The short answer: at a normal pace, walking uses roughly 50 calories per kilometre for a 70 kg (154 lb) person, about 36 of them above what you'd burn sitting. That is one estimate for an average person, and heavier people use more. The earlier version of this page gave about 60 calories per km for the same person, and its calculator gave a lower figure again, so we rebuilt both from one method.
Walking calorie calculator
How the estimate works
Researchers rate activities in METs, where 1 MET is the energy you use at rest, roughly 1 calorie per kilogram of body weight per hour. The Compendium of Physical Activities rates walking at 2.8 METs at 2 mph, 3.0 at 2.5 mph, 3.5 at 3 mph, 4.3 at 3.5 mph and 5.0 at 4 mph. Total calories are the rating times body weight in kilograms times hours. Because you'd burn about 1 MET anyway, the extra from walking is the rating minus one, and that is the part that counts when you're thinking about weight. Both figures are shown below.
| Speed | MET rating | Total calories per hour (70 kg) | Extra calories per hour | Extra calories per km |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2.0 mph (3.2 km/h) | 2.8 | 196 | 126 | 39 |
| 2.5 mph (4.0 km/h) | 3.0 | 210 | 140 | 35 |
| 3.0 mph (4.8 km/h) | 3.5 | 245 | 175 | 36 |
| 3.5 mph (5.6 km/h) | 4.3 | 301 | 231 | 41 |
| 4.0 mph (6.4 km/h) | 5.0 | 350 | 280 | 44 |
By body weight and distance
At a normal 3 mph pace, the table shows total calories, with the extra above resting in brackets. The step counts assume about 1,300 steps per kilometre, so 10,000 steps is roughly 7.7 km; stride length varies.
| Body weight | 1 km | 1 mile | 5 km | 10,000 steps | 10 km |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 55 kg | 40 (29) | 65 (46) | 201 (143) | 308 (220) | 401 (286) |
| 70 kg | 51 (36) | 82 (59) | 255 (182) | 393 (280) | 510 (365) |
| 85 kg | 62 (44) | 100 (71) | 310 (221) | 477 (341) | 620 (443) |
| 100 kg | 73 (52) | 117 (84) | 365 (260) | 561 (401) | 729 (521) |
A 100 kg person uses about 80% more energy than a 55 kg person over the same distance, because it takes more energy to move more mass. This is the same method used in how many steps to lose weight and how many steps to lose a pound, so the figures agree across the three pages.
Pace, uphill and everything else
Walking faster uses more energy per minute but not much more per mile. Between 3 and 3.5 mph the rating rises by about 23%, but you cover the distance sooner, so per mile the extra above resting is only about 13% higher. Speeding up does raise the cost per mile, by about 20% above resting at 4 mph compared with 3 mph, but not dramatically. Walking uphill is rated 5.3 METs at 2.9 to 3.5 mph on a 1 to 5% grade, roughly a quarter to a half more per minute than flat walking at similar speeds. Our incline walking page covers it.
We've removed the earlier page's specific claims that sand adds up to 50%, a 10% incline nearly doubles the cost, and rucking burns two to three times as much. Soft ground, steep slopes and carrying a load all do raise the cost, but we don't have a published figure we can stand behind for each, so we haven't given one. Rucking has what we can say.
Weight loss
Ten thousand steps uses roughly 280 extra calories for a 70 kg person at a normal pace, so the old claim that it means 0.3 kg of fat loss a week and "potentially 15 kg a year" doesn't hold. Weight loss from walking tends to come in well below what the arithmetic suggests, because the body compensates and the 3,500-calorie rule overstates; see does walking help you lose weight.
How accurate are trackers?
Less accurate than the earlier page said. In a 2017 laboratory study in the Journal of Personalized Medicine (Shcherbina and colleagues), seven wrist-worn devices measured heart rate well but energy expenditure poorly: none met the authors' error threshold for calories, and the error was highest for walking. Apps that estimate calories from steps, weight and height are also approximations. Counting steps over weeks is a reasonable way to track your activity; treating the calorie figure as exact isn't. Our guide to the best free step counter app covers the practical side.
Sources
- Ainsworth BE, Haskell WL, Herrmann SD, et al. 2011 Compendium of Physical Activities: a second update of codes and MET values. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise. 2011;43(8):1575-1581. pacompendium.com
- Shcherbina A, Mattsson CM, Waggott D, et al. Accuracy in wrist-worn, sensor-based measurements of heart rate and energy expenditure in a diverse cohort. Journal of Personalized Medicine. 2017;7(2):3. mdpi.com
- Hall KD, Sacks G, Chandramohan D, et al. Quantification of the effect of energy imbalance on bodyweight. The Lancet. 2011;378(9793):826-837. sciencedirect.com
Correction note: an earlier version of this page gave about 60 calories per km at 70 kg, a reference table and a calculator that disagreed with each other, said a 5% incline raises the burn by 30 to 50% and a 10% incline nearly doubles it, said sand adds up to 50% and rucking burns two to three times as much, said 10,000 steps means about 0.3 kg of fat loss a week and 15 kg a year, and described step counters as reasonably accurate for calories. We could not support those, so they were removed or corrected. The figures above are our own arithmetic from published MET values and an assumed 1,300 steps per kilometre, and are approximations that vary by individual. The MET values were confirmed against the Compendium's walking ratings as summarised in published calculators, and the tracker findings against the study abstract, on October 2, 2026. This is general information, not medical advice.