Calorie Burn — Hiking
Estimate calories burned while hiking from body weight, duration, and terrain or pack load.
What this tool does
This calculator estimates hiking energy expenditure using MET values from the Adult Compendium of Physical Activities. It multiplies body weight, time on trail, and a terrain-and-load MET selected from four published entries: cross-country hiking at 6.0 METs (code 17080), hill climbing with a 4.5–9 kg pack at 6.5 METs (code 17045), hill climbing with a 9.5–18 kg pack at 7.5 METs (code 17050), and loaded climbing on steep 5–20% grades at 10.0 METs (code 17060). Secondary rows show the MET used, the net-of-resting figure, and the per-minute burn rate.
Formula Used
Disclaimer
This calculator is for educational and informational purposes only. It does not provide medical, nutritional, or training advice. Results are mathematical estimates and may not reflect individual circumstances. Consult a qualified coach, registered dietitian, medical professional, or physiotherapist for personal guidance.
How the hiking estimate works
Hiking cost is priced with the MET equation: MET × body mass (kg) × hours. The Adult Compendium of Physical Activities catalogues several hiking and hill-climbing entries, and this tool exposes four of them as a terrain-and-load select: general cross-country hiking at 6.0 METs (code 17080); climbing hills carrying a 10–20 lb (4.5–9 kg) pack on moderate grades at 6.5 METs (code 17045); climbing with a 21–40 lb (9.5–18 kg) pack at 7.5 METs (code 17050); and loaded climbing at a moderate-to-brisk pace on 5–20% grades at 10.0 METs (code 17060).
The formula, worked through
A 75 kg hiker on rolling cross-country terrain for two hours: 6.0 × 75 × 2 = 900 kcal, of which 750 kcal is net of the resting baseline. That works out to 7.5 kcal per minute — comparable to a slow jog, sustained for far longer than most people would run.
A second scenario: a full pack day
An 82 kg backpacker moving for five hours with a 15 kg pack on hilly ground uses the 7.5 MET entry: 7.5 × 82 × 5 = 3,075 kcal. Multi-hour duration is what makes hiking energetically expensive; the per-minute rate is unremarkable, but few activities are sustained for five hours. The same hiker on steep grades with the same pack would move to the 10.0 MET entry and the day-total would approach 4,100 kcal.
What the four bands capture — and what they blur
The Compendium entries fold three physical drivers into single constants: grade, load, and pace. Real trails vary continuously in all three. Descents cost less than the table values suggest (downhill walking can drop below 3 METs on gentle grades), while short steep pitches cost more. A day with 1,000 m of ascent and descent averages out somewhere between the bands. The load bands are also coarse: a 9 kg pack and an 18 kg pack share the 7.5 MET entry despite a doubled load, because the underlying studies grouped subjects by broad pack-weight ranges. For load-carriage estimates that treat weight, speed, and grade as continuous inputs, the Pandolf-equation rucking calculator on this site models the same physics without banding.
Terrain surface matters too
The Compendium values reflect typical trail surfaces. Military load-carriage research quantifies surface effects with terrain factors: energy cost on loose sand can approach double the cost of the same speed on a paved road, and snow, bog, and heavy brush sit in between. A sandy coastal walk or a post-holing snow hike can therefore exceed these estimates substantially, while a smooth rail-trail sits at the low end of the cross-country band.
Gross versus net
The headline figure is gross energy for the window, including resting metabolism. The net row subtracts 1 MET — for the two-hour example, 900 gross versus 750 net. For day-long trips the gap grows: five hours of hiking includes roughly 400 kcal the backpacker would have burned doing nothing, so trip-food arithmetic based on gross figures over-provisions by that amount.
Hiking versus level walking
The cross-country entry at 6.0 METs is roughly 60% more expensive than brisk level walking at 3.8 METs, the difference attributable to grade changes, uneven footing, and the small constant corrections hiking demands. Expressed in distance, a trail kilometre costs materially more than a pavement kilometre at the same speed — a useful mental conversion when comparing a hiking day against an ordinary step count.
