The short answer
Take a person who weighs 160 lb. Walking at 3 mph, they burn about 290 kcal an hour. Running at 6 mph, about 709 kcal an hour, 145% more. But the runner covers twice the ground in that hour. Per mile, the walk costs about 97 kcal and the run about 118 kcal, only 22% more.
Subtract what the body would burn anyway, sitting still, and the gap per mile widens: about 71 kcal for the walk against 105 kcal for the run, 48% more. Both views are correct. They answer different questions, and the rest of this guide shows where each number comes from.
How the numbers are worked out
All figures here use the method of the calories burned calculator. It takes a MET value from the 2024 Adult Compendium of Physical Activities, a catalog of 1,114 activities that researchers maintain for adults aged 19 to 59. A MET, or metabolic equivalent, compares an activity with rest. The Compendium defines 1 MET as 3.5 mL of oxygen per kg of body weight per minute, about 1 kcal per kg per hour, and gives this conversion on its website:
The second and third lines follow from the first: 3.5 × 60 ÷ 200 = 1.05, and an hour at a given speed covers that many miles. So the calories per mile depend on just two things: your weight, and the ratio of MET to speed. A high MET at a high speed can cost the same per mile as a low MET at a low speed.
The Compendium lists walking speeds as ranges with one MET value each. The tables use a round speed inside each range. Within a range the MET stays the same while the time per mile shrinks, so the faster end of a range shows slightly fewer calories per mile than the table. That is a feature of the table, not of your body.
MET values for walking and running
| Activity | Compendium code | Speed used | Pace per mile | MET | MET ÷ mph |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Walk, 2.0 to 2.4 mph, slow | 17152 | 2 mph | 30:00 | 2.8 | 1.40 |
| Walk, 2.5 mph | 17170 | 2.5 mph | 24:00 | 3 | 1.20 |
| Walk, 2.8 to 3.4 mph, moderate | 17190 | 3 mph | 20:00 | 3.8 | 1.27 |
| Walk, 3.5 to 3.9 mph, brisk | 17200 | 3.5 mph | 17:09 | 4.8 | 1.37 |
| Walk, 4.0 to 4.4 mph, very brisk | 17220 | 4 mph | 15:00 | 5.5 | 1.38 |
| Walk, 4.5 to 4.9 mph, very, very brisk | 17230 | 4.5 mph | 13:20 | 7 | 1.56 |
| Run, 5.0 to 5.2 mph | 12030 | 5 mph | 12:00 | 8.5 | 1.70 |
| Run, 6 to 6.3 mph | 12050 | 6 mph | 10:00 | 9.3 | 1.55 |
| Run, 6.7 mph | 12060 | 6.7 mph | 8:57 | 10.5 | 1.57 |
| Run, 7.5 mph | 12080 | 7.5 mph | 8:00 | 11.8 | 1.57 |
| Run, 8.6 mph | 12100 | 8.6 mph | 6:59 | 12.5 | 1.45 |
| Run, 10 mph | 12120 | 10 mph | 6:00 | 14.8 | 1.48 |
The last column is the one to watch for distance. For walking it runs from 1.20 to 1.56, for running from 1.45 to 1.70. Paces come from the same speed math the running pace calculator uses: 60 ÷ mph gives minutes per mile.
Calories per hour
Gross calories per hour, including the energy you would use at rest. 130, 160, 190 and 220 lb are about 59, 73, 86 and 100 kg.
| Activity | 130 lb | 160 lb | 190 lb | 220 lb |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Walk, 2 mph | 173 | 213 | 253 | 293 |
| Walk, 2.5 mph | 186 | 229 | 271 | 314 |
| Walk, 3 mph | 235 | 290 | 344 | 398 |
| Walk, 3.5 mph | 297 | 366 | 434 | 503 |
| Walk, 4 mph | 341 | 419 | 498 | 576 |
| Walk, 4.5 mph | 433 | 533 | 633 | 733 |
| Run, 5 mph | 526 | 648 | 769 | 891 |
| Run, 6 mph | 576 | 709 | 842 | 974 |
| Run, 6.7 mph | 650 | 800 | 950 | 1,100 |
| Run, 7.5 mph | 731 | 899 | 1,068 | 1,236 |
| Run, 8.6 mph | 774 | 953 | 1,131 | 1,310 |
| Run, 10 mph | 916 | 1,128 | 1,339 | 1,551 |
Per hour, speed wins by a wide margin. An hour of running at 6 mph burns about 2.4 times as much as an hour of walking at 3 mph, at any weight, because the ratio of their MET values does not depend on weight. If your limit is time, running at any speed in this table burns more than the fastest walk.
