Research & Methodology
The science behind every calculation in Nourli
Last evidence review: April 4, 2026
Key Points
- Every formula and constant is traced to peer-reviewed research or clinical guidelines
- 22 cited papers from journals including Science, BJSM, JADA, and WHO
- 33 safety warnings protect against extreme or potentially harmful goals
- Calculations are reviewed against the latest evidence periodically
- This is general wellness guidance -- not a substitute for medical advice
1.Our Approach
Nourli calculates your daily nutrition targets using established scientific formulas from peer-reviewed research. We believe you deserve to know exactly what science informs your goals and why we chose each formula.
Our calculation engine uses a two-tier system. Tier 1 uses your basic biometrics (age, sex, height, weight, activity level) with validated equations. Tier 2 optionally incorporates training details, daily steps, and body fat percentage for improved accuracy using MET-based calculations from the 2024 Compendium of Physical Activities.
Every constant, coefficient, and threshold in our calculations can be traced back to a specific paper, guideline, or clinical consensus listed on this page. Where exact values are interpolated from broader evidence (such as body-composition-based deficit limits), we note this transparently.
2.Methodology
Basal Metabolic Rate (BMR)
We use the Mifflin-St Jeor equation as the default BMR calculator, validated as the most accurate predictive equation for the general population by a 2005 systematic review (Frankenfield et al.). When body fat percentage is known, we switch to the Katch-McArdle equation, which uses lean body mass for superior accuracy in athletic populations.
Mifflin-St Jeor: 10 x weight(kg) + 6.25 x height(cm) - 5 x age + 5 (male) or -161 (female)
Katch-McArdle: 370 + 21.6 x lean body mass(kg)
Total Daily Energy Expenditure (TDEE)
We use a hybrid approach: without fitness data, standard activity multipliers estimate TDEE. With fitness data, we separate daily lifestyle activity (NEAT) from training (calculated using MET values from the 2024 Compendium of Physical Activities). The thermic effect of food is adjusted based on your macro distribution.
Protein Targets
Protein recommendations adapt to your goal and training status. During weight loss, targets range from 1.6 g/kg (no training) to 2.4 g/kg (strength training), based on the 2024 meta-analysis and Helms et al. 2014. For weight gain, 1.4-2.0 g/kg depending on training. Maintenance uses 1.2-1.6 g/kg. Adults 65+ receive a 20% increase per ESPEN/PROT-AGE guidelines for sarcopenia prevention.
Target Calories
Calorie targets are derived from TDEE plus/minus an energy adjustment based on your goal. Deficits are capped based on body composition (leaner individuals get smaller deficits to preserve muscle). Surpluses are capped at 500 kcal/day based on research showing larger surpluses primarily increase fat gain without additional muscle benefit.
Micronutrients & Hydration
Fiber follows the Dietary Guidelines for Americans (14g per 1,000 calories). Sodium uses the FDA guideline of 2,300 mg/day, increased for very active lifestyles. Sugar follows the WHO recommendation of <10% of calories. Water intake is based on the IOM adequate intake of 35 ml/kg/day with sex-based minimums (2,500ml males, 2,000ml females per EFSA), adjusted for activity level and training.
3.Research Papers
Below are the 23 peer-reviewed papers, clinical guidelines, and authoritative sources that inform our calculations. Each entry includes the specific finding we rely on and how it is applied.
Basal Metabolic Rate
Equations to estimate resting energy expenditure
A new predictive equation for resting energy expenditure in healthy individuals
1990Mifflin MD, St Jeor ST, Hill LA, Scott BJ, Daugherty SA, Koh YO. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition
The Mifflin-St Jeor equation predicts resting metabolic rate within 10% of measured values in 70-82% of individuals, outperforming Harris-Benedict and other equations across diverse populations.
Comparison of predictive equations for resting metabolic rate in healthy nonobese and obese adults: a systematic review
2005Frankenfield D, Roth-Yousey L, Compher C. Journal of the American Dietetic Association
Systematic review confirming Mifflin-St Jeor as the most reliable equation, predicting RMR within 10% for more individuals than Harris-Benedict, Owen, or WHO equations.
Nutrition, Weight Control, and Exercise
1977Katch FI, McArdle WD
The Katch-McArdle equation (370 + 21.6 x lean body mass in kg) shows superior accuracy in athletic populations with correlation coefficients of 0.85-0.92 against indirect calorimetry.
Daily energy expenditure through the human life course
2021Pontzer H, Yamada Y, Sagayama H, et al.. Science
Analysis of 6,421 individuals across 29 countries found fat-free-mass-adjusted metabolism is stable from ages 20-60, then declines ~0.7% per year after 60. This challenged the conventional belief in middle-age metabolic decline.
