{"id":4706,"date":"2023-09-27T08:00:00","date_gmt":"2023-09-27T08:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/macrofactor.com\/?p=4706"},"modified":"2025-09-12T19:40:27","modified_gmt":"2025-09-12T23:40:27","slug":"adherence-neutral","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/macrofactor.com\/adherence-neutral\/","title":{"rendered":"What Do We Mean When We Call MacroFactor “Adherence Neutral”?"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

We sometimes refer to MacroFactor as an \u201cadherence neutral\u201d app, and you might be wondering what we mean when we use that term. So, this article will cover the topic as directly as possible, and discuss why<\/em> we have an adherence-neutral philosophy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Adherence refers to how closely someone sticks to their nutrition targets. It\u2019s easy to say you want to be in an energy deficit and lose weight, but it\u2019s considerably harder to actually stick to an energy deficit for a long enough period to successfully meet your weight loss goals.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Unsurprisingly, dietary adherence is a strong predictor of successful weight loss. A seminal 2005 study<\/a> by Dansinger and colleagues illustrates this point beautifully. 160 subjects were randomized into four groups following very different diets (Atkins, Zone, Weight Watchers, and Ornish) for one year. For the first two months, they were instructed to follow their assigned diet \u201cto the best of their ability.\u201d For the next ten months, they were encouraged to \u201cfollow their assigned diet according to their own self-determined interest level.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

At the end of the year, subjects in each group lost about 2-3.5kg, on average. All four diets seemed to promote similar amounts of weight loss.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"One-year<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

However, on a group level, all of the weight loss occurred within the first two months; for the last 10 months of the year, subjects actually gained<\/em> a small amount of weight.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"Body<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

This decrease in weight loss success coincided with worse dietary adherence on a group level \u2013 for the first two months, dietary adherence was rated to be about 6-7 (on a 10-point scale, where 10 denotes perfect adherence), but by the end of the year, average dietary adherence had dropped to a rating of about 2-4.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"Mean<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Furthermore, individual adherence to the assigned diet was strongly predictive of weight loss success \u2013 subjects in all four diet groups lost considerably more weight if their dietary adherence was higher.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"One-year<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Subsequent<\/a> research<\/a> on the topic has had broadly similar findings: dietary adherence is an absolutely critical factor of weight loss success. For what it\u2019s worth, I\u2019m sure<\/em> that dietary adherence is similarly important for weight gain and weight maintenance, but it\u2019s mostly been studied in a weight loss context.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

So, with that context established, what does it mean to be \u201cadherence neutral?\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Adherence neutrality refers to a lack of functional and visual elements within MacroFactor that would attempt to cajole people into adhering to their diet, or that would shame people for not adhering to their diet. Basically, nothing about MacroFactor will tell you that you\u2019re doing something bad if you don\u2019t adhere to your diet, and nothing about MacroFactor\u2019s coaching functionality will work differently if you don\u2019t adhere to your diet.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Since adherence is so important for reaching your dietary goals, our adherence-neutral philosophy might seem a bit confusing at first. So, this article will attempt to clear up that confusion, and explain why an adherence-neutral philosophy actually increases the likelihood that you\u2019ll reach your goals.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This adherence-neutral philosophy primarily shows up two ways in MacroFactor: a lack of shame-based visual elements when someone eats a \u201cbad\u201d food or exceeds their calorie or macronutrient targets, and a lack of coaching elements that would attempt to make people \u201ccompensate\u201d for not sticking to their dietary targets.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Neutral design<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Unlike many nutrition apps, MacroFactor won\u2019t provide negative feedback if you eat foods that are algorithmically determined to be \u201cbad\u201d (typically foods high in sugar or saturated fat), or if you exceed your calorie or macronutrient allotments for the day or week. These negative, shame-based visual elements show up in different ways in different apps, but they\u2019re pretty pervasive. Maybe the numbers denoting your calorie intake for the day turn red if you exceed your calorie target. Maybe foods will be labeled with smiley faces or frowny faces based on whether an app deems them to be \u201cgood\u201d or \u201cbad\u201d foods. Maybe a warning will pop up on screen if you\u2019re about to log a food that would put you over your calorie target for the day, or if you\u2019re about to log a food that\u2019s high in sugar or sodium or saturated fat.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

