Bicycle Calorie Calculator
How many calories does a bike ride actually burn? Enter your weight, pick your pace, and set the ride time: this bicycle calorie calculator uses the standard MET equation, the same method behind most fitness trackers, to estimate your burn per minute, per hour and for the whole ride. Planning by route instead of by clock? Switch to the distance tab and estimate from kilometres or miles alone, using the well-tested rule of about 0.4 kcal per kilogram of body weight per kilometre.
The pace bands in the speed tab are not vibes. Each one carries the MET value the 2024 Adult Compendium of Physical Activities assigns to that cycling speed, and two bands on the older version of this page have been corrected to match the Compendium exactly: light riding at 16 to 19 km/h is MET 6.8 (code 01020), not 6, and racing above 30 km/h is MET 16.8 (code 01060), not 14. The correction is explained in the method section below, because a calorie figure is only as honest as the MET table behind it.
Estimates, not lab measurements. MET-based cycling figures commonly land within about 20 to 30 percent of an individual’s true burn; hills, wind, drafting, bike type and an e-bike motor move the real number, mostly downward for assist and upward for climbing.
Quick Answer
Key takeaways
- Calories follow the MET equation: MET times 3.5 times weight in kg, divided by 200, gives calories per minute. Weight and intensity do all the work; there is no separate fitness-level input because MET already encodes effort.
- The pace bands use the 2024 Adult Compendium of Physical Activities values, including the two corrected bands disclosed in the introduction: light riding is MET 6.8 and very fast riding is MET 16.8.
- Distance mode answers a different planning question with a simpler rule, about 0.4 kcal per kg per km, and it cannot see pace, hills or wind at all.
- Treat every output as an estimate with a real error band, commonly 20 to 30 percent for individuals. A power meter, if you have one, beats any MET table.
- Quick Answer
- The MET table behind the speed mode, with its Compendium codes
- Worked examples in both modes
- Why your real burn will differ from the estimate
- Using the number: fuelling and weight goals without fooling yourself
- What competing calculators miss
- Frequently asked questions
- Add This Calculator to Your Website
- References
The MET table behind the speed mode, with its Compendium codes
Each speed band in the calculator is a specific activity code in the 2024 Adult Compendium of Physical Activities, the research catalogue maintained from the work of Ainsworth and colleagues and updated in the 2024 Compendium update paper. Showing the codes matters: anyone can check the exact row this page used.
| Pace band | Speed | Compendium code | MET | kcal/hour at 70 kg |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Leisurely | Under 16 km/h (under 10 mph) | 01010 | 4.0 | 294 |
| Light | 16-19 km/h (10-11.9 mph) | 01020 | 6.8 | 500 |
| Moderate | 19-22 km/h (12-13.9 mph) | 01030 | 8.0 | 588 |
| Vigorous | 22-26 km/h (14-15.9 mph) | 01040 | 10.0 | 735 |
| Racing | 26-30 km/h (16-19 mph) | 01050 | 12.0 | 882 |
| Very fast | Over 30 km/h (over 20 mph) | 01060 | 16.8 | 1,235 |
Two rows deserve a footnote because this page changed them. The previous version of this calculator carried MET 6 for the light band and MET 14 for the very fast band. The Compendium says 6.8 and 16.8, and the full catalogue is published in the 2024 Adult Compendium activity list, so the bands were corrected rather than rounded. The practical difference: an hour of light riding for a 70 kg rider is 500 kcal on the corrected value, not 441, and an hour of very fast riding is 1,235, not 1,029. The stationary options (MET 7 moderate, 10.5 vigorous) are effort-based rather than speed-coded and were left as they were; the Compendium's stationary codes are watt-based and bracket those values. As a cross-check, Harvard Health's widely republished table puts a 155 lb (about 70 kg) rider at 12 to 13.9 mph on 298 kcal per 30 minutes, which is 596 per hour against this tool's 588, agreement within about 1.5 percent, as summarised in Healthline's review of calories burned biking.
Worked examples in both modes
Speed mode first, with the calculator's pre-filled values. A 70 kg rider, moderate pace (MET 8), 60 minutes: 8 x 3.5 x 70 / 200 = 9.8 cal per minute, times 60 = 588 calories. Halve the ride to 30 minutes and the answer halves to 294; the equation is linear in time, weight and MET alike, so a 10 percent error in any one of them is a 10 percent error in the result.
