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.
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”
I wouldn't trust this website. It's based around selling a fitness product, so there's a very good chance it's biased.
Both running and walking are fitness activities that are supported by their tracking hardware. In what way do you expect them to be biased?
Nah, seems like a content marketing piece, and frankly one of the better ones I've read recently.
Yes, I meant "at normal speeds", not "as fast as possible". That's quite obviously what the statement I replied to was about.
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