Calories per mile
The same activities per mile. Again gross figures.
| Activity | 130 lb | 160 lb | 190 lb | 220 lb |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Walk, 2 mph | 87 | 107 | 127 | 147 |
| Walk, 2.5 mph | 74 | 91 | 109 | 126 |
| Walk, 3 mph | 78 | 97 | 115 | 133 |
| Walk, 3.5 mph | 85 | 105 | 124 | 144 |
| Walk, 4 mph | 85 | 105 | 124 | 144 |
| Walk, 4.5 mph | 96 | 119 | 141 | 163 |
| Run, 5 mph | 105 | 130 | 154 | 178 |
| Run, 6 mph | 96 | 118 | 140 | 162 |
| Run, 6.7 mph | 97 | 119 | 142 | 164 |
| Run, 7.5 mph | 97 | 120 | 142 | 165 |
| Run, 8.6 mph | 90 | 111 | 132 | 152 |
| Run, 10 mph | 92 | 113 | 134 | 155 |
Three things stand out. First, weight moves the number more than the choice between walking and running does: a 220 lb walker at 3 mph burns more per mile than a 130 lb runner at any speed in the table. Second, at normal speeds running does cost more per mile, by roughly a fifth at 160 lb. Third, the very, very brisk walk at 4.5 mph (7 METs) costs about as much per mile as running at 6 mph, so a hard walk is not cheaper per mile than an easy run.
Notice also that slow walking at 2 mph costs more per mile than walking at 3 mph. A slow mile takes 30 minutes instead of 20, and the gross figure counts the resting energy for every one of those extra minutes. That is the cue for the next section.
Net vs gross calories
A MET value describes the whole energy cost of an activity, and 1 MET is what the Compendium lists for sitting quietly (code 07021). So every gross figure above includes calories you would have burned in a chair. The net figure removes them: subtract 1 MET before you multiply. The calories burned calculator shows this as the amount above sitting quietly.
| Activity | 130 lb | 160 lb | 190 lb | 220 lb |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Walk, 2 mph | 56 | 69 | 81 | 94 |
| Walk, 2.5 mph | 50 | 61 | 72 | 84 |
| Walk, 3 mph | 58 | 71 | 84 | 98 |
| Walk, 3.5 mph | 67 | 83 | 98 | 114 |
| Walk, 4 mph | 70 | 86 | 102 | 118 |
| Walk, 4.5 mph | 83 | 102 | 121 | 140 |
| Run, 5 mph | 93 | 114 | 136 | 157 |
| Run, 6 mph | 86 | 105 | 125 | 145 |
| Run, 6.7 mph | 88 | 108 | 128 | 149 |
| Run, 7.5 mph | 89 | 110 | 130 | 151 |
| Run, 8.6 mph | 83 | 102 | 121 | 140 |
| Run, 10 mph | 85 | 105 | 125 | 145 |
Net, the gap per mile grows. At 160 lb, walking a mile at 3 mph comes to about 71 kcal above rest, running it at 6 mph to about 105. The slow walk also drops back below the moderate one per mile, because most of its extra gross calories were resting calories.
Which number should you use? If you track food against a daily budget built on BMR, the net figure is the extra cost of the workout. If your budget uses an activity factor that already includes your exercise, as a TDEE does, adding either number counts the workout twice. The BMR vs TDEE guide explains that trap.
What lab measurements show
The Compendium math is an estimate. Two studies measured walking and running over 1,600 m, just under a mile, with indirect calorimetry, which works out energy use from the oxygen a person breathes.
Hall and colleagues measured 24 people in 2004 walking at 1.41 m/s, about 3.2 mph, and running at 2.82 m/s, about 6.3 mph. On the treadmill, running took 481 kJ and walking 340 kJ, about 115 and 81 kcal. On a track the numbers were almost the same: 480 and 334 kJ. Their conclusion: running has a greater energy cost than walking on both the track and the treadmill.
Wilkin and colleagues measured 30 people of average fitness in 2012, 15 women and 15 men averaging 71.01 kg. They walked at 86 m per minute, about 3.2 mph, and ran at 160 m per minute, about 6.0 mph. That makes a direct check possible.
| 1,600 m at 71.01 kg | Measured | Compendium formula |
|---|---|---|
| Walk, about 3.2 mph (3.8 METs) | 89 kcal | 88 kcal |
| Run, about 6.0 mph (9.3 METs) | 113 kcal | 116 kcal |
For this group the Compendium method lands within a few calories of the measured averages. The kilojoules are converted with 1 kcal = 4.184 kJ, the NIST factor for the thermochemical kilocalorie. Averages hide a spread, though: the study reports standard deviations of about 78 kJ for the walk and 101 kJ for the run, roughly 19 and 24 kcal.