Distance mode, same rider, 20 km: 0.4 x 70 x 20 = 560 calories, at 28.0 cal per kilometre. The two modes were built from different research habits, one from laboratory MET measurement, one from observed cost per distance, and at a moderate road pace they agree within about 5 percent. Push the pace to racing and they separate, correctly: distance mode still says 560 for the 20 km, while speed mode at MET 12 for the 40 minutes that 20 km takes at 30 km/h gives about 588. Ride the same 20 km slowly at leisure pace over 80 minutes and speed mode gives about 392, because dawdling really is cheaper per kilometre. Distance mode is the quick planning number; speed mode is the one that knows how you rode. If you plan the route on a map and need the distance itself, an average distance calculator helps turn segments into a total.
Why your real burn will differ from the estimate
The MET value is an average measured on groups of riders on ordinary bikes in calm conditions. Your ride adds weather and terrain the table never met. A steady headwind at 20 km/h can cost like riding 25 km/h in still air. Climbing 500 metres in an hour adds the physics of lifting you and the bike against gravity, which no flat-ground MET contains. Drafting in a group cuts the cost at a given speed by a fifth or more. Rolling resistance is the quiet one: under-inflated tyres on rough tarmac can add a tenth to the effort at the same speed, which is one reason a bike tyre pressure calculator belongs in ride preparation next to this one.
E-bikes break the model in the other direction. The Compendium now lists electrically assisted cycling separately: about 6.8 METs with the motor effectively off, 6.0 with light support and 4.0 with high support for transportation riding. If you ride with meaningful assist, use the custom MET field with one of those values instead of the road pace bands, or the calculator will credit you with work the motor did. Fitness trackers and bike computers that estimate from heart rate land in the same error neighbourhood; the only consumer method that genuinely narrows it is a power meter, because kilojoules of mechanical work convert to kilocalories at a roughly fixed human efficiency of about 20 to 25 percent.
Using the number: fuelling and weight goals without fooling yourself
Two practical rules keep calorie estimates useful instead of decorative. First, eat back less than the estimate on weight-loss plans. If the calculator says 588 and the true figure is 20 percent lower, eating back the full 588 quietly erases the deficit the ride was for; eating back half to two-thirds is the common sports-dietitian compromise. Second, fuel by duration, not by the calorie printout: rides under an hour need water and nothing else for most people, while rides past 90 minutes benefit from 30 to 60 grams of carbohydrate per hour regardless of what any calculator says you burned.
Riders who track a season of riding often pair burn with cost: a bike cost per ride calculator turns the same rides into money per outing, and the two numbers together give a fair picture of what the hobby returns. And if the arithmetic ever pushes you toward selling the bike instead, the bicycle value calculator in this same batch prices what it is worth now.
What competing calculators miss
Most cycling calorie tools get the central formula right and the edges wrong. Several still print MET tables with leisure riding at 8, which is the Compendium's moderate band wearing the wrong label, doubling a gentle ride's estimate. Others interpolate a fresh MET for every km/h, which looks precise and invents numbers no study measured. A few offer distance-only estimates with no warning that the per-kilometre cost collapses at very low speeds and climbs with climbing.
The gaps this page closes are specific: Compendium code numbers printed next to every band so the table can be audited, the two corrected bands disclosed rather than silently swapped, a custom MET field for mountain biking (8.5), e-bike assist levels and lab values, and a second, independent distance method whose agreement or disagreement with the speed method tells you something real about the estimate. A calculator that hides its MET table is asking for trust. This one shows its working.
Frequently asked questions
It depends on pace and weight. For a 70 kg rider the Compendium-based figures are about 294 kcal at a leisurely pace under 16 km/h, 500 at a light 16 to 19 km/h, 588 at a moderate 19 to 22 km/h, 735 at a vigorous 22 to 26 km/h, 882 at a racing 26 to 30 km/h, and about 1,235 above 30 km/h. Scale linearly: a 60 kg rider burns about 14 percent less, an 80 kg rider about 14 percent more.
