Running Calorie Calculator

The formula

Every calorie estimate for running comes down to one line. MET — the Metabolic Equivalent of Task — is how many times more energy an activity costs than sitting still, and the calculator reads it from the Compendium of Physical Activities by your speed:

kcal = MET × weight (kg) × time (hours)

Hills are added on top: about 0.5 kcal per kilogram for every 100 metres climbed (roughly 0.07 kcal per pound for every 100 feet), and 0.2 kcal per kilogram for every 100 metres descended. Braking on the way down is eccentric muscle work, and it is not free.

A worked example

A 70 kg runner — about 154 lb — covers 10 km in 60 minutes. That is 10 km/h, which the Compendium puts at MET 10.0, so the maths is 10.0 × 70 × 1.0 = 700 kcal. Add 200 metres of climbing (around 660 feet) and 200 metres back down, and the route costs 98 kcal more — 798 in total.

Why pace barely changes the number

Run the same kilometre at 5:00 or at 7:30 and the model gives 67 and 70 kcal for a 70 kg runner — a difference smaller than the error in the estimate itself. Faster running costs more per minute and takes fewer minutes, and the two almost exactly cancel. What actually moves the number is distance and body weight, which is where the old rule of thumb comes from: roughly 1 kcal per kilogram per kilometre, or about 0.73 kcal per pound per mile. Walking does not behave this way.

Calories burned running, by weight and distance

At a moderate pace of 6:00 min/km (9:39 min/mi). Because the per-kilometre cost barely depends on pace, these figures hold reasonably well across the range most runners train in.

Gross calories, including what your body would have burned at rest over the same time. The net figure is explained below.

MET values for running

These are the values the calculator interpolates between, taken from the Compendium of Physical Activities. The last column is the per-kilometre cost for a 70 kg (154 lb) runner.

Walking is not a slower version of running

For walking, speed does change the per-kilometre cost, and the curve is U-shaped rather than flat. There is an efficient speed — around 5 km/h, or 3 mph — where a unit of distance costs least. Stroll slower than that and it costs more; walk briskly and it costs more again, because the gait becomes mechanically inefficient as it approaches the walk-to-run transition.

For a 70 kg (154 lb) walker; the cheapest distance sits at 5 km/h, or 3 mph. Against roughly 70 kcal/km — about 113 kcal per mile — for running the same ground, walking costs 70–90% as much, not half, as the per-hour comparison suggests.

What hills add

Climbing 100 metres costs about 0.5 kcal per kilogram — 35 kcal for a 70 kg runner — and the descent adds another 0.2 kcal per kilogram, because your quadriceps brake on the way down instead of resting. On a rolling 10 km route (6.2 miles) with 200 metres of gain, that is around 98 extra kcal, or 14% on top of the flat estimate. It is the largest correction most calorie calculators leave out entirely.

Build a route on the map and get its elevation gain automatically

Gross calories and net calories

A MET-based figure is gross: it counts everything your body spent during the hour, including the roughly 1 MET it would have spent lying down. If you are logging a run against your food intake, the honest number is net — subtract about 1 kcal per kilogram per hour, or 0.45 per pound. For the 70 kg runner above, 700 gross becomes 630 net. Most fitness apps report gross, which is one reason the numbers you see are flattering.

How accurate is any of this

MET values are population averages measured in a lab, not a measurement of you. Running economy varies by 10–15% between trained runners of the same weight and speed, and by more across the general population. Wind, surface, temperature, carrying a pack and running form all move the true figure. Treat the result as a range of roughly ±15%, and use it to compare your own sessions with each other rather than as an absolute ledger.

Frequently asked questions