Calories Burned Calculator

Estimate caloric energy expenditure using Metabolic Equivalent tasks (MET) or average Heart Rate metrics.

Body Attributes

Weight

Age (years)

Sex

Select Activity

Duration (minutes)

Exercise Energy Burn

123 kcal

MET Multiplier

3.5

Duration

30 mins

How Calories Burned Are Calculated

Standard MET calculations express the energy cost of physical activities:Calories Burned = MET × Body Weight in kg × (Duration in minutes / 60). A Metabolic Equivalent (MET) of 1 represents the metabolic rate of sitting quietly.

For cardiorespiratory conditioning, heart rate regression equations (Keytel et al. 2005) correlate oxygen consumption ($VO_2$) directly with pulse rate (BPM) and gender, yielding highly accurate burn targets for smartwatch tracking.

Built and maintained by Meet Shah · Last updated 1 August 2026

What this tool is used for

Estimating energy expenditure for an activity from MET values.
Comparing two activities over the same duration.
Getting a figure to set against a daily intake target.
Seeing how much body weight changes the estimate.
Producing a rough number for a training log.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is a MET value?: Metabolic equivalent of task — a multiple of resting energy use. An activity at 8 METs burns roughly eight times what sitting still does, which is how one table covers many activities.
How accurate is the estimate?: Within roughly 20-30% for an individual. MET values come from population averages, and fitness, technique and body composition all shift the real figure — so it is a comparison tool rather than a measurement.
Does this include my resting metabolism?: Gross figures include the calories you would have burned anyway; net figures subtract them. That difference matters for a long, low-intensity activity, where a large share of the total is just being alive.
Why does weight affect the result so much?: Because moving more mass costs more energy, and MET values scale with body weight. That is why two people doing the same workout for the same time genuinely burn different amounts.
Are fitness tracker numbers more reliable?: Not necessarily. Heart-rate-based estimates are better for steady cardio and poor for strength work, and studies have found errors comparable to these tables. Consistency matters more than the absolute figure.

Common errors and gotchas

Treating a MET-based estimate as measured, when the error band is wide.
Double-counting by adding exercise calories to an activity-adjusted maintenance figure.
Using a MET value for a harder or easier version of the same activity.
Trusting a wearable's figure, which uses its own assumptions and often differs substantially.
Eating back the full estimate, which is the usual reason a deficit does not appear.