You won\u2019t find any of that in MacroFactor.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

At first, that may seem counterintuitive. If adherence is so important for dietary success, why wouldn\u2019t MacroFactor forcefully alert people if they\u2019re not adhering to their nutrition targets, or if they\u2019re eating foods that aren\u2019t in keeping with their dietary goals?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

On the most basic level, these visual elements are almost never particularly informative. If eating something puts you over your calorie target for the day, that will be obvious to people that know how numbers work. You\u2019ll see your calorie target for the day, you\u2019ll see your calorie intake for the day, and it\u2019ll be pretty easy to determine which number is bigger. You don\u2019t need a warning or bold red number alerting you to that fact. Similarly, most people have a reasonable idea of good food choices \u2013 you don\u2019t need a frowny face or pop-up warning to tell you that sugar-sweetened soda, bacon, or cake aren\u2019t \u201cdiet food.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

These visual elements also simply wouldn\u2019t be appropriate for a lot of MacroFactor users. They\u2019re designed to cajole you into eating less or avoiding energy-dense foods, but not everyone is trying to lose weight. MacroFactor is a nutrition app, not solely a weight loss app, and plenty of people use it for the purpose of weight gain or weight maintenance. If you\u2019re aiming to maintain your weight, being 100 calories above your calorie target isn\u2019t inherently worse than being 100 calories below your calorie target. If you\u2019re trying to gain weight, there\u2019s certainly nothing wrong with exceeding your calorie target, and energy-dense foods may actually help you reach your nutritional goals. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Furthermore, these elements can encourage binary thinking and rigid cognitive restraint<\/em>, which are predictive of worse<\/em> dietary adherence and long-term results. Flexible cognitive restraint<\/em>, which is characterized by less black-and-white thinking about food choices and dietary adherence, is predictive of greater weight loss, healthier eating patterns, and better weight loss maintenance (one<\/a>, two<\/a>, three<\/a>, four<\/a>). In essence, people who rigidly view foods as either \u201cgood\u201d or \u201cbad,\u201d or treat dietary adherence as a binary determination of being \u201con diet\u201d or \u201coff diet,\u201d tend to struggle with reaching their dietary goals and maintaining their results. With this sort of rigid mindset, you\u2019re either succeeding or failing \u2013 if you only eat \u201cgood\u201d foods and perfectly hit your dietary intake targets, you\u2019re succeeding; if you \u201cslip up\u201d and eat \u201cbad\u201d foods, or stray at all from your dietary targets, you\u2019re failing.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"Characteristics<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

