Comments on abstract, title, references

This is a double blinded multi center randomized study. The description in the abstract and title seems to be consistent with the aim and objective of the study. Aim of the research is clear and method used in the study seems to be consistent with the aim. The conclusion of the study in the abstract aligns with the specified aim. The authors acknowledge the source of funding and the lack of funders influence to the conduct of the study. They provide appropriate definition for subject identification. Based on the study description the randomization and blinding of the intervention was appropriate. The trial outcomes measured justify the intended hypothesis. The study meets the internal validity and external validity checks. The caveat to external validity would be the energy expenditure/ energy intake calculation but the hypothesis can still be tested. (Use of 1ml/kg as a dietary recommendation for patients is not a widely acceptable mode of providing nutrition or energy expenditure/ requirement calculation and this restricts the applicability of the study in locations that uses a more strict energy expenditure calculation equation.) Manuscript presents a very well written discussion. The hypothesis was proven incorrect with the results. Authors justify not using the equivalent of energy expenditure as a measure of calorie given. The Calorie given per KG of ideal body weight is consistent in both the groups.

Minor comment - 1 - Title could be rewords to introduce the result/ hypothesis from the study. 2 - In the introduction - Authors do repeat the existing problem in multiple statements and thus create redundant statements.

Major Revisions - 1 - Introduction should have a reference to the "NUTRIC" score study by Heyland et al. Also discuss the existing literature on the varied nutrition requirements for at risk population.

2 - The study does not relate to the actual calorie requirement for the patient population based on the different patient characteristics. A small description of difficulty in calculation of energy expenditure in introduction would be helpful. Reference to Zusman et al 2016 Study in Introduction/ Discussion will be helpful.

3 - The results section very detailed but unfortunately very difficult to follow along. The authors transition from tables - figure - supplemental figures and tables on multiple occasions. The flow on the results and tables does not match. Supplements are not numbered sequentially.

Comment - 1 - The analysis is consistent with acceptable standards. I would recommend a statistical analysis/ review by a statistician.

2 - The methods and the results section does not provide rationale for the sample size. Though based on the available literature, the sample size seems to be adequate.