The same study also kept measuring for 30 minutes afterward. Including that recovery period, the totals rose to 463.34 kJ for the walk and 664.00 kJ for the run, about 111 and 159 kcal. Energy use returned to resting values 10 minutes after the walk and 15 minutes after the run. So the run kept costing a little more after it ended, too.
Turning miles into steps and pace
Many people count steps, not miles. How many steps make a mile depends on your step length, which is why the steps to miles converter asks you to measure yours. With its example step of 30 inches, a mile is 63,360 ÷ 30 = 2,112 steps. For a 160 lb walker at 3 mph that is about 46 kcal gross per 1,000 steps. A running step has its own length, so measure it separately; the converter keeps one step length for walking and one for running.
For pace, the running pace calculator turns any time and distance into minutes per mile or kilometer. Find your speed there, pick the matching Compendium row in the calories burned calculator, and enter the minutes you actually moved.
Limits of these numbers
- They are averages. The authors of the 2024 Compendium write that it does not reflect precise individual energy expenditure, because resting metabolic rate varies with age, sex, height, weight and body composition.
- Level ground only. The walking values used here are for a firm, level surface. The Compendium lists separate values for walking and running uphill.
- Adults 19 to 59. That is who the Adult Compendium covers. The Compendium team publishes a separate Older Adult Compendium for people 60 and older.
- Count moving time only. Stops at lights and breaks lower the real speed and the real burn.
Walking and running both count. If you have a heart, lung or joint condition, are pregnant, or are starting from no exercise at all, ask your doctor which pace and distance suit you.
Frequently asked questions
Does running burn more calories than walking the same distance?
Yes, at the usual speeds. Two lab studies that measured people over 1,600 m found that running cost more: in one, about 115 kcal against 81 kcal on a treadmill; in the other, about 113 kcal against 89 kcal. With 2024 Compendium MET values, a 160 lb person burns about 118 kcal running a mile at 6 mph and about 97 kcal walking it at 3 mph. The gap is far smaller than the gap per hour.
How many calories does walking a mile burn?
It depends mostly on your weight. With the Compendium value for a moderate walk at 2.8 to 3.4 mph (3.8 METs), a mile at 3 mph burns about 78 kcal at 130 lb, 97 kcal at 160 lb, 115 kcal at 190 lb and 133 kcal at 220 lb. Those are gross figures that include what you would burn sitting still for the same 20 minutes.
Is it better to walk faster or longer?
For calories per mile, speed matters less than you might think, because a faster mile is also a shorter one. In the Compendium table, walking at 3 mph and at 4 mph comes to 97 and 105 kcal per mile at 160 lb. Per hour the faster walk burns much more, because you cover more miles. Which suits you is a question of time, fitness and joints, not of this table.
Does a treadmill burn the same as walking outside?
Close to it on level ground. The 2024 Compendium lists the same 4.8 METs for walking at 3.5 to 3.9 mph on a firm, level surface and on a treadmill at 0% grade, and 3.8 METs for 3.0 to 3.4 mph on a treadmill against 3.8 for 2.8 to 3.4 mph outside. In the 2004 study, the measured cost of 1,600 m was almost the same on the track and on the treadmill.
Should I count net or gross calories?
If you are adding exercise to a daily calorie budget, the net number is the honest one, because your BMR already covers the calories you would have burned sitting still. If your budget already uses an activity factor that includes the workout, as TDEE does, adding either number counts it twice. The calories burned calculator shows both the total and the part above sitting quietly.
Do these numbers apply to everyone?
No. They are standard estimates for adults aged 19 to 59, which is who the 2024 Adult Compendium covers. Its authors write that it does not reflect precise individual energy expenditure, because resting metabolic rate varies with age, sex, height, weight and body composition. Hills change the number too, which is why the Compendium lists walking and running uphill separately.
Sources
- Herrmann SD, Willis EA, Ainsworth BE and others, 2024 Adult Compendium of Physical Activities: a third update of the energy costs of human activities, Journal of Sport and Health Science 13(1):6 to 12, 2024
- Compendium of Physical Activities, Walking (Major Heading 17), 2024 Adult Compendium
- Compendium of Physical Activities, Running (Major Heading 12), 2024 Adult Compendium
- Compendium of Physical Activities, Inactivity (code 07021, sitting quietly)
- Compendium of Physical Activities, Unit conversions
- Hall C, Figueroa A, Fernhall B, Kanaley JA, Energy expenditure of walking and running: comparison with prediction equations, Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise 36:2128 to 2134, 2004
- Wilkin LD, Cheryl A, Haddock BL, Energy expenditure comparison between walking and running in average fitness individuals, Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research 26:1039 to 1044, 2012
- NIST Special Publication 811, Guide for the Use of the SI, Appendix B.9 (calorie to joule)
General information based on the sources above, not medical advice.