My understanding is that comparing slow jogging and brisk walking, both done at the same speed, jogging involves more effort and is therefore better exercise as only one foot is on the ground at any time whereas in walking both feet are momentarily on the ground. I was curious - if someone were to transition from jogging to walking, is there a metric to indicate how much further one would have to walk to get the equivalent exercise to a jog, both done at the same speed. Something like one mile of jogging and two miles of walking at the same speed provide the same exercise benefit, just to make up a number. Thanks.
1see fitness.stackexchange.com/a/3651/1771 for some probing into what one might mean by "exercise benefits" in this context– Dave LiepmannOct 26, 2021 at 11:20
1Walking have some unique benefits: 1. gentle on the body => can be done every day as opposed to running. More movement less TV/computer is always beneficial for the muskoskeletal system, the heart and the brain. 2. Do not interfer with strength training of legs. I suggest you do both.– AndyOct 26, 2021 at 13:29
The Metabolic Equivalent of Task (MET), a measurement of the rate at which an activity burns energy, scaled to the bodyweight of the person performing that activity, is likely a good way to compare the two, though it is based on the time spent performing the activity, rather than distance travelled. ExRx has a MET calculator available which allows comparison of walking and running at arbitrary speeds. In this, gross METs include the person's base metabolic rate during the activity, i.e. the amount of energy that would be used if they had spent the same amount of time just lying in bed, whereas net METs only include the additional energy required to perform the activity above base energy requirements.
This appears to predict that running burns about twice as energy as walking at the same speed, or that you would have to walk twice as fast in order to burn the same amount of energy as running.