Calories burned running
The energy cost of a run, from your weight, your duration and your pace. Your pace is matched to the nearest published MET value rather than interpolated, so every number here traces back to a printed row you can look up.
Your run
Energy cost
Running, 6 mph (10:00 / mile) — 9.8 METs (activity code 12050) from the 2011 Compendium of Physical Activities. Your pace of 10:00 / mi is 6.00 mph, which we snap to the nearest published row rather than interpolating — every number here traces to a printed value.
METs are population averages, and the one-MET convention assumes a resting metabolism everyone shares — Byrne and colleagues showed it overstates resting energy expenditure by roughly 20% for most adults. The bias points one way, so read this as an over-estimate. Hills, wind, surface and running economy are not modelled here at all.
What you eat across the week matters far more than any single session's burn. Start with maintenance calories →
How the math works
METs × bodyweight in kilograms × hours. One MET is defined as one kilocalorie per kilogram per hour, which is what collapses the whole calculation to a single multiplication.
Your pace is converted to miles per hour and matched to the closest speed the 2011 Compendium of Physical Activities actually publishes. We deliberately do not interpolate between rows: an interpolated MET is a number nobody measured, and the point of using a published table is that every value in it came from somewhere.
The published running values
| Pace | Speed | METs | Code |
|---|---|---|---|
| 12:00 / mile | 5 mph | 8.3 | 12030 |
| 10:00 / mile | 6 mph | 9.8 | 12050 |
| 8:34 / mile | 7 mph | 11.0 | 12070 |
| 7:30 / mile | 8 mph | 11.8 | 12090 |
| 6:40 / mile | 9 mph | 12.8 | 12110 |
| 6:00 / mile | 10 mph | 14.5 | 12120 |
| 5:00 / mile | 12 mph | 19.0 | 12132 |
Honest caveats
Gradient, wind, surface, altitude and your individual running economy are all absent from this model. Two runners of identical weight covering identical distances at identical paces genuinely burn different amounts, and the table cannot know which of them you are. Snapping your pace to the nearest published row adds a little more imprecision on top, which is a trade we make deliberately in exchange for traceability.
There are no weight-loss targets on this page, and that is intentional. Burn estimates are the weakest number in the whole nutrition stack, and planning intake around one is a reliable route to under-fuelling. Start from maintenance calories instead, use the training paces calculator to structure the running itself, and read the medical disclaimer.
Common questions
How accurate is this?+−
Treat it as an over-estimate, not a symmetric margin. MET values are population averages, and the one-MET convention assumes a resting metabolism of 3.5 ml of oxygen per kilogram per minute for everybody — Byrne and colleagues showed that assumption runs high for most adults, overstating resting energy expenditure by around 20% in calorie terms. The bias is one-directional, so read this as an over-estimate rather than a number that might be wrong either way. Your own running economy, which varies a lot between runners at the same pace, is not in the model at all.
Does running uphill change the number?+−
Considerably, and it is not modelled here. The Compendium does list separate values for uphill running, but combining them with a flat-ground pace would mean guessing at your gradient profile — so this calculator sticks to what your pace alone supports and says so rather than inventing a hill adjustment.
Do you burn the same running a mile as walking one?+−
Close, but not identical, and the popular claim that they are exactly equal is an oversimplification. Running has a higher energy cost per unit distance for most people, and it also produces a larger post-exercise elevation in metabolism. The gap is smaller than most runners assume, which is the useful half of the myth.
Should I eat back the calories this says I burned?+−
Not directly from this number. An estimate carrying a 20–30% margin is a poor basis for a daily intake decision, and building a deficit on top of one is how runners drift into under-fuelling without noticing. Set intake from maintenance calories and your weekly training load, then adjust based on what actually happens to your weight and your training quality.
What you eat matters more than what you burned.
The Fuel Framework sets your intake from your own numbers and your sport's demands, with every figure traced to a named study.