According to a walking calorie calculator I used-
Weight 172lbs Distance walked 1 mile
Pace Duration Calories
Slow (2.5mph) 24 minutes 98
Normal (3mph) 20 minutes 96
Fast (3.5mph) 17 minutes 100
Very Fast (4mph) 15 minutes 102
Even though you burn more calories per minute the quicker you walk, walking slower takes a longer amount of time to travel the same distance so it equals roughly the same amount of calories burned?
Edit: thanks for your responses! I was aware running burns more calories per mile than walking the same distance due placing greater demands on the body/being far less efficient, I was specifically interested in walking speeds alone over the same distances?
Personal anecdote; I’ve managed to lose a significant amount of weight over the past 6 months walking 5 miles daily at a very brisk pace (4-4.5 mph average), today due to fatigue I took it easy, walked a lot slower at 3-3.5mph, felt less fatiguing but obviously took longer amount of time, a good trade off if it means I can walk at a more leisurely pace some days and burn roughly the same amount of calories over the same distance. 🙂
In: Physics
For one: the calories you burn just to be alive get added to the totals. so it’s not just ‘how much energy to move this mass x distance’ but also ‘people at rest burn about a calory a minute’ (this is inaccurate but good enough for an approximation)
there is also a difference between walking and jogging/running. There is a funny passage in the science of discworld where kangaroos can’t exist because they burn less calories than they should when travelling.
this is because they absorb some of their downward momentum and use it to propel their next jump which means a hop actually is cheaper than when you calculate it as a normal step. Jogging is a similar process where the right gait will help carry your momentum forward without grounding/losing too much of your momentum . if you walk, especially the slower you walk, each step essentially ends your momentum and your leg has to carry the entire mass of your next step.
But then the faster you run, the more energy you have to provide which becomes inefficient. you can only get so much oxygen from your lungs and likely for sprinting you’ll get most of your energy from anaerobic rather than aerobic energy. Which is less efficient (and not something you can easily maintain)
that’s as much as I understand from it. this is wy despite someone running the same distance in 15 minutes, it costs more calories than if they had done it at a slow pace. less efficiency but also less time spent (so approx. 18 calories less burned, just by being alive) and likely less vertical momentum wasted.
sum all the benefits / downsides together and you get the outcome you see (well… that and these charts aren’t very accurate as a whole).
Latest Answers