That type of thinking can lead to both short-term and long-term problems.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Short term, a binary view of foods and dietary adherence \u2013 good foods vs. bad foods, adherent vs. non-adherent \u2013 can actually encourage worse<\/em> dietary adherence, as previously mentioned. Once you\u2019ve already classified a day as a failure (because you ate something \u201cbad,\u201d or exceeded your energy or nutrient targets for the day), your categorical assessment of the day can\u2019t get any worse, so you may as well go for broke. One cookie turns into 10 cookies, or you end up exceeding your calorie target by 2000 calories instead of 100 calories.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Medium term, this binary view of foods and dietary adherence can sap your motivation. If you start classifying too many days as failures, it starts being easier to view yourself as a failure (at least when it comes to sticking to a diet). You begin losing self-efficacy, and start wondering if you\u2019re even capable of sticking to a diet. As your motivation wanes, you start having more \u201cbad\u201d days, which further saps your motivation, and further reduces your self-efficacy, until you finally decide to give up altogether. This is termed \u201cmotivational collapse\u201d \u2013 if you\u2019d like a more in-depth treatment of the topic, you might enjoy this article<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Long term, a binary view of foods and dietary adherence makes it more difficult to maintain the results that you do<\/em> achieve. Plenty of people have lost plenty of weight by eschewing certain foods or entire food groups, or by perfectly sticking to calorie and macronutrient targets for weeks or months at a time, but very few of those people maintain their results long term. For some people, applying rigid restraint can<\/em> work for achieving short-term goals, but very few people want to avoid all indulgent foods, or stick perfectly to rigid dietary targets for the rest of their lives. So, once they reach their goal, they haven\u2019t developed the skills that will help them maintain their results with a more relaxed and sustainable approach to eating. This increases the likelihood of weight regain and yo-yo dieting.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Since rigid, binary thinking leads to worse<\/em> dietary adherence, and less<\/em> long-term dietary success, we don\u2019t think it makes sense to include visual elements in MacroFactor that encourage<\/em> rigid, binary thinking by telling you (or strongly suggesting) that some foods are good and some foods are bad, or that you\u2019ve failed by exceeding your calorie or nutrient targets for the day.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, those negative visual elements can create feelings of shame and guilt in many people (in some instances, they seem to be designed<\/em> to cause shame and guilt). They\u2019re an indication that you\u2019ve done something wrong, and you should feel bad about it so that you won\u2019t<\/em> eat \u201cbad\u201d foods or exceed your calorie targets in the future.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

That may not immediately raise any red flags for you. In fact, it may seem normal. Shame- and guilt-based messaging is pervasive in the world of weight loss (and in fitness, nutrition, and exercise content more broadly). After all, if you make someone feel bad about themselves, or bad about an action they\u2019ve taken, they\u2019ll be more likely to make a change, stick to a diet and exercise plan, and accomplish their weight loss goals in order to alleviate those negative feelings \u2026 right? It\u2019s rarely articulated directly, but that\u2019s the logic underpinning a lot of the marketing, content, and interventions related to weight loss.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This line of thinking is pervasive, but it\u2019s dead wrong.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Research consistently finds that feelings of shame and guilt (and social experiences that are likely to create feelings of shame and guilt regarding one\u2019s body) are predictive of higher body weight, more difficulty with weight loss, disordered eating patterns, and exercise avoidance (one<\/a>, two<\/a>, three<\/a>, four<\/a>, five<\/a>, six<\/a>, seven<\/a>). Conversely, greater self-compassion is associated with better outcomes in all of these domains, and interventions designed to increase self-compassion also tend to have positive effects on eating behaviors, exercise participation, and weight management (one<\/a>, two<\/a>, three<\/a>, four<\/a>, five<\/a>).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The positive results of intervention studies suggest that these aren\u2019t mere associations: there appears to be a causal link between how people evaluate themselves (do they feel shame and guilt, or do they practice self-compassion?), and their eating behaviors, exercise habits, and weight loss success. Across the board, shame and guilt promote worse outcomes, while self-compassion promotes better outcomes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"Self-compassion<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

So, on a purely ideological and philosophical level, we\u2019re not in favor of shaming people for the food and nutrition choices they make. In a vacuum, if we have the choice between making someone feel bad and not making someone feel bad, we think it\u2019s better to opt for not making people feel bad. But, on a purely functional and scientific level, shaming people for not adhering to their diet is unlikely to increase their dietary adherence. On the contrary, the research suggests that shaming people for not adhering to their diet will make them less<\/em> likely to adhere to their diet moving forward.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Avoiding shame-based messaging and visual elements also comes with a functional benefit: it makes people more likely to actually log everything they eat. This provides users with a more accurate picture of their dietary habits, and it ensures that MacroFactor\u2019s coaching algorithms will be making recommendations based on more accurate data.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In apps with shame-based messaging and visual elements, it\u2019s not uncommon for users to stop logging for the day when they exceed their calorie target. Their app tells them the day is already a failure, so why keep logging food to just keep receiving more and more negative feedback? Many dieters are already too hard on themselves, and they don\u2019t need further negative feedback from an app that will only serve to amplify the feelings of shame and guilt they\u2019re already experiencing.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Similarly, even when you\u2019re dieting, there will probably be occasions where something matters to you more than your diet does \u2013 holidays, social events, celebrations, and family get-togethers with plenty of delicious food available. All of us eat purely for enjoyment from time to time, and you don\u2019t need an app telling you that you\u2019re doing something wrong by having the audacity to enjoy a slice of birthday cake or a hearty plate of food at a family barbecue, instead of maintaining a laser focus on your weight-loss goal 100% of the time. Warnings and red numbers are supposed<\/em> to tell you when you’re deviating from your goals. But, even when you\u2019re trying to lose weight, weight loss isn\u2019t always the primary goal of every meal and every day of eating. So it\u2019s not uncommon for people to avoid tracking days and meals when they are truly \u201coff diet,\u201d to avoid the (completely inappropriate) negative feedback they might receive from their app.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

