How Many Calories Does Walking Burn? (By Weight, Pace and Distance)

September 6, 2026 · 6 min read

Roughly half your body weight in pounds, per mile. Here's the chart, the MET formula behind it, and why your tracker's number is probably too high.

Roughly half your body weight in pounds, per mile — that's the figure your tracker will show. A 160 lb person burns about 90 calories a mile by that measure; a 200 lb person about 110.

But the number that matters for weight is smaller, because part of that would have burned anyway. Both are below.

Calories per mile by weight

Gross is total energy used — what a tracker reports. Net subtracts the resting metabolism running the whole time, and is the figure that matters if you're thinking about weight.

Quick rules of thumb: gross ≈ 0.55 × your weight in pounds, net ≈ 0.4 ×.

Three things jump out.

Weight matters far more than pace. Doubling your speed doesn't double the burn — across the whole table, going from a stroll to a fast walk adds only about 20% per mile. Moving a heavier body a fixed distance simply costs more energy, and that dominates.

Pace changes the rate, not the total. Walking faster burns more per minute, but you also finish sooner. Over a fixed distance those largely cancel — which is why the gross columns barely move across the table. Where pace genuinely matters is if you have a fixed amount of time: then a brisk 30 minutes clearly beats a slow 30 minutes.

Net rises with pace even though gross doesn't. Walking faster means less time elapsed, so less resting metabolism gets folded into the total. That's the one real argument for picking up the pace if weight is the goal.

The formula, if you want your own number

The tables come from MET values — multiples of resting metabolic rate:

calories per minute = (MET × 3.5 × weight in kg) / 200

Walking MET values:

Worked example. 70 kg, 3 mph, 20 minutes per mile:

gross:  (3.5 × 3.5 × 70) / 200 = 4.29 cal/min  →  × 20 = 86 cal/mile
net:    (2.5 × 3.5 × 70) / 200 = 3.06 cal/min  →  × 20 = 61 cal/mile

Subtracting 1 MET is what converts gross to net — 1 MET is resting metabolism, by definition.

Steps, not miles

Most people track steps, so converting: at roughly 2,200 steps per mile (more on that here):

Net calories, at a moderate 3 mph:

So 10,000 steps is roughly 250–400 net calories for most adults — and around 350–550 gross, which is the range your tracker will report and the source of the widely-quoted "300–500" figure. Either way it's a real amount, and also roughly one large coffee-shop drink.

Why your tracker's number is too high

This trips up almost everyone.

Most trackers report gross calories — the total your body used during that period, including the amount you'd have burned lying on the sofa. Your resting metabolism is running the whole time, and for a typical adult that's around 1.2 calories a minute.

For weight purposes, what matters is the net burn: the extra energy the walking cost you.

Look at the table above and the gap is consistent: net is roughly 30% below gross at a moderate pace, narrowing to about 20% at a fast one.

Neither number is wrong. They answer different questions, and the one you care about is usually the smaller one.

Then there's compensation

Even the net figure overstates what shows up on the scale, because your body responds to an energy deficit rather than passively accepting it.

Two things happen, both largely outside conscious control: appetite rises slightly, and non-exercise movement drops — you sit more in the evening, fidget less, take the lift without deciding to. One study found participants netted only about 72% of the expected additional burn, with substantially greater compensation in adults with obesity.

So a 10,000-step day at a nominal 320 net calories is realistically nearer 230 in practice, and for some people nearer 160.

That's not an argument against walking. It's an argument against treating a calorie readout as an amount you've earned. Walking for weight loss goes through the arithmetic properly.

Cheap ways to increase the burn

If the number is what you're optimising:

Hills. By far the best return. A moderate incline can push the MET value up 50% or more with no extra time and no extra distance.

Weight on your back. A loaded rucksack raises the effective body weight in every formula above. Start light — 10% of body weight is plenty — and only if your back and knees are happy.

Intervals. Two minutes brisk, two minutes easy. Raises average intensity without requiring you to sustain a hard pace.

More total time. Unglamorous and the most reliable. Duration beats intensity for total energy, and walking is the one form of exercise you can do daily without recovery days.

The better reason to walk

Calories are the least interesting thing walking does. The same daily volume that burns a few hundred calories is also associated with substantially lower mortality, blood pressure, and depression risk — and short walks after meals cut post-meal glucose by around 17% versus sitting, which is a real metabolic effect that has nothing to do with the calorie count.

Which matters practically, because calorie burn is a weak daily motivator. Eighty calories is legible, small, and easy to talk yourself out of. Something that responds today does more work.

That's the design idea behind EggVentures: your steps hatch and evolve a creature in the background, pulled from Apple Health or Health Connect, so the walk produces visible progress rather than a number you can price against a biscuit. Twenty seconds at the door — start an expedition, pocket the phone, and you collect when the timer's up.

The short version

• Gross ≈ 0.55 × your weight in pounds, per mile. Net ≈ 0.4 ×.
• 10,000 steps ≈ 250–400 net calories (350–550 gross), and ≈ 4.5 miles.
• Weight matters more than pace over a fixed distance.
• Your tracker shows gross, not net — knock off ~30%.
• Compensation eats ~28% of what's left.
• Hills are the cheapest way to increase it.

This is general information, not medical or dietary advice.

Sources: Compendium MET values for walking · Calories burned walking per mile — formula and tables · Lancet Public Health, 2025 — daily steps and health outcomes