The science behind NutriDiario

1. Default energy (kcal)

We estimate your starting calories from your weight and activity level, using a range of 25–35 kcal/kg/day (sedentary → active), drawn from clinical nutrition practice.

• Thibault R, et al. ESPEN guideline on hospital nutrition. Clinical Nutrition. 2021;40(12):5684–5709. DOI: 10.1016/j.clnu.2021.09.039
• FAO/WHO/UNU. Human energy requirements. Rome, 2004.

In fairness: the 25–35 kcal/kg range is originally described for clinical nutritional risk; using it by "activity level" is a practical convention, consistent in magnitude with FAO/WHO/UNU but not identical in methodology.

2. Basal metabolism (automatic calculation)

When we calculate your expenditure automatically we use the Mifflin-St Jeor equation, the most accurate validated equation for the general population.

• Mifflin MD, St Jeor ST, et al. A new predictive equation for resting energy expenditure in healthy individuals. Am J Clin Nutr. 1990;51(2):241–247. DOI: 10.1093/ajcn/51.2.241
• Frankenfield D, Roth-Yousey L, Compher C. Comparison of predictive equations for resting metabolic rate… a systematic review. J Am Diet Assoc. 2005;105(5):775–789. DOI: 10.1016/j.jada.2005.02.005

3. Default protein: 0.8 g/kg/day

Our protein default is the RDA for healthy adults: 0.8 g/kg/day (EAR 0.66; RDA 0.83 unrounded). It's a safe starting point you can raise if you do strength training or are in a caloric deficit.

• Rand WM, Pellett PL, Young VR. Meta-analysis of nitrogen balance studies for estimating protein requirements in healthy adults. Am J Clin Nutr. 2003;77(1):109–127. DOI: 10.1093/ajcn/77.1.109
• Institute of Medicine. Dietary Reference Intakes for Energy, Carbohydrate, Fiber, Fat, Fatty Acids, Cholesterol, Protein, and Amino Acids. National Academies Press; 2005. DOI: 10.17226/10490

For strength sport or lean-mass preservation, evidence supports raising it to 1.4–2.0 g/kg/day (Jäger et al., ISSN 2017, DOI: 10.1186/s12970-017-0177-8; Morton et al. 2018, BJSM, DOI: 10.1136/bjsports-2017-097608).

4. Macronutrient split

Default fat and carbohydrate ranges follow the AMDR (Acceptable Macronutrient Distribution Ranges): carbohydrates 45–65%, fats 20–35%, protein 10–35% of energy.

• Institute of Medicine. Dietary Reference Intakes (2005). DOI: 10.17226/10490

5. Micronutrients (RDA)

Vitamin and mineral targets are based on reference values from official bodies.

• EFSA NDA Panel. Dietary Reference Values for nutrients: Summary report. EFSA Supporting Publications. 2017;14(12):e15121. DOI: 10.2903/sp.efsa.2017.e15121
• Institute of Medicine / National Academies. Dietary Reference Intakes: The Essential Guide to Nutrient Requirements. 2006. DOI: 10.17226/11537

6. Fiber

Our fiber reference follows the adequate intake of 14 g per 1000 kcal (≈25 g/day for many people), associated with lower cardiovascular risk.

• Institute of Medicine. Dietary Reference Intakes (2005). DOI: 10.17226/10490

7. Gentle / ED-safe mode: why we hide the numbers

NutriDiario offers a mode that hides calories and figures and focuses on variety, colors and the enjoyment of eating. We offer it as harm reduction: research associates calorie counting with greater eating-disorder symptomatology in vulnerable people.

• Levinson CA, Fewell L, Brosof LC. My Fitness Pal calorie tracker usage in the eating disorders. Eating Behaviors. 2017;27:14–16. DOI: 10.1016/j.eatbeh.2017.08.003
• Simpson CC, Mazzeo SE. Calorie counting and fitness tracking technology… Eating Behaviors. 2017;26:89–92. DOI: 10.1016/j.eatbeh.2017.02.002
• Eikey EV. Effects of diet and fitness apps on eating disorder behaviours: qualitative study. BJPsych Open. 2021;7(5):e176. DOI: 10.1192/bjo.2021.1011

There is no formal clinical consensus mandating "hiding calories"; we present it as a design option aligned with harm-reduction literature and the documented risk pattern.

8. Why we prioritize tasty, realistic recipes

Our planner prioritizes enjoyable, sustainable meals over "perfect" but unrealistic combinations. The evidence is clear: adherence predicts the outcome more than the specific diet type.

• Dansinger ML, et al. Comparison of the Atkins, Ornish, Weight Watchers, and Zone Diets… JAMA. 2005;293(1):43–53. DOI: 10.1001/jama.293.1.43
• Johnston BC, et al. Comparison of Weight Loss Among Named Diet Programs… A Meta-analysis. JAMA. 2014;312(9):923–933. DOI: 10.1001/jama.2014.10397