As a result, people wind up with a less accurate view of their energy intake, which can lead to frustration and confusion. If you stop tracking for the day when you exceed your calorie target, you fudge food entries to avoid the appearance of exceeding your calorie target, or you don\u2019t track on days you know you\u2019ll exceed your calorie target, you might severely underestimate your energy intake. This can push you in the direction of thinking that your metabolism is \u201cdamaged\u201d or \u201cbroken,\u201d or toward thinking that you\u2019ll need to crash diet in order to make progress. With a more accurate view of your energy intake, it may become clear that more reasonable strategies are available to you (maybe cutting yourself off after two or three drinks, only having one plate of food at social events, or not grazing after you\u2019re full).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

So, to wrap up this section, MacroFactor\u2019s broader adherence-neutral philosophy drives our adherence-neutral approach to design: We clearly present your data, without any red numbers, pop-ups, warnings, or visual elements that can promote feelings of shame and guilt or disincentivize accurate food logging. This promotes greater dietary adherence, gives you a higher likelihood of long-term success, and helps provide you with a more accurate understanding of your dietary intake.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I\u2019ll readily admit that, to some readers, it may feel like I\u2019m making a mountain out of a molehill. If you have high self-efficacy related to dieting, and little-to-no weight-related shame or guilt, it\u2019s entirely possible that none of this affects you at all (either positively or negatively). However, I can\u2019t count the number of users who\u2019ve told us that these small design decisions were incredibly helpful for their psychological health, their relationship with food, and their ability to stick to their diet and reach their goals. For the most part, these were people who\u2019d struggled with weight loss in the past, had low self-efficacy related to dieting, and who had dealt with a lot of shame and guilt related to their body size and their difficulties with weight loss. And, for everyone in the middle of those two extremes, I think you\u2019ll be surprised at how much more pleasant food logging is when you aren\u2019t hit with negative feedback every time you eat a cookie or slightly exceed your calorie target for the day.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Coaching designed for actual humans<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

In nearly any domain, good<\/em> coaching starts with the understanding that you need to meet the individual where they\u2019re at, adapt to their needs, and keep moving forward even if the trainee isn\u2019t always perfect.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Unfortunately, an alternative approach is common with nutrition coaching. With nutrition coaching, it\u2019s not uncommon for a coach to give you a fixed diet (or a set of macronutrient targets) that you\u2019re expected to perfectly adhere to. If you\u2019re not making progress toward your goals, but you\u2019re not perfectly<\/em> adhering to your diet, you\u2019re out of luck. Your coach will just tell you to try to perfectly stick to your diet next week. If any adjustments need to be made, your coach won\u2019t make them unless you\u2019ve been perfectly sticking to your diet.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The stated logic behind this approach is that the coach needs to assess whether their current recommendations are producing the desired results, before adjusting their recommendations. So, if you don\u2019t follow the coach\u2019s recommendations to a T, there\u2019s no way for the coach to evaluate whether their recommendations are appropriate or not. Therefore, it\u2019s your responsibility to perfectly follow the coach\u2019s recommendations, so that they will have the necessary feedback to inform future adjustments.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

