Who burns more?

The same. Unless the person walking faster was working hard enough to get into the inefficient walking part of the curve.

Walking calories vary quite linearly with speed until you get into speedwalking, where the mechanical inefficieny of the movement begins to incur a significant calorie cost.

If the faster person was speedwalking, they burned more calories. If the faster person was doing a brisk walk and slower just doing a leisurely stroll, they burned about the same number of calories.

They're probably pretty close to equal, but the person walking faster will burn very slightly more in effort, all other things being exactly equal. The person walking slower will burn a greater percentage of their BMR. So it mostly depends on what you mean by "who burns more?" The slower walking person will burn more calories during their walk, but the faster person will catch up during the hour following the walk (since both people presumably have the same BMR). The faster person will burn more actual exercise calories, but likely a tiny amount more (like single digits). Realistically unless this walk were done on a treadmill in a lab, with sensors all over both of their bodies, no one would be be able to tell the difference either way.

Mostly, distance determines calories burned not time. The primary advantage for the faster person is that they could choose to walk further and still use the same or smaller chunk of their day. In the real world time is generally easier to plan for than distance; I usually have 45 minutes to run, but I burn a lot more calories if I run 6 miles in that time than if I run 3.

ETA: Why yes, I can be incredibly pedantic about math. Why do you ask?

Well, while your 'slow walker' is walking his 2nd hour, the other one must be burning calories doing another activity mustn't he? And since even sleeping is an activity, the question is not WHAT he is doing but HOW MUCH TIME there is to do it.

Don't worry, I like maths!

I asked because I was trying to figure out if I burned more if I walked faster (I am doing a walk this weekend so distance is set).

If calories burned is more dependent on distance than time, why do all the calculators online I can find only take time into account? Even those that ask you to specify distance, don't use it (I tested and the calories burned only changed when time was changed, regardless of distance!!)

Usually the calculators take pace and time into consideration. Pace and time give you what need to figure out distance. If the calculator you're using doesn't consider pace as well as time, then it's not a very good calculator. Basically pace (or speed, they're different numbers but equally useful), distance, and time are all a function of each other. With any two you can figure out the third, and figure out estimated calorie burn. Now, as I mentioned, a faster pace will burn (very, very) slightly more calories per mile than a slower pace, but the difference is insignificant. The real advantage to going faster is doing a longer distance in the same time.

You really need to know how far you went to get an accurate measure of calories burned. That means two of: pace (or speed), distance, time.

Why would it take someone two hours to reach the same goal? Like if you're walking say 2 miles that's a really, really slow walk.

In answer to the question I'd say the person walking faster would burn more.

It was a an example using really simple easy to work with numbers. It's easier to say half as fast than 2/3's as fast or .856182 as fast. She's just interested in whether speed is a factor in calorie burn.

I don't think you should judge it by distance, but by time. Sure the two will burn about the same amount of calories for that distance, but the person who finished quicker is going to burn more calories on top of that in the next hour with whatever they do, so in that two hour time frame if ther person who walks a mile, and then goes and cleans the house, or just walks around work they are going to burn more calories than that person who used that whole two hours just for the mile walk.

Afterburn on walking is pretty minimal. Lifting has a significant afterburn, intense cardio like running or swimming less so, low intensity stuff like walking pretty much nothing unfortunately.

OK, here is a scenario, two people walk the exact same route from Point A to Point B (so distance, hills etc is all equal), they are exactly the same height & weight & fitness level (it is hypothetical and this removes additional variables). One walks the distance in an hour, while the other takes two hours.

Who burns more calories?

I've wondered this about marathons. Do people burn more calories running a marathon in 3 hours than I did walking it in 9 hours (Boston, I burned approx. 4500 calories walking it per HRM).

I've wondered this about marathons. Do people burn more calories running a marathon in 3 hours than I did walking it in 9 hours (Boston, I burned approx. 4500 calories walking it per HRM).

Completely different scenario. Running burns more calories than walking, so the runners will burn more calories. The nature of running as a series of shot, rapid hops makes it burn significantly more calories than the smoother walking gait. iWaffle is actually right that someone walking 5mph is burning nearly as many calories as a runner, but only because walking at that speed requires speed walking for most people and that's a different gait again (closer in calories burned to running than walking, because it's unnatural) So at a normal walking gait 1 miles worth of calories is more or less the same no matter how slow you go. At a speed walker's gait, you'll burn more calories per mile than a normal walking gait, but still about the same regardless of how fast you go (Most people have to switch gaits between 3 and 4.5 mph) . Jogging is more again per mile mile than the other two, but still about the same per mile regardless of how fast you go.

So the same person walking might burn say 75 kcal per mile (for any speed between say 1 and 4 mph), 95 kcal per mile speed walking (for walking at speeds above 4 mph), and 110 kcal per mile running (regardless of whether they go 5 mph or 8 mph). They'll get a very slight bump from walking or running faster, but only a very slight bump. The only way to significantly increase burn per mile is to change gaits.

I got a HRM for about $15 seems to work just fine and compares accurately to the online HR calorie calculator.

OK, so does anyone know any good online calorie counters that take into account distance to work out more accurately how much I burn?

I don't have money for a heart rate monitor, and when I save up I would rather spend it on a kayak, yet I can use apps on my phone to work out distance.

The MFP calculator uses pace and time (which gives distance), so there you go.