Disclaimer
This tool is intended for educational and informational purposes only. It is not medical, clinical, or training advice and does not replace consultation with a physician, registered dietitian, or certified coach. All calculations return population-derived estimates that may differ from individual measured values.
Questions
- Why does a modest pace burn so much over a hiking day?
- Duration dominates the arithmetic. Cross-country hiking at 6.0 METs costs a 75 kg person about 7.5 kcal per minute — less than running — but a five-hour day multiplies that small rate by 300 minutes. Long-duration, moderate-intensity work accumulates totals that short vigorous sessions rarely match: the two-hour example in the write-up reaches 900 kcal, roughly what an hour of hard running would cost the same person.
- How does pack weight change the estimate?
- The tool switches between published Compendium bands: 6.5 METs with a 4.5–9 kg pack, 7.5 METs with a 9.5–18 kg pack on hills, and 10.0 METs for loaded climbing on steep grades. Within a band the estimate does not change, which is a known coarseness of banded tables — a 9 kg and an 18 kg pack return the same figure. The Pandolf-based rucking calculator treats load as a continuous input for finer resolution.
- Does the estimate account for descent?
- No. The Compendium entries reflect mixed or ascending terrain at the stated loads. Measured energy cost of downhill walking is lower than level walking on gentle declines, then rises again on steep descents as braking work increases. A route with equal ascent and descent generally lands below the pure climbing bands, so applying the steep-grade entry to a full out-and-back day overstates the total.
- What about sand, snow, or boggy ground?
- Published military load-carriage research assigns terrain factors that multiply energy cost: dirt roads add roughly 20%, and loose sand can approach twice the cost of paved-surface walking at the same speed. The Compendium hiking entries assume ordinary trail surfaces, so estimates for beach walking, deep snow, or bog crossings run low. Selecting the next band up is one crude way to acknowledge a slow, energy-hungry surface.
- Is the result useful for planning trip food?
- It provides an order-of-magnitude estimate. The gross figure includes resting metabolism, which the body would burn regardless, so provisioning against the net row plus normal daily intake avoids double-counting. Cold, altitude, load carried on the body versus in a balanced pack, and individual economy all shift real requirements, which is why long-distance hikers commonly refine estimates against logged experience rather than a single formula.
Sources & Methodology
Calories = MET × body mass (kg) × duration (hours). MET values from the Adult Compendium of Physical Activities (2024): hiking, cross country = 6.0 METs (code 17080); climbing hills with 10–20 lb (4.5–9 kg) load = 6.5 METs (code 17045); climbing hills with 21–40 lb (9.5–18 kg) load = 7.5 METs (code 17050); climbing hills, loaded, 5–20% grade, moderate-to-brisk pace = 10.0 METs (code 17060). Net figure = (MET − 1) × mass × hours.
- › Herrmann SD, et al. 2024 Adult Compendium of Physical Activities: a third update of the energy costs of human activities. J Sport Health Sci. 2024;13(1):6–12.
- › Ainsworth BE, et al. 2011 Compendium of Physical Activities: a second update of codes and MET values. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2011;43(8):1575–1581.
- › Pandolf KB, Givoni B, Goldman RF. Predicting energy expenditure with loads while standing or walking very slowly. J Appl Physiol. 1977;43(4):577–581.
Spotted something off?
Calculations or display — let us know.
More in Energy Expenditure
View all 18 →- Calorie Burn — CyclingEstimate calorie burn during cycling using speed-bracketed MET values and body weight.
- Calorie Burn — RunningEstimate calories burned during a run based on body weight, pace, and session duration.
- Calorie Burn — SwimmingEstimate swimming energy expenditure using MET values, body weight, and session duration.
- Calorie Burn — WalkingEstimate calories burned walking at different paces using research-backed MET values.
- Activity Calorie Comparison CalculatorCompare estimated calorie burn across running, cycling, swimming, walking, and resistance training.
- Calorie Burn — BoxingEstimate calories burned in boxing training from body weight, session time, and training mode.