If I were being cynical, I\u2019d posit that the actual logic behind this approach is that it minimizes the time the coach has to invest in each client each week, which allows them to maintain a huge coaching roster, only work 10 hours per week, and make bank. But, I\u2019m not a cynic, so I\u2019d never suggest such a thing.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

There are numerous problems with this approach, but one of the main issues is that perfect dietary adherence simply isn\u2019t required for a coach to glean valuable feedback that can inform program adjustments.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Just to illustrate, let\u2019s say you\u2019re trying to lose a pound per week, and you\u2019ve been instructed to aim for an intake of 1500 calories per day. With a pretty low calorie target, you might struggle to perfectly adhere to your diet, and you wind up consuming an average of 1700 calories per day.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A bad coach might look at that, and just say that you did a poor job with dietary adherence, and you need to achieve an intake of 1500 calories per day for at least 2-3 weeks before they can assess your program and make adjustments.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A better coach would still be interested in how your weight responded to an intake of 1700 calories per day. Maybe you still lost a pound while consuming an average of 1700 calories. So, instead of just telling you to be more adherent, this coach would realize that your prior intake target of 1500 calories per day may have been a bit too low; you struggled with adherence because you were in a larger energy deficit than was intended, and you can achieve your goal of losing a pound per week with a higher intake target. So, instead of forcing you to try to achieve an intake of 1500 calories per day for a couple weeks before making any adjustments, they might go ahead and increase your intake target to 1600-1700 calories per day.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"Strict<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Ultimately, adherence isn\u2019t necessary for determining whether someone\u2019s calorie targets are appropriate for their goals. A strict adherence requirement just makes the adjustment process easier for a lazy coach. They can run through a simple decision tree that will only take a couple of minutes per client per week: Did you perfectly stick to your diet? If you didn\u2019t, it\u2019s your fault for being non-adherent, and you just need to adhere better next week. If you did, then the coach just needs to compare your rate of weight change to your target. If you\u2019re losing weight slower (or gaining weight faster) than desired, your calorie target goes down. If you\u2019re losing weight faster (or gaining weight slower) than desired, your calorie target goes up.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

However, your weight and energy intake data will contain the same information and the same set of implications, even if you don\u2019t perfectly adhere to your diet. In the illustration above, if you ate 1700 calories per day while losing a pound per week, that implies that \u2026 you can eat 1700 calories per day while losing a pound per week. It doesn\u2019t matter that you were \u201csupposed\u201d to eat 1500 calories per day. However, if you did<\/em> eat 1500 calories per day, you would have likely lost a bit more than a pound per week. So, if you were<\/em> adherent, and lost weight a bit faster than your goal, a lazy coach would be able to see that result, and suggest that you increase your calorie target \u2026 probably to about 1600-1700 calories per day.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In the end, you get the same recommendations. But, the better coach\u2019s recommendations are more responsive \u2013 you can get updated recommendations consistently, insead of being left on an island for weeks at a time if your adherence is less than perfect. Furthermore, it\u2019s also less stressful to work with the better coach; they\u2019re meeting you where you\u2019re at and consistently providing you with valuable feedback, even if you\u2019re not the model client (i.e. a fleshy robot who never strays from their nutrition goals) all the time.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

That\u2019s adherence-neutral coaching in a nutshell: Even if you don\u2019t perfectly stick to your diet, your coach can still make timely, appropriate adjustments to help you continue pursuing your goals.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

There are two main advantages of adherence-neutral coaching.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The first advantage relates to the concepts of rigid vs. flexible restraint, as discussed in the previous section.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

