Every target, range, and rating in Hitt Fitness carries a label that tells you where it came from. This page explains exactly how that works — and the line we refuse to cross.
Most apps hand you a number and hope you trust it. We do the opposite: each number is tagged one of two ways, so you always know how much weight it deserves.
Here's how the defaults you see on the Coach screen are classified, and the reasoning behind each.
| Target | Default | Label | Why |
|---|---|---|---|
| Protein | ~1.6 g/kg/day | Peer-reviewed | The point where added protein stops meaningfully increasing muscle gain in most people; higher in aggressive deficits. |
| Fiber | ~14 g / 1,000 kcal | Peer-reviewed | Intake associated with lower cardiovascular and metabolic risk across large prospective studies. |
| Energy (calories) | Mifflin-St Jeor RMR × activity | Peer-reviewed | Among the most accurate resting-metabolic-rate prediction equations for the general population. |
| Fat floor | ~0.6 g/kg minimum | Peer-reviewed | Enough to support hormone production and fat-soluble vitamin absorption. |
| Carbohydrate split | Remaining energy after protein & fat | Convention | A sensible default once the evidenced macros are set — the exact percentage isn't a law. |
| Meal distribution | 3–4 meals/day | Convention | Practical and common; total daily intake matters far more than a strict per-meal schedule. |
The supplement aisle is designed to make everything look equally credible. We un-flatten that with a four-tier scale based on the strength of the evidence — and when a product is weak, we point you to a food alternative instead.
Robust, replicated evidence. Example: creatine monohydrate, ~5 g/day.
Reasonable support with caveats. Example: omega-3 (1–2 g EPA+DHA), select probiotics.
Mixed or thin evidence; whole food usually does it better. Example: most multivitamins, joint blends.
Claims not supported by quality research. Example: "test booster" blends.
For bloodwork, Hitt Fitness compares each marker against an optimal and an acceptable range drawn from established clinical guidance, then shows a status badge — Low, Optimal, Borderline, or High — with a short, actionable note. These ranges are educational and population-level; they are not a diagnosis, and individual context (set by your clinician) always wins.
Not everything in nutrition is settled, and pretending otherwise is how bad advice spreads. A macro split has to start somewhere, so we pick a sensible default and label it honestly. That transparency is a feature: it tells you which numbers are bedrock (defend them) and which are flexible (experiment freely).
Science moves. As the research base shifts, a default or its label can change — a "convention" can earn "peer-reviewed" status, or a recommendation can be revised. Our labels reflect our reasonable interpretation of the available evidence at the time, and they're never a guarantee of any outcome.
No faked citations. No borrowed authority. Numbers you can reason about, labeled by how much they've earned your trust — so the plan stays yours.
We welcome scrutiny — that's the whole point. Email hello@hittfitness.com, or read the deeper dive in Why we label every number on the blog.