@shipo In terms of energy expenditure, it is much easier to do by walking, although it takes a bit more time. As an example: running a 10 minute mile (6 mph) takes twice the energy of walking a 20 minute mile (3 mph) (it's simple physics - you are trying to maintain a your body's kinetic energy, E = 1/2mv^2, so you are exerting 4 times as hard for 1/2 as long. Then, the typical runner will take 1400 (?) steps in that mile while the walker ~2100. So overall, the 6 mph runner will burn 3 times as much energy per step as the 3 mph walker (it's actually somewhat worse because of increasing effective frictional resistance, both internally and in stronger interaction with the ground). Granted the walker takes twice as long as the runner (actual stepping time), but I expect the walker needs fewer rests, fewer recovery days, fewer injury days, and can simply go for a lot longer in a given day with no ill effects. Lots of people can walk nearly continuously for 12 hours (even 12/day for extended periods), but I think it is only a very elite class of endurance racers that can run for 6 hours/day, day after day. Another way to look at it is via stride length - the typical 6 mph runner is going to have to cover roughly 1.5X the distance of a 3 mph walker to get the same number of steps, which leads to:
Personal opinion is that way to much attention is given to step count, a useful parameter when considered in conjunction with distance, speed and cadence, but way too variable to be used for comparing performance or exertion levels. Much better to pay primary attention to distance (preferably GPS or mapping, not step derived) and elevation gain, and time it takes to do it - a *real life* ambulation competition/challenge is almost always done by distance, not by number of steps.