Speed mode, when you honestly know your pace, because it prices the ride's intensity through the MET value. Distance mode uses a flat 0.4 kcal per kg per km, which is a good average for ordinary road riding but cannot see pace, hills or wind. At a moderate pace the two agree within about 5 percent, as the worked examples show: 588 versus 560 for the standard ride.
Because the 2024 Adult Compendium of Physical Activities assigns MET 6.8 to cycling at 10 to 11.9 mph (code 01020) and MET 16.8 to racing above 20 mph (code 01060). The older version of this calculator used 6 and 14 for those bands. The moderate band behind the worked example was already correct at MET 8, so the headline figures did not change.
Useful, not exact. Studies comparing MET estimates with measured energy expenditure commonly find individual errors around 20 to 30 percent, because fitness, position on the bike, wind, terrain and drafting all move the true cost. A power meter is the accurate route: kilojoules shown on the head unit approximate kilocalories burned at normal human efficiency.
Choose Custom MET and enter the Compendium's assisted-cycling values: about 6.8 with the motor effectively off, 6.0 with light electronic support, and 4.0 with high support for transportation riding. Using the unassisted pace bands on a strongly assisted ride overstates the burn, because part of the work came from the battery.
The Compendium lists mountain biking, general, at 8.5 METs, uphill vigorous mountain biking at 14.0, and competitive mountain racing at 16.0. Enter 8.5 in the custom MET field for a typical trail ride. Singletrack with sustained climbing sits between the general and uphill values, so 10 to 12 is a reasonable custom entry for a hard trail day.
The MET equation was built on body weight alone, and this calculator follows it. The bike's mass matters most on climbs, where total system weight is what gravity charges you for. On flat ground the effect is small. If most of your riding is steep climbing, adding a few kilograms for the bike to your entered weight is a reasonable personal adjustment, labelled as such.
Because with MET pricing effort, duration is the variable that completes the equation: calories per minute times minutes. Entering speed and distance as well would over-determine the same ride and invite inconsistent inputs. If you know distance and average speed, divide distance by speed to get hours, enter that as the duration, and pick the pace band that matches the speed.
Add This Calculator to Your Website
References
- Herrmann, S. D. and co-authors, "2024 Adult Compendium of Physical Activities: a third update of the energy costs of human activities" - the current Compendium, including cycling codes 01010 to 01060 and the assisted-cycling codes. PMC: 2024 Adult Compendium update. Accessed October 2026.
- Compendium of Physical Activities, "2024 Adult Compendium activity list" - the full code and MET table used for the pace bands in this calculator. 2024 Adult Compendium (PDF). Accessed October 2026.
- Healthline, "How Many Calories Do You Burn Biking?" - Harvard Health calorie figures by weight and pace used as the cross-check for the moderate band. Healthline: Calories Burned Biking. Accessed October 2026.
- MacKenzie, B., "METS" (BrianMac Sports Coach) - the MET definition, the 3.5 ml oxygen basis, and the Ainsworth Compendium references behind the equation. BrianMac: METS. Accessed October 2026.
- CalculatorSuite, "Calories Burned Biking Calculator" - a MET-method comparison tool citing the 2011 Compendium bands. CalculatorSuite: Calories Burned Biking. Accessed October 2026.
- TrainCalc, "Calories Burned Cycling Calculator" - preset MET values aligned to the 2024 Compendium, including the 16.8 race pace. TrainCalc: Calories Burned Cycling. Accessed October 2026.
- TDEE Calculator Kit, "Calories Burned Cycling Calculator" - road, mountain, indoor and e-bike MET comparisons. TDEE Calculator Kit: Cycling Calories. Accessed October 2026.
- Sport-Calculator, "Cycling Calorie Calculator" - a speed-interpolated MET approach, compared in the competitor section. Sport-Calculator: Cycling Calorie Calculator. Accessed October 2026.
- Lebel Bicycles, "Cycling Calorie Calculator" - Compendium band table with per-mile figures and the calories equals MET x 3.5 x kg / 200 x minutes derivation. Lebel Bicycles: Cycling Calorie Calculator. Accessed October 2026.
- Daily Calories Calculator, "Calories Burned Biking: Cycling Calories Burned Calculator" - Harvard-based pace and weight tables for comparison. Daily Calories Calculator: Cycling. Accessed October 2026.