Health
Calories Burned Calculator
Pick an activity’s MET, your weight and your minutes. This page gives both standard forms of the answer and is honest that the MET is a group average, not your number.
The link carries your figures, so it reopens on exactly these numbers.
The same 30 minutes, same body, by activity
Nothing changes here but which MET bucket you pick — the weight and the time are fixed at 70 kg and 30 minutes. The burn runs from 88 to 343 kcal, and the two standard forms disagree by 5% in every row. The bucket is a group average.
| Activity (MET) | Calories burned (MET × weight × hours) | The oxygen-uptake form (MET × 3.5 × kg ÷ 200 × min) |
|---|---|---|
| Hatha yoga (2.5) | 88 | 92 |
| Brisk walking (4.3) | 151 | 158 |
| Swimming, moderate (5.8) | 203 | 213 |
| Cycling 12–14 mph (8.0)The default above. 280 kcal simplified, 294 by the oxygen form. | 280 | 294 |
| Running 6 mph (9.8)Nearly four times the yoga figure — same body, same half hour. | 343 | 360 |
The formula
Worked example
70 kg, 30 minutes, cycling at MET 8.0
- simplified: 8.0 × 70 × 0.5 = 280 kcal
- oxygen form: 8.0 × 3.5 × 70 ÷ 200 × 30 = 294 kcal
- the two standard formulas disagree by 14 kcal — exactly 5%
- and both assume your resting uptake is the reference 3.5 mL/kg/min
Where this goes wrong
Reading the calories figure as your personal burn
The number looks exact and is anything but. The MET is a population average from the Compendium of Physical Activities, whose authors write that it "was not designed to determine the precise energy cost of physical activity within individuals" — it ignores your body composition, fitness, age, sex and how efficiently you move. Two people of the same weight doing the identical 30-minute ride burn different amounts, and neither is the 280 kcal on the screen. On top of that, the two standard forms of the formula disagree by 5% for every input — 280 versus 294 here — and both pin you to a reference adult whose resting uptake is 3.5 mL/kg/min, a young-reference value that reads high for most people. Use the figure to compare activities and track effort over time, not as a calorie budget to eat back to the last kcal.
Questions
- How are calories burned calculated?
- From the activity’s MET, your body weight and the time: calories = MET × weight in kilograms × hours. A MET is a multiple of resting energy expenditure, so a 4-MET activity burns about four times what sitting still would over the same period. The MET values come from the Compendium of Physical Activities, a published table of group averages.
- Why do two calculators give me different numbers?
- Two reasons. First, they may use different MET values for what sounds like the same activity — "cycling" spans a wide range. Second, there are two standard forms of the formula: the simplified MET × weight × hours, and the oxygen-uptake form that is exactly 5% higher. This page shows both, so you can see the gap rather than wonder which one is right.
- How accurate is a MET-based estimate?
- Treat it as a rough guide, not a measurement. The MET is an average across many people, and the Compendium itself states it was not designed to estimate an individual’s energy cost. Your actual burn depends on fitness, body composition, age, sex and movement efficiency — none of which the formula sees. The reference resting uptake of 3.5 mL/kg/min also reads high for most adults, so the number tends to overstate.
- Should I eat back the calories a workout says I burned?
- Be cautious. Because MET estimates tend to run high and are averages rather than your number, eating back every calorie a calculator or watch reports is a common way to stall weight loss. If you are tracking for weight change, the safer use is to compare activities and watch the trend over weeks, not to add the figure back to your daily intake in full.