Energy Expenditure
Activity multipliers, MET values, and thermic effect of food
2024 Adult Compendium of Physical Activities: A third update of the energy costs of human activities
2024Ainsworth BE, Haskell WL, Herrmann SD, et al.. Journal of Sport and Health Science
Comprehensive update with 1,114 physical activities (912 measured, 202 estimated) across 22 categories. Specific MET values used: resistance training 3.5-6.0, HIIT 7.0-11.0, running 7.5-10.5.
The effects of high protein diets on thermogenesis, satiety and weight loss: a critical review
2004Halton TL, Hu FB. Journal of the American College of Nutrition
TEF percentages: protein 20-30%, carbohydrates 5-10%, fat 0-3%. Higher protein diets increase thermogenesis and satiety compared to lower protein diets.
Non-exercise activity thermogenesis (NEAT)
2002Levine JA. Best Practice & Research Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism
NEAT varies by up to 2000 kcal/day between individuals. Separating NEAT from exercise thermogenesis provides more accurate TDEE estimates for active individuals.
Protein Requirements
Optimal protein intake for different goals and populations
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
2018Morton RW, Murphy KT, McKellar SR, et al.. British Journal of Sports Medicine
Meta-analysis of 49 RCTs (n=1,863): protein supplementation beyond 1.62 g/kg/day resulted in no further resistance training-induced gains in fat-free mass. Age reduces and training experience increases the efficacy of protein supplementation.
A systematic review of dietary protein during caloric restriction in resistance trained lean athletes: a case for higher intakes
2014Helms ER, Zinn C, Rowlands DS, Brown SR. International Journal of Sport Nutrition and Exercise Metabolism
Systematic review of lean, resistance-trained athletes in caloric restriction: protein needs are 2.3-3.1 g/kg fat-free mass, scaled upward with severity of caloric restriction and leanness.
Evidence-based recommendations for optimal dietary protein intake in older people: a position paper from the PROT-AGE Study Group
2013Bauer J, Biolo G, Cederholm T, et al. (PROT-AGE Study Group). Journal of the American Medical Directors Association
Healthy older adults need 1.0-1.2 g/kg/day protein; those who are ill or malnourished need 1.2-1.5 g/kg/day. Higher intakes help prevent sarcopenia (age-related muscle loss).
Changes in kidney function do not differ between healthy adults consuming higher- compared with lower- or normal-protein diets: a systematic review and meta-analysis
2018Devries MC, Sithamparapillai A, Brimble KS, Banfield L, Morton RW, Phillips SM. Journal of Nutrition
Meta-analysis of 28 studies (n=1,358): high-protein intakes do not adversely influence kidney function (GFR) in healthy adults. All rates consistent with normal kidney function.
Enhanced protein intake on maintaining muscle mass, strength, and physical function in adults with overweight/obesity
2024Various (systematic review). Clinical Nutrition ESPEN
Protein intakes above approximately 1.3 g/kg/day represent a meaningful tipping point for muscle retention during energy restriction in adults with overweight/obesity.
Energy Balance & Weight Change
Caloric deficit/surplus, weight loss rates, and body composition
Caloric equivalents of gained or lost weight
1958Wishnofsky M. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition
Established that approximately 7,700 kcal (3,500 kcal/lb) corresponds to one kilogram of body weight, derived from adipose tissue being ~87% lipid at 9,000 kcal/kg.
Effect of two different weight-loss rates on body composition and strength and power-related performance in elite athletes
2011Garthe I, Raastad T, Refsnes PE, Koivisto A, Sundgot-Borgen J. International Journal of Sport Nutrition and Exercise Metabolism
Athletes losing weight slowly (0.7% body weight/week) gained lean body mass while losing fat, compared to the fast-loss group (1.4% BW/week) which lost significantly more lean mass.
Nutrition recommendations for bodybuilders in the off-season: a narrative review
2019Iraki J, Fitschen P, Espinar S, Helms E. Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition
Recommended caloric surplus of 300-500 kcal/day for muscle gain. More conservative surpluses (200-300 kcal) may be more appropriate for highly trained athletes.
Effect of small and large energy surpluses on strength, muscle, and skinfold thickness in resistance-trained individuals
2023Ribeiro AS, Nunes JP, Schoenfeld BJ, et al.. Nutrients
Athletes consuming ~600 kcal/day surplus had fivefold greater fat mass increase with no additional strength or lean body mass gains compared to smaller surplus group.
