Elevation gain, pack weight and terrain — modeled with the published Pandolf (1977) equation, not a flat per-mile guess.
| Scenario | Calories | Difference |
|---|---|---|
| Your hike (as entered) | — | — |
| Same hike, no pack | — | — |
| Same hike, flat (no elevation) | — | — |
A 70 kg hiker with a 10 kg pack, hiking 10 km with 500 m of elevation gain in 4 hours on a maintained dirt trail burns about 960 kcal — roughly 3.4 METs in exercise intensity. Drop the pack and it falls to 875 kcal; flatten the route and it falls to 592 kcal. Grade is the dominant term; the pack is a meaningful surcharge.
This calculator uses the Pandolf, Givoni & Goldman (1977) equation for the metabolic cost of walking with a load:
M = 1.5W + 2.0(W+L)(L/W)² + η(W+L)[1.5V² + 0.35VG]
M is metabolic rate in watts; W body mass (kg); L pack load (kg); V speed (m/s) from your distance ÷ duration; G grade (%) from elevation gain ÷ distance; η the published terrain factor. Kilocalories = M × seconds ÷ 4184.
Sanity anchors from the 2011 Compendium of Physical Activities (Ainsworth et al.): “hiking, cross country” = 6.0 METs, and “climbing hills” rises with load — 6.3 (no load), 6.5 (≤9 lb), 7.3 (10–20 lb), 8.3 (21–42 lb), 9.0 (42+ lb). The literature notes the Pandolf equation tends to underpredict at high loads and speeds, so treat steep, heavy-pack results as a conservative baseline.
It uses the Pandolf, Givoni & Goldman (1977) equation from exercise physiology: M = 1.5W + 2.0(W+L)(L/W)\u00b2 + \u03b7(W+L)[1.5V\u00b2 + 0.35VG], where W is your body weight, L is pack weight, V is hiking speed, G is grade from elevation gain, and \u03b7 is a terrain factor. The resulting metabolic rate in watts is converted to kilocalories (1 W \u00d7 seconds \u00f7 4184). This is the only published model that jointly accounts for body weight, pack load, speed, slope, and terrain \u2014 exactly the inputs that matter on a hike.
The hub at /tools/calories-burned-calculator/ covers 49 activities with one flat MET value each \u2014 hiking there is simply \u201chiking, cross country = 6.0 METs\u201d with no inputs for elevation gain, pack weight, or terrain. This dedicated tool models the physics of your specific hike: how steep it is, how heavy your pack is, and what surface you walk on. Use the hub to compare across activities (running, cycling, swimming); use this calculator when elevation and pack weight are the whole point.
Two honest reasons. First, the Pandolf equation is documented in the literature to underpredict metabolic rate at higher loads and speeds \u2014 steep climbs with heavy packs likely burn more than shown. Second, watches use heart-rate models that include post-exercise effects and individual calibration. As a sanity anchor, the 2011 Compendium of Physical Activities rates \u201chiking, cross country\u201d at 6.0 METs and \u201cclimbing hills with a 21\u201342 lb load\u201d at 8.3 METs \u2014 if your hike is steep and loaded, treat this tool\u2019s number as a conservative baseline.
No \u2014 and this is stated deliberately. Grade is computed as total elevation GAIN divided by distance, and the whole route is modeled at that average grade. Downhill walking costs less than uphill, but the Pandolf equation is not reliable for negative grades, so descents are not modeled separately. For a symmetric out-and-back route this makes the estimate slightly conservative (a bit high). The limitation is documented in our sources file rather than hidden.
Pick the surface that dominates your route. Published terrain factors (\u03b7): maintained dirt trail 1.1 (the default), light brush or rough trail 1.2, heavy brush / off-trail 1.5, swampy or boggy ground 1.8, loose sand or dunes 2.1, soft snow around 15 cm deep 2.5. Soft snow, sand, and bushwhacking raise energy cost dramatically \u2014 on paper and in real life.
It depends on grade and speed, but here is a worked example from the model: a 70 kg hiker covering 10 km with 500 m of elevation gain in 4 hours on a dirt trail burns 960 kcal with a 10 kg pack versus 875 kcal without one \u2014 about 85 kcal extra. On the flat, the same hike costs only 592 kcal because grade is the dominant term. In short: elevation matters most, the pack adds a meaningful surcharge, and terrain multiplies everything.
The 2011 Compendium of Physical Activities (Ainsworth et al.) lists \u201chiking, cross country\u201d at 6.0 METs, and a \u201cclimbing hills\u201d ladder that rises with carried load: 6.3 METs with no load, 6.5 with up to 9 lb, 7.3 with 10\u201320 lb, 8.3 with 21\u201342 lb, and 9.0 with 42+ lb. Those are categorical averages; this calculator instead computes your hike\u2019s cost from its actual grade, load, speed, and terrain, then reports the equivalent MET value so you can compare.
Yes. Toggle between metric and imperial at the top of the calculator. Conversions use exact factors: 1 kg = 2.20462 lb, 1 mile = 1609.344 m, 1 foot = 0.3048 m. The underlying model always computes in SI units.
No. This is an educational estimate based on a published physiological model, not medical advice. Individual energy expenditure varies with age, sex, fitness, altitude, temperature, and efficiency. Consult a qualified professional for training or nutrition decisions.
Free tool by NRTechStudio
Explore similar finance tools and calculators. 100% free, accurate, and runs completely in your browser without sign-up.
2 taps, no typing needed — diagnostics are sent automatically.