Are you going to be the one to point out how fast you go along or up has no bearing on the amount of work done?
Hmm... I made it clear in the first two lines that the speed and ascent were related to energy expenditure, which I clearly gave in Calories per hour.
Calories per hour is a measure of power or rate of doing work. It is
not a measure of work done.
I admit to being careless in the third line where I put: 'in terms of work done' in brackets. I should written 'in terms of
rate of work done'.
Having said all that, I'm surprised you believe that neither speed nor ascent have a bearing on the amount of work done. As I understand it, walking involves movement of the body's centre of mass (in a sort of figure of 8 motion). The CoM moves because muscles provide the forces to accelerate and decelerate the mass. Put simply, work is done on the body's CoM in order to create a walking motion.
In addition to muscles doing work on the CoM, walking requires other muscles (such as those acting on the ankles) to provide forward motion. Also, friction in joints and other areas of the body needs to be overcome.
I do get that you'd probably have gained a tick in a CSE Physics exam, but real life tends to be more complicated. In real life, the body uses more energy per hour and therefore does more work per hour the faster you go. But I expect you meant to put 'total' before 'work done'. If so, then you'd be correct (at CSE level) to point out that when a body moves with no change in elevation from A to B (i.e. 'go along') that no work has been done at all since the energy state of the body remains unchanged. But that would require a frictionless world in which muscles do not create more heat (use more energy) the harder they do work in order to move the body faster.
A thought experiment: Imaging driving a car at a steady 50mph to a height of (say) 1000ft and noting the mount of fuel used (energy used being equivalent to work done). Now imagine doing the same trip at 70mph (after refilling the tank!). Would you expect more fuel to have been used on the second trip than on the first (assuming the car coped well at both speeds in the same gear)? If more fuel
was required, then more energy
was required, and therefore more work
was done. It just didn't all end up increasing the car's potential energy.