// Weight-Loss Calculators

Calories Burned Calculator

Estimate what a session cost you — either from the activity and how long it lasted, or from your average heart rate if you wore a monitor.

Your details

Your result

Calories burned
394kcal
Per hour
788kcal
MET used
10
  • MET estimates scale with body weight and duration, not with your fitness — a trained and an untrained person doing the same session get the same figure.

Estimates are for general guidance only and are not medical advice. For a personalised plan, book a free guided tour at RPM Gym.

What your result means

The figure is the energy cost of the session, not the amount of fat you lost. Fat loss follows the whole day's balance, and a single session is a small part of it.

Which method you pick matters. The activity method scales with body weight and time only, so two people of the same weight doing the same session get the same number regardless of fitness. The heart-rate method responds to how hard you actually worked, which is why it is worth using when you have the data.

How it is calculated

MET equation, and Keytel et al. (2005) for the heart-rate method

Activity: kcal = (MET × 3.5 × weight kg) ÷ 200 × minutes Heart rate: kcal/min = (−55.0969 + 0.6309·HR + 0.1988·kg + 0.2017·age) ÷ 4.184 [men] kcal/min = (−20.4022 + 0.4472·HR − 0.1263·kg + 0.0740·age) ÷ 4.184 [women]

What it assumes

  • One MET is the energy cost of sitting quietly, taken as 3.5 ml of oxygen per kg per minute.
  • MET values are population averages for an activity, so they can't reflect your technique, pace or fitness.
  • The intensity setting scales the MET by 0.8 for low and 1.25 for high. It's a coarse adjustment, not a measurement.
  • The Keytel equations were derived during steady aerobic work, and assume heart rate is tracking effort rather than heat, caffeine or stress.

Units and rounding

  • Weight in kilograms, duration in minutes, heart rate in beats per minute.
  • The result is total kilocalories for the session, with the per-hour rate shown alongside.
  • A duration or weight of zero returns no result rather than a calorie figure.
  • Where the heart-rate regression would go negative, at very low heart rates, the result is reported as zero rather than as a negative burn.

Worked example

A 75 kg person doing 30 minutes of HIIT at moderate intensity (MET 10.0).

  1. MET × 3.5 × weight = 10.0 × 3.5 × 75 = 2,625
  2. Divide by 200: 2,625 ÷ 200 = 13.125 kcal per minute
  3. Multiply by duration: 13.125 × 30 = 394 kcal
  4. Per hour: 13.125 × 60 = 788 kcal

About 394 kcal for the 30-minute session, a rate of roughly 788 kcal per hour.

Limitations

  • This is gross energy cost, not extra energy. You would have burned something sitting still for the same 30 minutes, so the true additional burn is lower than the number shown.
  • MET values carry wide individual variation. Published comparisons against measured expenditure routinely differ by 20-30% for the same activity.
  • Machine displays aren't a better source. Cardio equipment usually estimates from the same kind of population data, often without knowing your weight.
  • Heart rate can mislead. It rises with heat, dehydration, caffeine and stress without a matching energy cost, which is a real factor in Abu Dhabi summer training.
  • The heart-rate method isn't designed for resistance training, where heart rate spikes between sets without sustained aerobic cost.
  • Treating the number as calories you can eat back is the most common way this tool gets misused, because intake tracking carries its own error in the same direction.

What to do next

  • Use it to compare sessions against each other rather than as an absolute figure. The relative ranking is more reliable than the value.
  • If you're tracking a deficit, set it from your daily energy expenditure rather than adding session burn on top, which double-counts training you already accounted for.
  • If you have a chest strap or wrist monitor, prefer the heart-rate method for steady cardio and the activity method for everything else.
  • For daily movement rather than sessions, step count is a better lens than any single workout estimate.

Sources

Related calculators
View all calculators →
// Frequently Asked

Questions, answered.

How accurate are calories-burned calculators?

Treat them as a rough band, not a figure. MET-based estimates commonly differ from measured expenditure by 20-30% for the same activity, because they can't see your technique, fitness or effort. They are most useful for comparing one session with another.

What is a MET?

A metabolic equivalent: the energy cost of sitting quietly, defined as 3.5 ml of oxygen per kilogram per minute. An activity at 10 METs costs roughly ten times as much energy per minute as sitting still.

Should I trust the treadmill's calorie display instead?

Not automatically. Cardio machines use the same style of population estimate, and many don't know your body weight unless you enter it. Where the machine doesn't have your weight, this calculator has more to work with, not less.

Why does the heart-rate method give a different answer?

Because it is measuring something different. The activity method reads your weight and the clock; the heart-rate method reads how hard your cardiovascular system was working. They disagree most when your effort was unusual for that activity, in either direction.

Can I use this for weight training?

The activity method gives a reasonable ballpark. The heart-rate method doesn't suit lifting. Heart rate spikes during a set and drops between sets, which the equation reads as sustained aerobic work and overestimates.

Should I eat back the calories I burned?

Usually not. If your daily calorie target already assumed you train, eating the session back counts it twice. Add training calories back only if you set your target from a sedentary baseline.

The session is one number. The week is the one that moves.

Training you can repeat every week is what the coaching floor is set up for. Book a free guided tour at RPM Gym in Al Manhal.

Book Free Tour