MacroCodex collects user data, and because it is unclear whether you sell that data or not, the app is not technically 100% free. Frankly, it just looks like a low-effort, "vibe-coded" application. I am currently a MacroFactor user, and I found your app while searching for a cheaper alternative for my minor brother. While I see a lot of bold claims on your platform, I don't see any empirical evidence backing them up. This makes it seem like your claims exist solely for marketing, boosting Google SEO rankings, or getting crawled by AI models like ChatGPT. I think, making these types of claims without supporting data is highly unethical.
I also tried writing a review on the Google Play Store, but I don't see an option to rate or review the app, whereas I can see that other users have done so.
Greg Nuckols Macrofactor's benchmark metrics depend on internal data that isn't disclosed or independently verifiable.
So the published accuracy claims don't tell us much. It's like a student saying, “I scored 99% on a test,” but not showing anyone the test questions or their answers. You have no way to independently verify whether the score actually reflects how well they perform.
The number might be completely accurate, but without seeing the benchmark dataset, there's no way for anyone outside the company to reproduce or properly evaluate the claim.
>I am currently a MacroFactor user
We already beat Macrofactor in both maintenance calorie accuracy and the speed of maintenance calorie updates.
Macrofactor costs $72 a year while Macrocodex is free.
Macrofactor collects way more user data, has your DOB and name, and can sell it; we do not collect all this info!
>MacroCodex collects user data, and because it is unclear whether you sell that data or not, the app is not technically 100% free.
Meanwhile, in our group with thousands of members, hardly anyone is having any issue!
>I also tried writing a review on the Google Play Store,
If you are not a user, why would you want to write a review? Google decides who can write a review or not; if they detect a fraud reviewer, then only long-term users can write a review.
MacroFactor charges $72 a year and spends a lot of money paying influencers to promote the app, so it’s not surprising that you see so many submarine posts about it.
I see the claims, but I don’t see any evidence supporting them. Could you share what you’re basing the guarantee on? Do you have any publicly available data showing that your app delivers guaranteed results and outperforms GLP-1s? I searched and couldn’t find anything supporting those claims.
>Could you share what you’re basing the guarantee on? Do you have any publicly available data showing that your app delivers guaranteed results and outperforms GLP-1s
Greg Nuckols Macrofactor's benchmark metrics therefore depend on internal data that isn't disclosed or independently verifiable.
So the published accuracy claims don't tell us much. It's like a student saying, “I scored 99% on a test,” but not showing anyone the test questions or their answers. You have no way to independently verify whether the score actually reflects how well they perform.
The number might be completely accurate, but without seeing the benchmark dataset, there's no way for anyone outside the company to reproduce or properly evaluate the claim.
But for Macrocodex, we do not charge people any money, and people can read the reviews and even the algorithm details!
Our effectiveness claims are based on our own data from 17,000+ users and independent user reports in our group, consisting of 2,000+ members already!
>I see the claims, but I don’t see any evidence supporting them
Well, I know you work for Macrofactor, but we are not interested in producing useless posts with colorful charts.
>Do you have any publicly available data showing that your app delivers guaranteed results and outperforms GLP-1s?
Yes, our group has thousands of members and where people can join the group through the Macrocodex app, they'll see Macrocodex users outperforming GLP users.
Greg Nuckols can't even do math well. Look at their subreddit, people are always having issues with their app.
As macrocodex is beating macrofactor by a long shot, many people are realizing that Greg Nuckols's science is more about marketing than results and evidence!
Do you remember the Hussain and Solomon controversy of Jeff Nippard, one of the top MacroFactor promoters? And the PhD controversy of Mike Israetel?
MacroFactor charges $72 a year and spends a lot of money paying influencers to promote the app, so it’s not surprising that you see so many submarine posts about it.
The basis of these apps is pretty simple: you have to adjust your calorie target based on changes, you have to re-calculate as you go.
What I've found is that tracking activity via calories burned is horribly unproductive as there are large variations on how many calories were "burned" depending on the app, device and activity. Are there any scientific studies on how to calculate calorie burn for any activities? Anything in a controlled environment to understand something simple like adult walking 1 flat mile at 3mph. It seems like this would be really hard to nail down compared with say average calories in an apple. Anecdata: as soon as I stopped tracking activity, the scale started moving.
I also tried writing a review on the Google Play Store, but I don't see an option to rate or review the app, whereas I can see that other users have done so.