Whats the difference between hiking and walking?

So I'm trying to log in my exercise to Spark People, and I'm just wondering if I should log it as hiking or just plain walking (there is a difference in the amount of calories burned according to the site). What do you think the difference is between walking and hiking?

Basically, I walk along the coastal path that leads up, down, and around the sand dunes by my house, and there are a few fairly steep inclines along the way. Sometimes on the way back, I go along the beach when the tide is low, which means I have to basically climb or jump from rock to rock to make my way back home. DH says I should count this as walking, but I say it's more like hiking (especially when you consider the resistance of the sand as you climb up those hills). What do you guys think?

Ha ha - probably depends on who you ask...here's a link:

http://walking.about.com/od/howtowal1/a/hikingntd.htm

I would tend to think of walking more like if I went out & walked around on the sidewalks pavements here in town, down to the park & back, things like that - on the city streets.  Whereas I think of hiking (or rambling) as being more off road in natural environments, footpaths, over hill and dale, etc. 

Personally I would define “walking” as when people go traveling on foot for pleasure or exercise, but with little or no preparation, and no special gear. Usually this would imply a short distance.

“Hiking” is when people prepare for a lengthy journey on foot including the use of special gear, such as a some type of pack or rucksack, specialized foot gear, portable hydration, food, and/or other preparations. Use of marked trails is also implied. If the hike is to be overnight, then it would be called “backpacking”. Returning to a point of origin is “day hiking”. Hiking to some other point is “through hiking”.

I think it might be in between?  Like - if the entire time you had all the resistance, then yeah, closer to hiking, but if at intervals you don't and can walk, it's not.  In my head (and this isn't scientific at all)  I figure you're burning 50% more calories than a brisk walk would, but not the full amount of a hike.  So maybe split the difference between the two?  

I think of walking as being on a flat or smooth path, like a pavement or a beach.

I think of hiking as walking along a path that isn't paved and isn't smooth - where you have to negotiate over  rocks, fallen branches,  push tree branches  out of the way, move stones out of your way, etc.

So your body is doing more activities than just walking.

Yeah, DH basically agrees with Tremula, that it isn't hiking if I don't have special gear and it's not a long journey or that hiking is basically walking uphill all the time (I don't know how that's possible, but whatever!) I agree more with Mrs R and Sweetpeach, that if you are in a natural environment and there is a bit more to it than just walking on a flat path, then it's more like hiking.

However, in reality, it's probably just like sb15 says and is more like somewhere in the middle, because a good portion of the time is spent walking across the meadow to get to the dunes and back, which is flat.  Thanks for the responses!

...or that hiking is basically walking uphill all the time (I don't know how that's possible, but whatever!)

Yeah, that would be something if that were possible!  However, I don't think walking downhill is always a breeze - many times I would sooner walk uphill, than down, because I find the downhill much harder on the knees. 

I think a number of things contribute to the difference between walking and hiking, such as how much the activity is seen as a hobby, specialised clothes, boots, gear, etc, but to me the key difference is distance. In ordinary English usage a hike is a long walking journey. There cannot be any hard and fast rule but to me going (say) 5 miles is walking whereas 30 miles across the Pennines is a hike.

Could you put in one entry as hiking and the following entry as walking?  I agree with SB15 as it sounds like a little bit of each. 

I agree with 'a bit of both', Jewlz.  What is the difference in the calorie burning for the two activities (according to the website you are using)?

hiking is basically walking uphill all the time

Hiking can take place uphill, on the level, or downhill. In fact a good hike will probably have all three.

I agree with the 'in between' theory.  To me hiking is more of an 'out in the wild' thing where you have to navigate around obsticles whereas walking is more of on a smooth surface (not necessarily flat) like a pavement, track, etc.  I wouldn't necessarily consider walking around sand dunes to be hiking but I would imagine it burns close to the same amount of calories.  I would at least consider it a rigirous walk as opposed to a leisurely stroll.

Also it can't be a hike if you are doing it locally.

I agree with 'a bit of both', Jewlz.  What is the difference in the calorie burning for the two activities (according to the website you are using)?

See, this is the other problem. If you enter in your exercise as walking, then you have an option to put in how fast you were walking (30 min mile on down to 15 min mile) whereas hiking is just listed as hiking with or without added weight and uphill or cross country. But it takes probably 30 minutes to go a mile the way I go, even though I feel I am definitely walking faster than that, if that makes any sense, mainly because I am negotiating the terrain a bit and especially if I'm hopping across rocks on the way back, it takes some time (I think of this as almost more like step aerobics because I'm constantly stepping up and down to get across the rocky beach - though I have to go a bit more slowly and carefully lest I slip on a mossy rock and injure myself). So I just can't figure it out. If I log in a 30 minute mile walking pace in 30 minutes, then its only 60 calories burned. If I log in hiking cross country (I guess that would be the one you would choose) then it is about 90 calories for 30 minutes exercise (uphill is more like 110 calories, I think). Not that it makes a huge difference, as any exercise is good, but I'm just trying to figure out about how many calories I may be burning if I do this for an hour each day (30 minutes in the morning and 30 minutes in the evening).

Could you put in one entry as hiking and the following entry as walking?  I agree with SB15 as it sounds like a little bit of each.  

Maybe I should just do this. Put in one 30 minute walk as walking (but at what speed, I wonder?) and then the other one as hiking cross country to get a middle balance. DH says there are only 3 hills, so he really thinks it's cheating if I enter it as hiking. But if I were walking a leisurely 30 minute mile to the store I don't think my heart rate would be up as much as it is when I am walking on the dunes. Bah.  

You can go uphill and still be walking. Some city streets can be quite steep hills.