House Skol · Nutrition5 min read

Maintenance calories without an app

Two honest ways to find the number — a formula you can do on paper, and a bathroom scale that outranks it. No wearable required.

Skol & Hati Editorial — every stat carries a named source
PUBLISHED 2026-08-15 · UPDATED 2026-08-15 · 6 SOURCES
XSummarize with AIChatGPTClaudePerplexity
The short answer
Maintenance calories are whatever intake holds your weight steady. Draft the number with Mifflin-St Jeor — roughly 1,733 kcal resting for a 40-year-old, 5 ft 10 in, 180 lb man — then confirm it with 14 morning weigh-ins at your normal intake. The scale trend beats every formula, and a watch's burn number misses by 27% or more.
A pencil and closed pocket notebook resting on a plain bathroom scale on tile in morning light

01What are maintenance calories?

Maintenance is the intake at which your weight holds steady — the reference line every cut, bulk, or recomp is measured against. Apps sell you this number with decimal-point confidence. You can build a better one with a pencil and a bathroom scale, and you'll know exactly how much to trust each digit.

TOOL 1 — THE DRAFTMIFFLIN-ST JEOR, ON PAPER
TOOL 2 — THE VERDICTTWO-WEEK SCALE TREND
NOT A TOOLYOUR WATCH'S BURN NUMBER
A plain bathroom scale on ceramic tile with a cloth tape measure draped across one corner

02How do you estimate maintenance with Mifflin-St Jeor?

Start with resting metabolic rate — what you'd burn doing nothing all day. The Mifflin-St Jeor equation, built from indirect-calorimetry measurements of 498 adults, is the pencil version [1]: bodyweight in kg times 10, plus height in cm times 6.25, minus age in years times 5, then plus 5 for men or minus 161 for women [1].

StepMathRunning total
Bodyweight — 81.6 kg (180 lb) × 10+816816
Height — 178 cm (5 ft 10 in) × 6.25+1,112.51,928.5
Age — 40 y × 5, subtracted−2001,728.5
Sex constant — men+5≈1,733 KCAL
MIFFLIN-ST JEOR [1] · WOMEN: SAME MATH, −161 INSTEAD OF +5

A systematic review put the four most-used formulas head-to-head; Mifflin-St Jeor was the most reliable — the most likely to land within 10% of a measured value, with the narrowest error range [2]. The century-old Harris-Benedict runs about 5% hot against measurement [1]. But read the best case honestly: 10% of that 1,733 is ±170 kcal, before you've guessed at activity. An equation gets you the neighborhood, not the address.

Two ideas like this, every Thursday. One day, one night. Free.

03Why do activity multipliers fail?

Resting burn isn't maintenance — every calculator multiplies it by an activity factor, and this is where estimates go to die, because the factor is a self-graded adjective. The government's own calorie table makes the stakes plain: for a 40-year-old man, sedentary reads 2,400 kcal, moderately active 2,600, active 2,800 [3]. One honest disagreement about your own week moves the target 200–400 kcal.

2,400 → 2,800 KCAL — ONE MAN, THREE ADJECTIVES
ESTIMATED CALORIE NEEDS TABLE — HHS/USDA, DIETARY GUIDELINES FOR AMERICANS [3]

And the adjectives are stricter than they feel: moderately active already means the equivalent of walking 1.5–3 miles a day on top of normal life [3]. Most desk weeks are sedentary by the table's own footnote. So pick the lower adjective, call the result a draft, and let the scale vote.

04How does the two-week scale method work?

Weigh in every morning for two weeks — same scale, same conditions — while eating the way you actually eat and writing down roughly what goes in. The office cake, the kids' leftovers, all of it: that's the life the number has to fit. Average week one. Average week two. If the averages match, your logged intake is your maintenance — measured on your body, your commute, your kitchen. If the trend moved, adjust intake 100–200 kcal against the drift and run it again.

WEIGH-INS14 MORNINGS
COMPAREWK-1 AVG VS WK-2 AVG
MATCHTHAT INTAKE = MAINTENANCE
DRIFT±100–200 KCAL, RERUN

This beats every formula for one reason: it isn't a prediction. It's a measurement of the only subject who matters. One warning from the modeling literature — bodyweight answers intake changes slowly, with half-times around a year, and the old 3,500-kcal-per-pound rule ignores that adaptation and has led to drastically overestimated expectations [4]. Use the trend to steer your next 100–200 kcal step, not to forecast a February version of yourself.

Small smooth pebbles lined up on a white windowsill in warm morning light

05Can you trust your watch's calorie burn?

No — and this is measured, not opinion. In a Stanford validation of seven wrist-worn devices against indirect calorimetry, none estimated energy expenditure within 20%; median errors ran from 27% on the best device to 93% on the worst [5]. A systematic review spanning 158 studies reached the blunt version: for energy expenditure, no brand was accurate [6].

27–93% — MEDIAN CALORIE-BURN ERROR, BEST TO WORST OF SEVEN WEARABLES
VALIDATION STUDY, N=60 — SHCHERBINA ET AL., J PERS MED, 2017 [5]

Steps and heart rate hold up far better in the same review [6] — wear the watch for those. But a burn number that can miss by a quarter is not an input to arithmetic. If your maintenance came from the two-week trend, your training is already priced in. Nothing to eat back, nothing to sync.

Common questions
What's the fastest way to find maintenance calories?+
The draft: Mifflin-St Jeor plus the lower activity adjective, 2 minutes with a pencil [1]. The verdict: 14 morning weigh-ins at your normal intake. Start eating at the draft number and let the trend correct it — the two tools were built to run in sequence.
How accurate is Mifflin-St Jeor?+
The most reliable of the common equations — most likely to land within 10% of a lab measurement, with the narrowest error range [2]. That's still a real window, and it says nothing about your activity. Formulas draft; scales decide.
Should I eat back the calories my watch says I burned?+
No. In direct validation, no tested device estimated calorie burn within 20% [5], and across 158 studies no brand was accurate for energy expenditure [6]. If maintenance came from your scale trend, training is already inside the number.
Sources
EVERY STAT ABOVE LINKS TO ONE OF THESE
[1]Mifflin MD, St Jeor ST, Hill LA, Scott BJ, Daugherty SA, Koh YO. A new predictive equation for resting energy expenditure in healthy individuals. Am J Clin Nutr, 1990. · academic.oup.com
[2]Frankenfield D, Roth-Yousey L, Compher C. Comparison of predictive equations for resting metabolic rate in healthy nonobese and obese adults: a systematic review. J Am Diet Assoc, 2005.
[3]U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and U.S. Department of Agriculture. Appendix 2: Estimated Calorie Needs per Day, by Age, Sex, and Physical Activity Level. Dietary Guidelines for Americans. health.gov, accessed 2026-08.
[4]Hall KD, Sacks G, Chandramohan D, et al. Quantification of the effect of energy imbalance on bodyweight. Lancet, 2011. · thelancet.com
[5]Shcherbina A, Mattsson CM, Waggott D, et al. Accuracy in wrist-worn, sensor-based measurements of heart rate and energy expenditure in a diverse cohort. J Pers Med, 2017.
[6]Fuller D, Colwell E, Low J, et al. Reliability and validity of commercially available wearable devices for measuring steps, energy expenditure, and heart rate: systematic review. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth, 2020.
General-audience information — not medical advice. No affiliate links in this breakdown. Last updated 2026-08-15.