Video summary

Lean, Yazio, MyFitnessPal… Qui Gagne en 2026 ? Test & Tier List

Main summary

Key takeaways

Product Review

Summary: Calorie Tracking Apps — “Lean, Yazio, MyFitnessPal… Who Wins in 2026? Test & Tier List”

Core message

The reviewer tested 20+ calorie-tracking apps and created a tier list with an emphasis on saving time and money while improving physique results. A major theme is that many apps use weak calorie-spending / calorie-intake models, especially those relying on Harris-Benedict (often based mainly on weight), which can be inaccurate—particularly for people at the extremes (overweight/underweight).

App-by-app highlights (pros/cons, UX, comparisons, ratings)

1) MyFitnessPal (“My Fitness PAL”)

Positioning / features

  • Long-established, widely known.
  • Huge food database; users can search almost any food.
  • Early adoption of barcode scanning to pull calories + macros.

Pros

  • Very broad, searchable database.
  • Barcode scanning.
  • Largest user base.

Cons / UX issues

  • Community-driven entries can become redundant and inconsistent, with the same food showing wildly different calories/macros (example: pizza ranging from ~100 to ~2000 calories).
  • This can overwhelm beginners and make logging tedious and confusing.
  • Calorie expenditure model criticized for using Harris-Benedict:
    • Can overestimate metabolism for overweight people (reviewer cites studies; ~+330 calories/day on average).
    • Can underestimate for underweight people.
    • Reviewer claims that with deficits <250 calories/day, overweight users may have “almost no chance” due to overestimation.
  • Power users may ignore recommendations and use it just as a logger, but beginners may struggle.
  • UI described as basic/outdated (reviewer guesses it resembles pre-2010 design).

Pricing / community

  • Remains free, which the reviewer suggests is a key reason users stick around “out of habit.”
  • Mentions a 2024 backlash when barcode scanning was temporarily made premium, leading to major user losses.

Verdict / tier

  • Tier C (reviewer says it “should normally” be lower, but gives C for historical/pioneer status).

2) Yazio

Positioning / features

  • German app.
  • Reviewer describes it as essentially a nicer copy of MyFitnessPal.

Pros

  • More pleasant and attractive user interface.

Cons

  • Underlying features and model are almost exactly the same as MyFitnessPal.
  • Still uses Harris-Benedict, inheriting the same theoretical flaws.

Verdict / tier

  • Tier C (clone with better UX, but no improvement to the underlying model).

3) “No/Noo” (likely Noom; subtitles show “NO”)

Positioning / features

  • Reviewer describes it as English-only.
  • Initially offered more than tracking: coaching and advice, including weekly reviews.
  • Possible coach chat.

Pros

  • Coaching + weekly review system was an “innovation.”
  • Reviewer claims its community achieved results.

Cons

  • Very expensive: about €250/year or €50/month for the extra accompaniment.
  • Tracking model is still essentially the same (and criticized for Harris-Benedict-style approach).

Verdict / tier

  • Tier B despite the high price.

4) LifeSum (LifeSum)

Positioning / features

  • Similar workflow to MyFitnessPal, but more focused on UX/design.
  • Includes preloaded recipe packs (LC recipes) that users can select and log.
  • Estimated cost: ~€60/year.

Pros

  • Strong user experience and design.
  • Practical recipe-pack integration.

Cons

  • No major theoretical critique emphasized in the subtitles; mainly assessed for UX and subscription cost.

Verdict / tier

  • Tier A.

5) FoodVisor

Positioning / features

  • Noted for AI-based food recognition via scanning (reviewer calls it an early French pioneer).
  • Known through exposure on “Who Wants to Be My Partner?”
  • Reviewer frames it as solving tedious manual logging with AI photo recognition.

Pros

  • Innovative AI scanning.
  • Historically a meaningful breakthrough versus manual entry.

Cons / UX issues

  • Earlier versions: scanning was still tedious, possibly requiring one-by-one targeting.
  • Contrasted with modern “best AI trackers” that can detect foods in a photo more comprehensively.
  • Still criticized for poor calorie expenditure modeling (again linked to Harris-Benedict-type limitations).
  • Reviewer suggests other apps are now significantly better.

Verdict / tier

  • Tier B (reviewer personal rating).

6) “LIN” (reviewer’s own app)

Positioning / features

  • Main claim: not using Harris-Benedict.
  • Uses a model based on body fat percentage.

Pros

  • Onboarding includes a body scan photo to estimate body fat %.
  • Claims more accurate basal metabolism and daily energy expenditure:
    • Steps affect energy expenditure (based on metabolism).
    • Workout energy expenditure calculated more precisely, without “overestimation.”
  • Example comparison:
    • On Yazio, weight training allegedly estimated ~500 calories.
    • On LIN, estimated ~250–230 calories (as described).
  • Accounts for digestive energy based on macro distribution.
  • Claims it calculates metabolic adaptation during a deficit (metabolism decreases over time) and “calibrates exactly” to set calories to eat.
  • Large food database + barcode scanning.
  • Claims the best AI food scanner: “most precise” breakdown, helpful for restaurants/travel.
  • Reviewer states they personally use AI scans even when too lazy to log manually.

Cons

  • No direct cons stated in the subtitles.

Verdict / tier

  • Presented as undeniably superior (no explicit letter tier stated, but clearly positioned as best).

7) Cal/“Caléail” (name unclear)

Positioning / features

  • Heavily promoted AI photo-based calorie app.

Pros

  • Reviewer calls the scan “fantastic.”