Micronutrients & Hydration
Fiber, sodium, sugar, and water intake guidelines
Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 2020-2025
2020U.S. Department of Agriculture and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. DietaryGuidelines.gov (9th Edition)
Recommends 14g fiber per 1,000 calories (38g/day men, 25g/day women), sodium limit of 2,300 mg/day for adults, and identifies fiber as a nutrient of concern due to widespread under-consumption.
Guideline: Sugars intake for adults and children
2015World Health Organization. WHO Publication
Strong recommendation to reduce free sugars to <10% of total energy intake. Conditional recommendation for further reduction to <5% (~25g/day) for additional health benefits including reduced dental caries risk.
Scientific opinion on dietary reference values for water
2010European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). EFSA Journal
Adequate intake: 2.0L/day for females, 2.5L/day for males at moderate physical activity. Based on observed intakes with desirable urine osmolarity values.
Dietary Reference Intakes for Water, Potassium, Sodium, Chloride, and Sulfate
2005Institute of Medicine (IOM). National Academies Press
Adequate intake for water: 30-40 ml/kg/day. Carbohydrate RDA of 130g/day based on average brain glucose utilization, though the brain can also use ketones for up to 70% of energy needs.
Safety & Medical Thresholds
Minimum intakes, maximum rates, and health risk boundaries
Gallstone formation and weight loss
2006Festi D, Colecchia A, Orsini M, et al.. World Journal of Gastroenterology
Weight loss exceeding 1.5 kg/week significantly increases gallstone risk with 15-25 fold higher incidence compared to general obese population. Gallstones can form within 4 weeks of rapid weight loss.
Very low-calorie diets
1993National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK). NIDDK Health Information
VLCDs (<800 kcal/day) require medical supervision. Conventional hypocaloric diets of 1,200-1,500 kcal/day for females and 1,500-1,800 kcal/day for males are the standard clinical thresholds.
Low-fat diets and testosterone in men: systematic review and meta-analysis of intervention studies
2021Whigham LD, et al. (meta-analysis). Journal of Steroid Biochemistry and Molecular Biology
Systematic review found low-fat diets significantly decreased total testosterone, free testosterone, and dihydrotestosterone in men compared to high-fat diets.
4.Safety Mechanisms
Our calculation engine includes multiple layers of safety protections. These are not optional features -- they are hard-coded limits that cannot be bypassed, even with custom settings.
Minimum calorie floors
1,200 kcal/day for females, 1,500 kcal/day for males -- our system will never recommend below these clinical thresholds.
Body composition-aware deficits
Leaner individuals receive smaller calorie deficits (10-15%) compared to those with higher body fat (up to 30%), preserving muscle mass.
Maximum pace rejection
Weight loss goals exceeding 2 kg/week are rejected entirely due to medical risks including gallstones, electrolyte imbalance, and severe muscle loss.
Protein optimization
Protein targets are automatically increased during weight loss to preserve lean tissue, based on peer-reviewed evidence.
Fat minimum enforcement
Dietary fat is never set below 0.5 g/kg body weight to protect hormonal health, regardless of macro distribution preferences.
33 safety warnings
A comprehensive warning system with critical, warning, and informational alerts covers extreme diets, aggressive timelines, and nutritional edge cases.
5.Limitations
We are transparent about what our calculations can and cannot do:
- BMR equations predict resting metabolic rate within approximately 10% of measured values in 70-82% of individuals. Individual variation exists.
- Activity multipliers are clinical consensus estimates, not individually validated. Your actual TDEE may differ.
- The 7,700 kcal/kg energy density of body weight is an approximation. Actual values vary dynamically, especially in early weight loss.
- Protein recommendations are optimized for fitness-conscious adults. Medical conditions (kidney disease, metabolic disorders) require professional guidance.
- Micronutrient targets (fiber, sodium, sugar, water) follow population-level guidelines. Individual needs may vary based on health conditions and medications.
- These calculations are for adults 18+ only. They are not validated for children, adolescents, pregnant or lactating women, or individuals with eating disorders.
6.Review Process
Our calculation engine is periodically reviewed against the latest scientific evidence. This process involves:
- Searching PubMed, Google Scholar, and clinical guidelines databases for new meta-analyses and systematic reviews
- Cross-referencing our constants against updated compendiums (such as the Compendium of Physical Activities)
- Verifying safety thresholds against current clinical practice guidelines from organizations including WHO, FDA, ESPEN, and ISSN
- Running our full test suite (287+ automated tests) to verify any updates maintain calculation integrity
The date at the top of this page reflects when our calculations were last verified against current evidence. If you are a researcher or healthcare professional and believe any of our calculations should be updated, please contact us.
Questions About Our Methodology?
We welcome feedback from researchers, healthcare professionals, and users.
Contact Ussupport@nourli.health