Standing burns ~50 more calories/hour than sitting. Free calculator to compare standing vs sitting calorie burn by weight and time.
Quick answer
Standing instead of sitting burns about 106–167 calories per hour, or 850–1339 calories in 8 hours, for adults weighing 130–205 lb (59–93 kg). That estimate uses a MET value of 1.8 (standing still); see the table below for other intensities. These figures are estimates from population-average MET values, not measurements of your own energy expenditure — actual burn varies with intensity, fitness, body composition and technique.
Example calculation
A 155 lb (70 kg) adult — standing still — for 8 hours (480 minutes):
1.8 MET × 70 kg × 8 h = 1008 calories
That is 126 calories per hour, or about 2.1 calories per minute.
Calories burned standing instead of sitting per hour, by body weight
Calories burned per hour by posture and body weight (MET method).
Posture
MET
130 lb (59 kg)
155 lb (70 kg)
180 lb (82 kg)
205 lb (93 kg)
Sitting (desk work)
1.3
77 cal
91 cal
107 cal
121 cal
Standing still
1.8
106 cal
126 cal
148 cal
167 cal
Calories burned in 8 hours
Calories burned in 8 hours of standing instead of sitting, by body weight.
Posture
130 lb (59 kg)
155 lb (70 kg)
180 lb (82 kg)
205 lb (93 kg)
Sitting (desk work)
614 cal
728 cal
853 cal
967 cal
Standing still
850 cal
1008 cal
1181 cal
1339 cal
Method and formula
Calories = MET × body weight in kilograms × duration in hours. MET (Metabolic Equivalent of Task) expresses the energy cost of an activity as a multiple of resting metabolism, where 1 MET ≈ 1 kcal per kilogram of body weight per hour. Pounds are converted with lb ÷ 2.20462 = kg. Totals are rounded to the nearest whole calorie and per-minute figures to one decimal; no rounding is applied before the final step.
MET values for standing instead of sitting are taken from the 2011/2024 Adult Compendium of Physical Activities.
What changes the result
Body weight: Directly proportional — doubling body weight doubles the estimate at the same MET and duration.
Duration: Directly proportional — calories scale linearly with time at a constant intensity.
Intensity: Sets the MET value. Moving one intensity step up typically raises burn 20–40%.
Terrain and incline: Not in the base MET value; uphill or resistance work increases the true cost.
Fitness and efficiency: Trained people use less energy for the same output, so estimates skew high for them.
Age, sex and body composition: Change resting metabolism and therefore the baseline the MET multiplies.
Limitations
The standing advantage is small (roughly 0.5 MET) — it matters over hours, not minutes.
Fidgeting and weight-shifting while standing add an unmeasured amount on top.
Every figure here is an estimate, not a measurement — treat it as a planning number rather than a result.
MET values are population averages from the Compendium of Physical Activities; individual results commonly differ by 10–20%.
Actual intensity and pace matter more than the label: two people at the same nominal intensity can differ substantially in real effort.
Body composition and cardiorespiratory fitness change the result — more lean mass raises the baseline, while trained people move more efficiently and often burn less than the table shows.
Terrain, incline, surface and movement technique are not captured by a flat-ground MET value.
These are gross calories — they include the resting energy you would have burned anyway during that time.
MET tables are standardised on a 70 kg adult, so estimates are least accurate at very low or very high body weights.
Heart-rate monitors, wearables and laboratory indirect calorimetry can all give different numbers; measured testing is more accurate for an individual than any MET-based estimate.