Does Walking the same distance but at different speeds burn roughly the same amount of calories?

Question

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

Answer 1

This is a bit of a [spherical cows](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_cow) situation. From a pure physics standpoint moving a mass M over a distance D requires the same overall energy output, regardless of how long it takes you to move the mass the distance, so from a very simplistic standpoint yes, the speed is irrelevant, only the mass and distance matter.

But human bodies are in no way simplistic systems, and the reality is your body under stress does other things. Heart rate goes up (which increases calories burned). Stress hormones release which increase calorie consumption. Running engages more muscles than walking (especially in the arms and pectorals). You breathe harder which causes your diaphram to work harder and burn more calories.

So “on paper” it’s the same, but biology is complicated. Putting your body “into stress” increases calories burned. But yeah probably *fairly close* to the same, but down to the nitty gritty there will be more calories burned running than walking a mile, simply because your body has a whole bunch of survival mechanisms designed to keep you alive when it detects you’re in stress. And those systems require energy to function. “About 4% more” seems..kind of correct?

But if you reduce your body to a spherical cow than it’s all the same, just mass and distance matter.