Walking Energy Sheet

The arithmetic

NET (what the walk added)

0.53 x kg x km

RESTING over the same time

1.05 x kg x hours

GROSS (what trackers show)

net + resting

1 MET

3.5 ml O₂/kg/min ≈ 1.05 kcal/kg/h

70 kg, 5 km in 1 hour

net 186 · resting 74 · gross 259

Cross-check via METs

3.5 METs gives 257 — within 1%

Net cost per km at 70 kg

about 37 kcal

⚠ Speed barely matters

distance and weight are the levers

⚠ Eat back the NET figure

gross was never all deficit

Walks logged

This walk

Date

Weight

Distance

Duration

Pace

NET KCAL

Resting over that time

GROSS KCAL

Overstatement %

Terrain and hills

What the tracker said

Reading the number honestly

• Checked whether your tracker shows GROSS or NET — most show gross
• Used the NET figure for anything to do with a deficit
• Distance recorded, since it matters more than pace
• Hills noted separately — neither method sees them
• Weight kept current, since the cost scales with it
• Treated the result as an estimate, not a measurement
• Snack compared against the distance-for-100-kcal figure at least once
• Remembered the walk is worth doing for reasons that are not calories

The gap IS the eating-back error

Gross includes the energy you would have spent existing over the same period — on the default walk that is 73 of 259 kcal. Eating back the gross figure therefore eats back calories that were never a deficit, which is one of the most common reasons a plan that looks right on paper does not show up on the scales. Use the net number.

Distance is the lever, not pace

The cost of walking is roughly proportional to weight and distance and fairly insensitive to speed across normal paces — so walking faster mostly means burning similar energy in less time. Hills are the real exception: climbing adds work regardless of how fast you do it, and neither standard method accounts for it.