With adherence-dependent coaching, you\u2019re either adherent or you\u2019re not \u2013 you\u2019re \u201con diet\u201d or \u201coff diet.\u201d It doesn\u2019t just foster<\/em> rigid restraint. It requires<\/em> rigid restraint. Adherence-neutral coaching, on the other hand, fosters and allows for flexible cognitive restraint: You know that closely sticking to your dietary targets is likely to produce the best results, but you also have the leeway to deviate from those targets when you want to or need to, without missing out on valuable coaching feedback. I won\u2019t dwell on this point, however, since I discussed the drawbacks of rigid restraint in the previous section.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The second advantage of adherence-neutral coaching is that it\u2019s inherently more responsive and self-correcting if you do<\/em> ever wind up with inappropriate recommendations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Just to illustrate, maybe the perfect intake target for your goals is 2000 calories per day. But, for some reason (maybe your weight loss was masked by water retention for a period of several weeks), your coach recommended that you consume 1400 calories per day. Since that\u2019s so far below your actual energy needs, you may have an extremely hard time adhering to that intake target for an extended period of time.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

With adherence-dependent coaching, you\u2019re basically out of luck. You\u2019ll need to perfectly stick to this intake target of 1400 calories per day for at least a week or two before your coach will make any adjustments, even if your weight starts shooting down again. And, if you can\u2019t perfectly adhere to an inappropriate intake recommendation for at least a week or two, you might be stuck with it for months (or, more realistically, until you either give up or switch coaches).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

With adherence-neutral coaching, it\u2019s no big deal. The scale can\u2019t deviate from metabolic reality forever. Even if you don\u2019t perfectly adhere to your intake target of 1400 calories per day, your rate of weight change will eventually reflect that, yes, you can<\/em> eat considerably more than 1400 calories per day while pursuing your goal. So, your intake targets will increase to a more appropriate level, without ever requiring that you perfectly adhere to an inappropriate target for weeks at a time.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

MacroFactor\u2019s coaching functionality is based around its energy expenditure<\/a> calculation, which is what allows MacroFactor\u2019s coaching to be adherence-neutral. MacroFactor can estimate your energy expenditure based on your energy intake and rate of weight change<\/a>, regardless of your goals or nutrition targets. The expenditure algorithm would work the same way, even if you didn\u2019t have a goal or nutrition targets in the first place: The entire concept of adherence is irrelevant for the purpose of calculating your energy expenditure.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

If you can calculate someone\u2019s energy expenditure, you can calculate appropriate intake targets for their goals. Even if they don\u2019t adhere to those intake targets, you can still provide a continuously updating estimate of their energy expenditure, as long as they reliably track their energy intake and body weight. So, you can still reliably adjust their intake targets to ensure the targets stay aligned with the individual\u2019s goals, even if they have poor dietary adherence (for more on the advantages of estimating energy needs based on weight and nutrition data, you may enjoy<\/a> these two articles<\/a>).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"A<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Of course, adherence-neutral coaching doesn\u2019t imply that dietary adherence is unimportant for achieving your goals. However, \u201cadherence\u201d isn\u2019t a binary variable.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A flexible, adherence-neutral approach to dieting empowers the individual to consider their goals and priorities in order to make the best choices for themself. There may be times when your nutrition- and weight-related goals are your top priority, and so you aim to closely adhere to your intake targets. On the other hand, there will probably be situations (single meals, or even prolonged periods of time) where something else is a higher priority \u2013 enjoying a party or a holiday, getting through a stressful period in your life, etc. \u2013 so your nutrition- and weight-related goals take a back seat. You may want to know what you would<\/em> need to eat to pursue your goals, but you\u2019re less concerned with trying to be perfectly adherent (and you certainly don\u2019t need to be shamed for being less than perfectly adherent). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

An adherence-neutral coaching system also allows you to determine the definition of adherence that makes sense for you, instead of enforcing an arbitrary external standard.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

If you compete in a sport that requires you to make weight on a certain day, you might need<\/em> to be very strictly adherent to your dietary targets, and aim to be within 2-3% of your weekly calorie and macronutrient targets. A coaching system without strict adherence requirements doesn\u2019t stop you from imposing strict adherence requirements upon yourself. However, since those strict adherence requirements are self-imposed, instead of being externally dictated, MacroFactor will still be able to suggest appropriate dietary adjustments if you ever fall short of your own idea of \u201cperfect adherence.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Conversely, you may be trying to lose a bit of weight, but it\u2019s considerably more low-key, and there\u2019s not a rigid end date. So, you might like to lose a pound per week, but you\u2019re happy as long as the number on the scale is generally moving down. In that case, your idea of acceptable adherence might be to stay within ~300 calories of your calorie target, get reasonably close to your protein target, and not worry much (if any) about your fat and carbohydrate intake. An even higher level of adherence would be unnecessary for pursuing your goal in the manner you\u2019re comfortable pursuing it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Wrapping it up<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

