[MauranKilom]

The article talks about that: Running is roughly the same energy/distance, but it's more energy/time because you cover more distance per time.

[DangitBobby]

I always felt that walking was more efficient intuitively but I'm happy to see it quantified in the article.

> First, even if you happen to hit exactly the minima of the walking cost of transport curve, you’ll be consuming nearly 80% of the energy per traveled distance as compared to running

[bronson]

the article says “walking 50km as fast as possible takes nearly double the work and energy than running a marathon, even though the distance is just 8km longer”

[MauranKilom]

Yes, I meant "at normal speeds", not "as fast as possible". That's quite obviously what the statement I replied to was about.

[spicybright]

I wouldn't trust this website. It's based around selling a fitness product, so there's a very good chance it's biased.

https://www.polar.com/en/grit-x

[hiptobecubic]

Both running and walking are fitness activities that are supported by their tracking hardware. In what way do you expect them to be biased?

[vnorilo]

Nah, seems like a content marketing piece, and frankly one of the better ones I've read recently.