The formula
How to calculate cycling calories
Cycling energy cost rises steeply with speed, because air resistance grows with the square of velocity. Unlike running, where distance dominates, how fast you ride is the main determinant of how hard you are working.
The MET approach expresses effort as a multiple of resting metabolism, and the standard conversion turns that into calories using body weight and time. The speed-to-MET relationship here approximates the published compendium values between 16 and 30 km/h.
Fill in the following:
- Body weight (kg)
- Average speed (km/h)
- Duration (minutes)
Results appear immediately — there is nothing to submit. Changing a field rewrites the link, so you can share the exact scenario you are looking at.
Consistency in how the underlying measurements are taken matters more than precision to the last decimal — measuring at the same time of day, in the same state of rest or hydration, makes readings taken weeks apart genuinely comparable in a way that a single very precise reading on its own is not.
Why cycling calories matters
The formula behind cycling calories comes from published research rather than being invented for this page, and it is presented here exactly as it appears in the literature it is drawn from — the value of a calculator is applying it correctly and instantly, not reinventing it.
Because the calculation depends on a formula rather than a device, it is useful anywhere a scale, a tape measure or a stopwatch is available, without needing specialist equipment — which is also exactly why it should be treated as an estimate rather than a clinical measurement.
None of the figures produced on this page are intended to replace a proper assessment, and nothing here should be read as a diagnosis or a treatment recommendation. What a calculator like this is good for is preparation — arriving at an appointment with an actual number already in hand, rather than a vague sense of a change, tends to make that conversation more useful for everyone involved.
A calculator like this one is frequently used to prepare a specific number for an upcoming appointment, so that a description like "I think it has changed" can be replaced with an actual figure and a date it was measured on. Clinicians and trainers generally find a concrete number, however approximate, more useful to work from than a general impression.
Worked example
A concrete run-through, using the values already in the fields:
- Body weight: 75 kg
- Average speed: 22 km/h
- Duration: 60 minutes
That gives:
- Calories burned: 795 kcal
- Approximate MET value: 10
- Calories per hour: 795 kcal
Those starting figures exist only to show the calculation working, not as a target or a reference value to compare yourself against — replace them with your own measurements in the calculator above and the same formula applies exactly as shown.
Reading the result
Riding at 22 km/h is roughly 10 METs — comparable to running at 9 km/h. Dropping to 16 km/h nearly halves the rate of energy use, which is why steady commuting burns far less than it feels like it should.
Where this goes wrong. Wind, gradient and drafting change the answer enormously, and none of them appear in the speed figure. A power meter measuring actual work output is the only accurate method; everything else is estimation.
As with any general-purpose formula, the result here is an estimate derived from population averages, not a measurement specific to you — a reasonable starting point for a conversation with a qualified professional, not a replacement for one. Nothing on this page is medical advice.
For a 75 kg rider: around 400 kcal at a gentle 16 km/h, around 700 at a brisk 22 km/h, and over 1,000 at racing speeds. Body weight scales all of these proportionally.
Running burns more per minute at comparable perceived effort, because you carry your body weight. Cycling allows longer sessions with less impact, so total weekly expenditure can end up higher.
The answer it gives you is calories burned. With 75 kg body weight, 22 km/h average speed and 60 minutes duration, that comes to 795 kcal. Change any field and the figure moves with it.
It uses a published formula applied exactly as defined, so the arithmetic itself is precise — but the formula is a population-level estimate, and individual results can vary from it for reasons the formula has no way to account for. Treat the output as a reasonable estimate rather than a measured or diagnostic value.
For most people, yes — a single reading is a snapshot, while the same measurement repeated consistently over weeks or months shows a trend, which is generally more informative than any one figure taken in isolation.
Small differences between calculators usually come down to which published formula or reference dataset each one uses — several equations in this area exist in more than one accepted version. This page states the specific formula used in the section above, so it is possible to check directly whether another source is using the same one.