To circle back to the start of this article, dietary adherence is<\/em> crucially important for achieving your weight-related goals. However, attempting to shame people into being more adherent (or utilizing a coaching system that tries to force perfect adherence) can actually lead to worse<\/em> adherence and worse<\/em> results. An adherence-neutral approach doesn\u2019t promote feelings of shame and guilt, and does promote flexible cognitive restraint, which will increase your likelihood of actually attaining high dietary adherence and achieving your goals. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Ultimately, we want MacroFactor to maximize the likelihood that you\u2019ll achieve your goals and be able to maintain (or build upon) your results. We also want it to be able to flexibly adapt to your goals and lifestyle, and help you avoid any unnecessary stress, anxiety, or feelings of shame and guilt. Our adherence-neutral philosophy, which is reflected in MacroFactor\u2019s design and its coaching system, is what allows us to pursue all of those aims, without compromising on any of them.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

We sometimes refer to MacroFactor as an \u201cadherence neutral\u201d app. This article will describe what we mean by that term, and discuss why we have an adherence-neutral philosophy.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":4723,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"site-sidebar-layout":"default","site-content-layout":"","ast-site-content-layout":"default","site-content-style":"default","site-sidebar-style":"default","ast-global-header-display":"","ast-banner-title-visibility":"","ast-main-header-display":"","ast-hfb-above-header-display":"","ast-hfb-below-header-display":"","ast-hfb-mobile-header-display":"","site-post-title":"","ast-breadcrumbs-content":"","ast-featured-img":"","footer-sml-layout":"","ast-disable-related-posts":"","theme-transparent-header-meta":"","adv-header-id-meta":"","stick-header-meta":"","header-above-stick-meta":"","header-main-stick-meta":"","header-below-stick-meta":"","astra-migrate-meta-layouts":"set","ast-page-background-enabled":"default","ast-page-background-meta":{"desktop":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-4)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"tablet":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"mobile":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""}},"ast-content-background-meta":{"desktop":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-5)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"tablet":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-5)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"mobile":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-5)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""}},"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_feature_clip_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-4706","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-articles"],"yoast_head":"\nWhat Do We Mean When We Call MacroFactor "Adherence Neutral"?<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"MacroFactor is an \u201cadherence neutral\u201d app. This article will describe what that means and why we have an adherence-neutral philosophy.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/macrofactor.com\/adherence-neutral\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"What Do We Mean When We Call MacroFactor "Adherence Neutral"?\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"MacroFactor is an \u201cadherence neutral\u201d app. This article will describe what that means and why we have an adherence-neutral philosophy.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/macrofactor.com\/adherence-neutral\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"MacroFactor\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2023-09-27T08:00:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2025-09-12T23:40:27+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/macrofactor.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/09\/MacroFactor-featured-images.png\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"900\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"600\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/png\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Greg Nuckols\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Greg Nuckols\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"23 minutes\" \/>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"What Do We Mean When We Call MacroFactor \"Adherence Neutral\"?","description":"MacroFactor is an \u201cadherence neutral\u201d app. This article will describe what that means and why we have an adherence-neutral philosophy.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/macrofactor.com\/adherence-neutral\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"What Do We Mean When We Call MacroFactor \"Adherence Neutral\"?","og_description":"MacroFactor is an \u201cadherence neutral\u201d app. This article will describe what that means and why we have an adherence-neutral philosophy.","og_url":"https:\/\/macrofactor.com\/adherence-neutral\/","og_site_name":"MacroFactor","article_published_time":"2023-09-27T08:00:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2025-09-12T23:40:27+00:00","og_image":[{"width":900,"height":600,"url":"https:\/\/macrofactor.