Cons (major)

  • Biggest critique: relies almost exclusively on AI scanning.
    • Reviewer argues it’s essentially not possible to track through database/barcode.
    • Small errors may need manual correction—but the reviewer claims options are insufficient.
  • Scanner precision criticized:
    • Example: chips + sandwich photo.
    • LIN splits items individually (chips, bread, salad, cheese).
    • Caléail treats the plate as a single calorie block, making adjustments (e.g., changing cheese amount) very hard.
  • Reviewer claims it’s not the most precise scanner.
  • Expenditure tracking still criticized for using Harris-Benedict-type model, leading to poor goal outcomes.

Verdict

  • Reviewer states you “won’t get results” with this tool.

8) FatSecret

Positioning / features

  • Reviewer acknowledges community contributions (advice, recipes, opinions).

Pros

  • Community can be useful to some.

Cons

  • Reviewer describes community feed as “ultra weird/ultra cringe.”
  • UI described as catastrophic, including mocking a mushroom graphic used as the main button.
  • Tier evaluation: initially considered C, then revised down significantly due to UX.

Verdict / tier

  • Tier D.

9) Intermittent fasting apps (e.g., Zero, Fast Easy)

Positioning / features

  • Reviewer says they have many users.

Cons (core critique)

  • Commonly do not offer calorie tracking at all.
  • Subtitles claim they focus on fasting schedule and meals “whatever you want,” not calories.

Reviewer’s view

  • Reviewer argues skipping a meal can help in a deficit (eat volume across 2 meals).
  • But testosterone-boost narratives are dismissed as overstated; fat loss is mainly calorie reduction.
  • These apps are basically timers, not calorie-management tools.
  • Without calorie tracking, achieving physique goals is “very complicated, if not impossible.”

Verdict

  • Not given a formal tier in the subtitles, but clearly negative for calorie-goal effectiveness.

Tier placements explicitly stated (from subtitles)

  • MyFitnessPal: Tier C
  • Yazio: Tier C
  • No/Noom: Tier B
  • FoodVisor: Tier B
  • LifeSum: Tier A
  • LIN: presented as superior (no explicit letter tier stated, but positioned as best)
  • Cal/Caléail: strong negative (no tier letter explicitly stated)
  • FatSecret: Tier D

Consolidated unique points mentioned

  1. Picking the right app matters—bad modeling can ruin progress.
  2. MyFitnessPal: huge database + barcode scanning; huge user base, but user decline mentioned.
  3. MyFitnessPal database redundancy → inconsistent calorie/macro entries; beginner confusion.
  4. MyFitnessPal theoretical flaw: Harris-Benedict, weight-based and inaccurate at extremes.
  5. Harris-Benedict criticism with cited study: overweight overestimation about +330 calories/day.
  6. MyFitnessPal deficit concern: deficits <250 calories/day may make fat loss unlikely for overweight users (reviewer claim).
  7. Advanced users may treat apps as loggers rather than trusting recommendations.
  8. MyFitnessPal UI criticized as outdated/barebones.
  9. Barcode scanning premium backlash (2024) allegedly caused major backlash and user losses; users stay largely because it’s free.
  10. Yazio: MyFitnessPal clone with better UI but same Harris-Benedict model → Tier C.
  11. No/Noom: coaching + weekly reviews/possibly coach chat, but costly (~€250/year or €50/month) → Tier B.
  12. LifeSum: excellent UX/design + recipe packs; ~€60/year → Tier A.
  13. FoodVisor: early AI recognition pioneer that reduced logging tedium.
  14. FoodVisor early scanning criticized as still tedious; modern photo-detect is more comprehensive.
  15. FoodVisor still suffers from poor expenditure model → Tier B.
  16. LIN: body-fat-based model (not Harris-Benedict); onboarding includes body scan.
  17. LIN: step/workout/digestive energy modeling.
  18. LIN claims no workout calorie overestimation; example comparison 500 vs ~250.
  19. LIN: automatic metabolic adaptation calculation during deficits.
  20. LIN: strong tracking tooling (database + barcode + best AI scanner).
  21. Cal/Caléail: scan-first approach with limited/manual correction.
  22. Cal/Caléail scan precision criticized (grouped “single calorie block” → hard to fix portions).
  23. Cal/Caléail still uses Harris-Benedict-type expenditure → poor results.
  24. FatSecret: community upside but lots of cringe/weird content; UX criticized heavily (mushroom button) → Tier D.
  25. Intermittent fasting apps: no calorie tracking; mostly timers; physique outcomes hard/impossible without tracking.

Speakers / views

  • Subtitles show one main speaker (the reviewer).
  • Other perspectives are anecdotal (friends/family/community use), not presented as clearly separate speakers.

Overall recommendation (concise)

  • Best for results (per reviewer): LIN, due to a claimed more accurate energy expenditure model (body fat % + step/workout/digestive energy + metabolic adaptation) and strong tracking (database, barcode, top AI scanner).
  • Runner-up: LifeSum (Tier A) for UX/design and recipe convenience.
  • Middle: Noom (Tier B) for coaching despite cost; FoodVisor (Tier B) for scanning, but limited by calorie model.
  • Lower: MyFitnessPal and Yazio (Tier C) for beginner confusion and shared Harris-Benedict inaccuracies.
  • Avoid (per reviewer): Cal/Caléail (scan-only + poor breakdown precision + weak expenditure model) and FatSecret (Tier D) mainly for very poor UX.
  • Intermittent fasting apps: not recommended for physique goals if you want calorie precision, since they generally don’t track calories.

Original video