s just about right.
honestly, this. I was always underfueling but still hitting workouts so I didnt care. Fast forward a year, and it caught up to me in a bad way. Now I am digging myself out of a chronic fatigue hole while trying to avoid constant injuries and illness due to my body telling me enough was enough. Far better to eat more, than to realize when it’s too late that you didnt eat enough.
This is fantastic team! Thank you for adding this. This is something that is missing widely from training platforms. I already lost some weight from Jonathan post about FFM a few years ago so happy to something like this taking shape!
Bingo. Just because your weight is stable does not mean you’re eating enough calories. That sounds counterintuitive but the body will adapt over time to what it gets if the input is stable enough. I have personal experience with this.
For a long time I was taking Garmin’s estimate of calorie burn at face value and eating in accordance with it. Essentially 2000 calories. My weight was stable but I was constantly hungry, sleeping poorly and not progressing on the bike. Then I did a few TDEE tests online and every single one put me at 2400-2600 calories. I thought “this is ridiculous, I’ll get fat!”. Well, I didn’t. I kept up my strength training as I had always done, kept up my bike training and just added calories prioritizing protein on off-bike days and carbs on big bike days. I weigh the same as before (167lb or thereabouts) but muscle mass is now higher since my body finally got enough calories to build strength and recover properly. My weight is now stable at 2500* calories.
So my weight was stable at 1950-2000*. And my weight is now stable at 2500+* calories. My level of activity has not changed at all, only my nutrition has changed.
*plus ride calories of course
lose it has a way to adjust daily calorie targets as a “high days” but its a premium feature. it took some digging to find it. definitely not straightforward
Is there a way of generating a meal plan based on the results of the calculator ?
