Hiking Calorie Burn Calculator:

[Kookork]

Found this site that enable us to calculate the calorie burn depending on miles hiked,elevation gain,body and backpack weight.

I am not sure how precise and scientific the calculator is but entering some numbers it seems legitimate to me.

For example a 160 pounds hiker in a 20 miles round trip with 2000 feet elevation gain with a 30 pounds backpack burns 4679 calories.

http://hikingscience.blogspot.ca/p/c...burned_22.html

If this has been discussed before ,sorry.

[BirdBrain]

Saving link. Thank you.

[donthaveoneyet]

I just ran a couple of sample hikes thru it. I use a HRM fairly often and have a pretty good idea of calorie burn for specific hikes. The calculator seems to be reasonably accurate, maybe a little low compared to my stats from my HRM (I have had three, from two different brands, over five years or so). There seems to be some debate in the comments on the site as to the relevance of speed (as well as other factors). I could be wrong, but my understanding is that speed will make a difference to the extent it effects your heart rate. The calculator doesn't appear to account for this, but seems to assume an "average" speed (presumably 3 mph). Anyway, seems like a nice general reference point, similar to the calorie calculators on various phone apps.

[Kookork]

I just ran a couple of sample hikes thru it. I use a HRM fairly often and have a pretty good idea of calorie burn for specific hikes. The calculator seems to be reasonably accurate, maybe a little low compared to my stats from my HRM (I have had three, from two different brands, over five years or so). There seems to be some debate in the comments on the site as to the relevance of speed (as well as other factors). I could be wrong, but my understanding is that speed will make a difference to the extent it effects your heart rate. The calculator doesn't appear to account for this, but seems to assume an "average" speed (presumably 3 mph). Anyway, seems like a nice general reference point, similar to the calorie calculators on various phone apps.

Like a car fuel consumption from point A to Point B which varies depending the speed and is optimum in a particular speed (optimum speed varies in different cars) speed makes a difference in our calorie burn .

the problem is that every individual has his own optimum speed so bringing the speed in a general calculator like this one is very difficult if not impossible.

[donthaveoneyet]

Like a car fuel consumption from point A to Point B which varies depending the speed and is optimum in a particular speed (optimum speed varies in different cars) speed makes a difference in our calorie burn .

the problem is that every individual has his own optimum speed so bringing the speed in a general calculator like this one is very difficult if not impossible.

Right, that makes sense to me. On the phone app that I use, you input your age, height, weight and gender, which I think may at least partially account for the individual differences. On the web calculator linked here, only weight seems to be entered - but that may be the most significant variable.

Another thing that is not taken into account in a calculator like this is whether or not trekking poles are used. I seem to recall several credible studies showed that use of poles increased calorie burn significantly, I think one study said up to 30%. I've thought about testing that on a HRM to see if it measured any difference, but haven't gotten around to it.

[Pedaling Fool]

Right, that makes sense to me. On the phone app that I use, you input your age, height, weight and gender, which I think may at least partially account for the individual differences. On the web calculator linked here, only weight seems to be entered - but that may be the most significant variable.

Another thing that is not taken into account in a calculator like this is whether or not trekking poles are used. I seem to recall several credible studies showed that use of poles increased calorie burn significantly, I think one study said up to 30%. I've thought about testing that on a HRM to see if it measured any difference, but haven't gotten around to it.

I think hiking poles have the potential to increase one's caloric burn; however, the way most people use them I would say they don't increase the burn significantly and in some cases probably reduce caloric burn.

I say this, because, most people don't actively use their poles other than to help keep a rhythm or to catch one's balance. And when you use it to catch your balance then you're not using your core muscles as much, and that's why I believe there's a possibility, under the right circumstances that you are using less energy with poles. In other words it takes less energy to maintain balance with poles than without, the only way I see one using more energy is if they are driving the pole into the ground and actively propelling themselves forward -- no one really does that.

[BirdBrain]

I think hiking poles have the potential to increase one's caloric burn; however, the way most people use them I would say they don't increase the burn significantly and in some cases probably reduce caloric burn.

I say this, because, most people don't actively use their poles other than to help keep a rhythm or to catch one's balance. And when you use it to catch your balance then you're not using your core muscles as much, and that's why I believe there's a possibility, under the right circumstances that you are using less energy with poles. In other words it takes less energy to maintain balance with poles than without, the only way I see one using more energy is if they are driving the pole into the ground and actively propelling themselves forward -- no one really does that.

Fully agree. The results from the calculations will be inaccurate. There are too many unpredictable and moving variables. However, I love the concept of having a tool that will allow for a better guess on calories burned. Having a more reasoned guess, will allow people like me (with OCD) to further refine my planning.

[donthaveoneyet]

You guys may be right, I don't really have any basis for knowing. There are a number of studies, apparently. I haven't got time to really look at them, but they all seem to suggest that poles increase calorie burn. Here's a few quick links...

http://www.mayoclinic.org/walking-po...s/FAQ-20057943

http://walking.about.com/cs/poles/a/polestudy00.htm

http://www.trailspace.com/articles/t...-benefits.html

[cmoulder]

Accepting for the sake of discussion that the 4679-calorie number is correct for the 20-mile hike, one also must account for calories burned while resting. People who exercise regularly have a higher resting metabolic rate, and when it's cold out (and we're out in it) the resting metabolic rate is higher yet.

