Understanding your result
Public-health guidelines classify activity intensity by MET value. The classification below follows the convention used in the ACSM/AHA physical-activity recommendations (Haskell et al., 2007).
| Intensity | MET range | Examples from this calculator |
|---|---|---|
| Light | Below 3.0 METs | Yoga (2.5) |
| Moderate | 3.0 – 5.9 METs | Casual walking (3.5), golf (4.8), swimming moderate (5.8) |
| Vigorous | 6.0 METs and above | Hiking (6.0), soccer (7.0), running 8 km/h (8.3), jumping rope (11.0) |
- MET values are population averages from published measurements; individual energy cost varies with fitness, skill, body composition and conditions.
- The standard MET convention slightly overestimates resting energy for many people, which modestly inflates estimates — a limitation discussed in the compendium literature.
- Calories shown are gross expenditure (including resting metabolism during the activity), not the extra calories above rest.
- The weekly figure assumes five identical sessions and is a projection, not a measurement.
- Questions about how activity calories fit into total daily energy needs are best discussed with a registered dietitian or healthcare professional.
What is a MET and how are calories burned estimated?
A MET (metabolic equivalent of task) expresses the energy cost of an activity as a multiple of resting metabolism. By convention, 1 MET equals an oxygen uptake of 3.5 ml per kilogram of body weight per minute — approximately the energy used sitting quietly. An activity rated at 8 METs therefore uses roughly eight times resting energy.
The standard reference for MET values is the Compendium of Physical Activities, first published by Barbara Ainsworth and colleagues in 1993 and updated in 2011 in Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise. The 2011 update lists coded MET values for over 800 activities, compiled from published measurements. This calculator uses 24 representative activities from that compendium, spanning walking, running, cycling, swimming, gym training, sports and household tasks.
MET-based estimates are population averages. The compendium authors themselves note that individual energy cost varies with body composition, fitness, skill and conditions, and that MET values do not account for those differences. Estimates are most useful for comparing activities and tracking rough totals, not for precise calorie accounting.
How to use this calories burned calculator
- Select an activity from the list — each option carries a MET value from the 2011 Compendium of Physical Activities.
- Enter your body weight, using the Metric/Imperial toggle if needed.
- Enter the duration of the activity in minutes.
- Read the estimated total calories, the per-minute rate, the MET value used, and a weekly projection based on five sessions.
The formula behind calories burned
Energy expenditure is estimated as the MET value multiplied by body weight in kilograms and duration in hours. This is the standard convention used with the compendium: because 1 MET approximates 1 kcal per kilogram of body weight per hour, the product of METs, weight and hours yields kilocalories.
Worked example: running at 8 km/h has a compendium MET value of 8.3. A 70 kg person running for 30 minutes burns approximately 8.3 × 70 × 0.5 ≈ 291 kcal. The weekly figure multiplies the session total by five, representing five identical sessions.
The formula scales linearly with body weight, so heavier people burn more calories at the same activity and duration. It does not adjust for fitness level, technique, terrain, or intensity within a category — a 'moderate' effort covers a range of true intensities — so individual expenditure can differ noticeably from the estimate.
Common mistakes
- Treating MET-based estimates as exact — they are population averages that can differ noticeably from individual expenditure.
- Counting the full figure as 'extra' calories: the estimate includes the resting metabolism you would have burned anyway.
- Selecting a vigorous category for a leisurely effort (or vice versa) — within-category intensity varies widely.
- Entering total gym time rather than active time, which inflates the estimate for interval-style sessions with long rests.
- Comparing values from different calculators without checking whether they use the same compendium MET values.
Часто задаваемые вопросы
How many calories does running burn?
Using the 2011 Compendium of Physical Activities, running at 8 km/h is rated at 8.3 METs and running at 11 km/h at 11.0 METs. For a 70 kg person, 30 minutes at 8 km/h burns roughly 8.3 × 70 × 0.5 ≈ 291 kcal, and 30 minutes at 11 km/h roughly 385 kcal. Actual expenditure varies with the individual and conditions.
What is a MET?
A MET (metabolic equivalent of task) is a unit expressing an activity's energy cost as a multiple of resting metabolism. One MET is defined as 3.5 ml of oxygen per kilogram of body weight per minute, roughly the energy used sitting quietly — approximately 1 kcal per kilogram per hour. An 8-MET activity uses about eight times resting energy.
How accurate are calories-burned calculators?
MET-based estimates reflect published averages from the Compendium of Physical Activities, and the compendium authors note that individual values vary with body composition, fitness, skill and conditions. The standard MET convention also slightly overstates resting energy for many people. Estimates are best used for comparing activities and tracking approximate totals rather than precise calorie accounting.
Does body weight change calories burned?
Yes. In the MET formula, calories scale directly with body weight: at the same activity and duration, a 90 kg person burns about 28% more calories than a 70 kg person. Moving a larger body requires more energy, and the MET convention expresses energy cost per kilogram of body weight.
What counts as moderate versus vigorous activity?
The ACSM/AHA physical-activity recommendations classify activities of 3.0–5.9 METs as moderate and 6.0 METs or above as vigorous. In this calculator, brisk walking (4.3 METs) and golf (4.8 METs) are moderate, while hiking (6.0 METs), tennis (7.3 METs) and running (8.3–11.0 METs) are vigorous.
Why does my fitness tracker show a different number?
Wrist devices estimate energy expenditure from heart-rate and movement models rather than compendium MET values, and validation studies have found their calorie estimates can err substantially in either direction. Differences between a MET-based calculation and a tracker reading are expected; neither is a laboratory measurement.
Do these estimates include the calories I would have burned resting?
Yes. MET-based figures are gross expenditure — total energy used during the activity, including resting metabolism. The additional cost above rest (net expenditure) is lower: for an 8.3-MET run, roughly 7.3 METs' worth of the total is energy beyond sitting quietly.
Источники
- Ainsworth BE, Haskell WL, Herrmann SD, et al. 2011 Compendium of Physical Activities: a second update of codes and MET values. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise 2011; 43(8): 1575–1581.
- Haskell WL, Lee IM, Pate RR, et al. Physical activity and public health: updated recommendation for adults from the American College of Sports Medicine and the American Heart Association. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise 2007; 39(8): 1423–1434.
- Jetté M, Sidney K, Blümchen G. Metabolic equivalents (METS) in exercise testing, exercise prescription, and evaluation of functional capacity. Clinical Cardiology 1990; 13(8): 555–565.
- Byrne NM, Hills AP, Hunter GR, Weinsier RL, Schutz Y. Metabolic equivalent: one size does not fit all. Journal of Applied Physiology 2005; 99(3): 1112–1119.
- American College of Sports Medicine. ACSM's Guidelines for Exercise Testing and Prescription, 11th edition. Wolters Kluwer, 2021.