How the conversion works
Walking and running are close to metabolically fixed per mile: a given body weight costs about the same energy to move one mile regardless of how briskly it is covered, because most of that energy pays for lifting and swinging the same limbs the same number of times. That lets both activities use a simple weight-scaled rate rather than a full time-and-effort formula:
Take the figures this page opens with: a 154 lb runner covering 5 miles. That is 0.75 × 154 × 5, which comes to about 578 kcal gross, with a net figure of 0.63 × 154 × 5, about 485 kcal. Walking the same 5 miles at the same weight comes to roughly 439 kcal gross and 231 kcal net, the walking rates being lower because walking is a far less demanding gait per mile covered. Every one of these numbers scales in a straight line: double the miles, or double the weight, and the calorie figure doubles with it.
Cycling is different: speed decides the number, not distance alone
A walker or runner cannot cover a mile without doing roughly the same amount of mechanical work, but a cyclist can cover the same mile freewheeling downhill or hammering a time trial, for wildly different effort. Distance alone cannot tell those apart, so this page asks for a typical speed when cycling is selected and works out an effort band, a MET value, from it, then applies this site's standard MET formula:
The MET bands follow the Compendium of Physical Activities, the same reference table behind the Calorie Burn Calculator: under 10 mph rates as leisurely cycling (4.0 METs), 10 to 11.9 mph as moderate (6.8), 12 to 13.9 mph as brisk (8.0), 14 to 15.9 mph as vigorous (10.0), 16 to 19 mph as fast or racing (12.0), and 20 mph or more as competitive racing (15.8). A 154 lb rider (about 70 kg) covering 5 miles at 12 mph takes 25 minutes and burns roughly 244 kcal gross, about 214 kcal net, noticeably less than the same distance run, because 12 mph cycling is a comparatively light effort band next to a 6-minute-mile run.
Running versus walking: per mile, and per minute
Running beats walking on a per-mile basis by a fairly modest margin: 0.75 kcal per pound against 0.57, about 32 percent more energy for the identical distance. That comparison alone understates the real-world gap, though, because running also covers the mile in roughly half the time. A typical walking pace is close to 20 minutes per mile; a typical recreational running pace is close to 10. Per mile, running's advantage is one-third again; per minute of actual exercise, it is closer to two and a half times, since the same 0.75-per-mile rate is being earned in half the time. If the honest question is "which burns more for the half hour I actually have", the per-minute gap, not the per-mile one, is the number that matters.
Gross versus net: what your tracker doesn't say
Gross is the total energy spent during the session, resting cost and all. Net strips that baseline back out, leaving only the extra energy the activity itself added on top of existing. Wrist-worn trackers and app summaries almost always display the gross figure, since it is the bigger, more satisfying number, but net is the honest answer to how much extra food a session actually earned you. The gap is proportionally larger for walking than running: walking's net rate is little more than half its gross rate, because gentle walking sits closer to resting energy expenditure than a run does, so subtracting the resting share removes a bigger slice of the total.
What this number does not know
Every figure on this page assumes flat, calm ground: no hills, no headwind, no thick mud or deep snow underfoot. Climbing, running into a strong wind or riding a heavier bike all raise the true cost above what is shown here, sometimes substantially, while a downhill stretch or a tailwind lower it. Individual fitness, running or pedalling technique and body composition shift the real number further still, so treat the output as a solid population-average estimate rather than a personal lab reading.
What the calories actually mean for weight loss
The old rule of thumb, that 3,500 kcal of deficit equals roughly one pound of fat, still gets repeated everywhere because it is a useful rough guide, not because it is exact. It comes from the energy density of fat tissue and treats the body as a simple bucket: burn more than you eat by 3,500 kcal over any stretch of time and a pound disappears. Real bodies are not that tidy. As weight drops, resting energy needs drop with it, appetite hormones shift to defend the old weight, and non-exercise movement often falls without anyone noticing, all of which slow the "pounds per 3,500 kcal" pace over weeks and months. The rule is a fine napkin estimate for a single week; it is not a formula to plan a diet against for six months without expecting the real number to bend.
Questions people ask
Why does running burn more calories per mile than walking?
Running involves a brief airborne phase every stride, so the body does more work against gravity than walking's continuous ground contact, and running form recruits more muscle mass per stride too. That extra mechanical work per mile is why running's published rate, about 0.75 kcal per pound, sits above walking's 0.57, even though both are close to fixed regardless of pace within their normal ranges.
Does walking faster burn more calories per mile?
Only a little, up to a point. Because walking's energy cost per mile is fairly flat across normal paces, briskly walking a mile costs close to the same as strolling it, just in less time. Push past a natural walking pace into a fast-paced "race walk" and the biomechanics change enough to raise the true cost, which is one reason this page keeps a single walking rate rather than a speed-adjusted one.
Why can't I just enter a distance for cycling like the other two activities?
Because cycling effort is not fixed per mile the way walking and running are. Coasting downhill and sprinting flat-out can cover the identical mile at wildly different energy costs, so distance alone leaves out the one variable that actually decides the number: how hard you were riding. Speed is used here as a practical stand-in for effort, converted into a MET value from the Compendium of Physical Activities.
Should I use gross or net calories when planning weight loss?
Net, if you are adding exercise calories on top of a daily target that already assumes a sedentary baseline. If your daily calorie target already accounts for an active lifestyle, such as one built with the Daily Calorie Calculator, the activity is already priced in and adding session calories on top double-counts them.
Does running or cycling uphill burn more than these numbers show?
Yes. Every figure here assumes flat, calm ground. Climbing a hill, riding into a headwind or running on soft sand or snow all raise the true energy cost above the flat-ground estimate shown, in some cases considerably; a downhill stretch or a tailwind lowers it in the same way.
How accurate is "3,500 calories equals one pound"?
Useful as a rough guide, not exact as a plan. It is a fair estimate for a single week's deficit, but resting energy needs, appetite and everyday movement all shift as weight changes, so the real pace of loss over months usually runs slower than a straight 3,500-kcal calculation predicts.
Why does my fitness watch show a different number to this page?
Wrist-worn trackers estimate effort from heart rate, a proxy that also climbs with heat, caffeine, stress and poor sleep, and independent testing has repeatedly found them overestimating exercise calorie burn by 20 to 40 percent against lab-grade equipment. This page's rates come from published exercise-physiology formulas rather than a heart-rate estimate, but treat any single figure, watch or page, as an estimate with real error bars.
This tool estimates energy use for healthy adults from published exercise-physiology rates; it is not a substitute for a lab test or clinical advice. Pregnancy, heart conditions, injuries and some medications change the arithmetic enough that a doctor's or physiotherapist's input matters more than another decimal place here.