Resting metabolic rate (RMR) Calculator

When the numbers are added up, daily calorie burn is actually somewhere in the 6000kcal/day ballpark, and likely higher. A generous estimate of 150kcal/oz represents 2.5 lbs (40 oz) of food per day to replenish 6000 kcal. Not many people carry that much.

[colorado_rob]

Am I missing some point? I get roughly half of those answers using the OP's original inputs, are you saying you add all the calories? doesn't seem right, I think you only add up the "adjusted" calorie line, right????

Anyway, using my own numbers, 18.5 miles a day with 3500 elevation gain (my average for the complete AT) yields, in the "adjusted" row, 2800 calories, which seems about right as I ate roughly 3700-3800 calories a day on average (more in town stops!) and didn't gain or lose significant weight. I don't think this calculator includes the calories burned during the day while not hiking, probably on the order of 100 per hour (???).

[donthaveoneyet]

Am I missing some point? I get roughly half of those answers using the OP's original inputs, are you saying you add all the calories? doesn't seem right, I think you only add up the "adjusted" calorie line, right????

Anyway, using my own numbers, 18.5 miles a day with 3500 elevation gain (my average for the complete AT) yields, in the "adjusted" row, 2800 calories, which seems about right as I ate roughly 3700-3800 calories a day on average (more in town stops!) and didn't gain or lose significant weight. I don't think this calculator includes the calories burned during the day while not hiking, probably on the order of 100 per hour (???).

I'm not sure what the calculator here is doing. But when I run a HRM monitor, and compare it to the "calculator" in my phone app (MapMyWalk), I get reasonably close numbers (the HRM generally is about 10-15% above the app). I assume the HRM is calculating based on my heart rate for the entire time I am wearing it; thus, there is no "adding" additional calories. It just says what (it thinks) was burned during the relevant time period. Since the calculator comes out pretty close, I assume it is doing the same.

I have worn the HRM for 24 periods at times, and yeah, I think 100 cal p hour is about right (at least that's what I got).

[rocketsocks]

Pretty cool app, even if it is off by a Snicker and a half.

[Puddlefish]

Non exercise calories are significant, even the brain uses a lot of calories. (Insert your own "for some people!" joke.)

[Malto]

I did a quick check vs. my go to estimate of 1 calorie per mile per lb total weight and for "aggressive" trail it is right on. I am also making the assumption that this estimate only covers energy expended for hiking not base metabolism.

[Kookork]

Am I missing some point? I get roughly half of those answers using the OP's original inputs, are you saying you add all the calories? doesn't seem right, I think you only add up the "adjusted" calorie line, right????

Anyway, using my own numbers, 18.5 miles a day with 3500 elevation gain (my average for the complete AT) yields, in the "adjusted" row, 2800 calories, which seems about right as I ate roughly 3700-3800 calories a day on average (more in town stops!) and didn't gain or lose significant weight. I don't think this calculator includes the calories burned during the day while not hiking, probably on the order of 100 per hour (???).

Distance Round Trip (miles):
Elevation Gain (ft)
Bodyweight (lbs)
Backpack Weight (lbs)
Terrain Scaling (1-2, normal to all very rough)

Measure	Uphill	Downhill
Average Grade %
Work Ratio relative to Flat Walking
Equivalent Number of Flat Miles
Base Calories Burned (kcal)
Adjusted Calories Burned

I added all for numbers for my op, assuming that adjusted calorie burned is what we burn extra during our hike and base calorie burned is what our body will burn naturally during the time of hiking as our BMR(base metabolic rate).
But now that I saw your comment, I am not sure about my calculation. At the same time if I only add adjusted calorie burned (1412+1065) =2477 it is really low number for such a demanding example of hike.

Maybe other can help . The thing is as cmoulder mentioned , we have to add to this number the calorie we burn after the hike when we are resting which is more than average rest calorie of a person who has not been exercising. In short, I am lost .

[Kookork]

I did a quick check vs. my go to estimate of 1 calorie per mile per lb total weight and for "aggressive" trail it is right on. I am also making the assumption that this estimate only covers energy expended for hiking not base metabolism.

Exactly, this only covers energy expended for hiking and not BMR.

[colorado_rob]

I don't actually think 2500 calories is low for 20 miles with a piddly 2000' elevation gain, especially for alight hiker like yourself. I'm pretty sure the calories burned is just the last line total. I'm absolutely sure that calories burned in any activity has so many variables, it's nearly impossible to calculate! I think a well calibrated HRM is really the only way that's reasonably accurate.

Still, these modest online calculators are fun, and this one seems to be pretty darn accurate for my body and my hiking, at least.

[kayak karl]

too many other variables. temperature, rain, snow, wind.....even the temperature of the water you drink effects calorie burn.

[Kookork]

too many other variables. temperature, rain, snow, wind.....even the temperature of the water you drink effects calorie burn.

if you want to go to variables and minutia , if somebody farts then he will use less calorie because the fart expels him forward.
Just joking Karl.

[egilbe]

A person in a coma burns 1400 calories a day. I think it may be calories burned in addition to everyones base metabolic calorie burn.