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/09\/MacroFactor-featured-images.png","type":"image\/png"}],"author":"Greg Nuckols","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Greg Nuckols","Est. reading time":"23 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/macrofactor.com\/adherence-neutral\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/macrofactor.com\/adherence-neutral\/"},"author":{"name":"Greg Nuckols","@id":"https:\/\/macrofactor.com\/#\/schema\/person\/e37d684b76f5d4415c0cc2cd16749199"},"headline":"What Do We Mean When We Call MacroFactor “Adherence Neutral”?","datePublished":"2023-09-27T08:00:00+00:00","dateModified":"2025-09-12T23:40:27+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/macrofactor.com\/adherence-neutral\/"},"wordCount":4749,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/macrofactor.com\/#organization"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/macrofactor.com\/adherence-neutral\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/macrofactor.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/09\/MacroFactor-featured-images.png","articleSection":["Articles"],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/macrofactor.com\/adherence-neutral\/","url":"https:\/\/macrofactor.com\/adherence-neutral\/","name":"What Do We Mean When We Call MacroFactor \"Adherence Neutral\"?","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/macrofactor.com\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/macrofactor.com\/adherence-neutral\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/macrofactor.com\/adherence-neutral\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/macrofactor.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/09\/MacroFactor-featured-images.png","datePublished":"2023-09-27T08:00:00+00:00","dateModified":"2025-09-12T23:40:27+00:00","description":"MacroFactor is an \u201cadherence neutral\u201d app. This article will describe what that means and why we have an adherence-neutral philosophy.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/macrofactor.com\/adherence-neutral\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/macrofactor.com\/adherence-neutral\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/macrofactor.com\/adherence-neutral\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/macrofactor.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/09\/MacroFactor-featured-images.png","contentUrl":"https:\/\/macrofactor.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/09\/MacroFactor-featured-images.png","width":900,"height":600,"caption":"What Do We Mean When We Call MacroFactor \"Adherence Neutral\"?"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/macrofactor.com\/adherence-neutral\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/macrofactor.com\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"What Do We Mean When We Call MacroFactor “Adherence Neutral”?"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/macrofactor.com\/#website","url":"https:\/\/macrofactor.com\/","name":"MacroFactor","description":"Reach your diet goals with the MacroFactor app, the smartest macro tracker and diet coach.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/macrofactor.com\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/macrofactor.com\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/macrofactor.com\/#organization","name":"MacroFactor","url":"https:\/\/macrofactor.com\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/macrofactor.com\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/macrofactor.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/03\/Black-MF-logo-1.png","contentUrl":"https:\/\/macrofactor.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/03\/Black-MF-logo-1.png","width":685,"height":641,"caption":"MacroFactor"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/macrofactor.com\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.instagram.com\/macrofactorapp"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/macrofactor.com\/#\/schema\/person\/e37d684b76f5d4415c0cc2cd16749199","name":"Greg Nuckols","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/0c52dfe6ec297b061d4e06104063b446069b4bd7f5467f168f1b0bbdba1be9da?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/0c52dfe6ec297b061d4e06104063b446069b4bd7f5467f168f1b0bbdba1be9da?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/0c52dfe6ec297b061d4e06104063b446069b4bd7f5467f168f1b0bbdba1be9da?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Greg Nuckols"}}]}},"lang":"en","translations":{"en":4706},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/macrofactor.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/09\/MacroFactor-featured-images.png","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"pll_sync_post":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/macrofactor.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4706","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/macrofactor.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/macrofactor.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/macrofactor.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/macrofactor.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=4706"}],"version-history":[{"count":9,"href":"https:\/\/macrofactor.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4706\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":13200,"href":"https:\/\/macrofactor.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4706\/revisions\/13200"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/macrofactor.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/4723"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/macrofactor.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4706"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/macrofactor.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4706"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/macrofactor.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4706"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}