Skip to main content
FitCalcs

Step-by-Step Plans

2 plans that do the thing a single calculator cannot: take one specific body and carry it through every decision in order, from maintenance calories to the review date, showing the arithmetic and the collisions along the way.

The problem these solve

Individually, the calculators on this site work fine. Together, they leave you holding several numbers with no instructions. The TDEE calculator gives a maintenance figure. The calorie deficit calculator wants a rate. The protein calculator returns a gram target that may or may not fit inside the calorie target you just set. Nothing tells you which order to do them in, what to do when two of them disagree, or which of the answers is the one worth defending when something has to give.

That last question turns out to matter more than any single figure. In the fat-loss plan below, protein at 2 g per kilogram takes 41% of a 1,612 kcal budget, which leaves 956 kcal for everything else — a genuine collision between two calculators that each looked reasonable on its own. In the muscle-gain plan, the same step takes 18% and creates no problem at all. Order and context decide which numbers are constraints and which are suggestions.

How a plan differs from the other pages here

There are five formats on this site and each answers a different shape of question:

  • A calculator answers one question for one person — 14 of them, each self-contained.
  • A reference chart shows the whole range at once, for comparing rather than looking yourself up — 13 of them.
  • A guide explains the reasoning and the evidence behind a single concept — 10 of them.
  • A research page investigates something we could not find published anywhere — 4 of them.
  • A plan is the only end-to-end format. It fixes one body, makes every decision in sequence, and shows what each one costs the next.

How they are built

Every number on a plan page is computed at build time by the same functions that run inside the calculators. Nothing is hand-typed, which means the prose cannot drift away from the table beside it or from the tool you are sent to. If a formula on this site changes, the plans change with it.

The worked examples are deliberately specific — an actual age, height, weight, and activity level rather than a round-numbered average — because the interesting parts of a plan only appear at particular values. One of the two plans below hits the calorie floor at the rate most people would have picked; the other finds the two common surplus rules disagreeing by 251 kcal a day. Neither is visible from a template.

Each plan also states plainly what it cannot tell you, because a six-step plan built from estimates can look far more certain than it is. The plans are written and reviewed by Jesse, who is not a doctor or a dietitian, and the methodology page documents every formula involved along with its known limitations.

The plans

Two directions, the same six steps. Read the one that matches what you are trying to do, then substitute your own numbers.

The two plans side by side

Same steps, opposite directions, two different bodies. What is worth noticing is how much the shape of the problem changes: protein is the binding constraint in one column and an afterthought in the other, and in both cases the error bar on maintenance is wider than the deliberate adjustment made to it.

Every step of both plans, computed for their worked examples
StepFat-loss planMuscle-gain plan
Worked exampleWoman, 38, 165 cm, 82 kgMan, 24, 180 cm, 68 kg
Resting energy1,500 kcal1,690 kcal
Maintenance2,063 kcal2,620 kcal
Error bar on maintenance1,050 kcal1,183 kcal
Calorie target1,612 kcal2,745 kcal
Daily adjustment-451 kcal+125 kcal
Weekly change-0.41 kg (0.5%)+0.11 kg (0.17%)
Protein164 g (2 g/kg)122 g (1.8 g/kg)
Protein as share of intake41%18%
Carbohydrate and fat138 g and 45 g392 g and 76 g
Fluid2.9 L2.7 L

Weekly change is shown in kilograms and as a percentage of body weight. All figures are computed at build time from the site's own calculator functions; fat is set at 25% of calories in both plans and carbohydrate takes the remainder.

The two maintenance rows are the ones to take seriously. The fat-loss plan adjusts intake by 451 kcal a day and the muscle-gain plan by 125 kcal, while the gap between the lowest and highest activity multiplier is 1,050 and 1,183 kcal respectively — in one case more than twice the deliberate adjustment, in the other nearly ten times it. Every figure downstream inherits that uncertainty. It is why both plans end in a review loop rather than a finished target: the first four weeks are a measurement, not an execution.

A plan you wanted and did not find?

These are educational worked examples for healthy adults, not medical advice or a prescription for anyone in particular. If a plan skips a step you needed, or states something its cited source does not support, the contact page reaches a person who reads every message, and the editorial policy sets out how corrections are handled.