Skip to content
Thursday, September 3, 2026
HEALTH & BEAUTY TOPWELLNESS & NUTRITION
H&BT
HEALTH & BEAUTY TOPWELLNESS & NUTRITION
Evidence based● Every claim sourced and dated● Reviewed before publication
fitness✓ Evidence Based

Walking vs. Running: Which Benefits Do You Actually Get?

A meta-analysis says brisk walking rivals running for heart health when the effort is matched — the real trade-offs are time and injury risk.

Walking vs. Running: Which Benefits Do You Actually Get?
Same road, two tools: the trade-off between running's speed and walking's joint-friendly load.

For heart health, walking and running deliver broadly similar benefits when the total energy burned is the same — a 2015 systematic review of 33 studies in Sports Medicine (Murtagh and colleagues) found no clear difference in cardiovascular risk reduction between walkers and runners matched for energy expenditure. Running simply buys those benefits in less time, while walking buys them with far less impact on joints and a much lower injury rate. Which one is "better" for you is mostly a question of your joints, your schedule, and how much time you can give.

This site publishes information, not medical advice. If you have heart disease, joint problems, or symptoms during activity, talk with a clinician about what level and type of exercise is safe.

Is walking really as healthy as running?

Per minute of time, no; per unit of energy, largely yes. The 2015 Sports Medicine review (Murtagh and colleagues) pooled observational studies and found that when walkers and runners burned comparable amounts of energy, both showed lower risks of high blood pressure, high cholesterol, diabetes, and possibly coronary heart disease, with results more consistent for hypertension than for other outcomes. A separate large cohort analysis in Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis, and Vascular Biology (Williams and Thompson, 2013) reached a slightly different conclusion: for the same energy expenditure, running was associated with greater risk reductions for some conditions, including diabetes and hypertension, than walking. The honest reading of the two together: walking captures most — not all — of running's cardiometabolic benefit, and needs roughly double the time to burn the same energy.

How many calories does each burn?

Running burns roughly twice the energy per minute of brisk walking. Estimates from the federal guidelines' calorie appendix (Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans, 2nd edition, HHS, 2018), for a person of about 154 pounds: a brisk 3.5 mph walk uses roughly 280 calories in an hour, while running at 5 mph uses roughly 590. Running also reaches the moderate-to-vigorous zone almost automatically, whereas brisk walking sits at the moderate threshold — so walkers need to keep the pace honest to make sessions count toward the recommended 150 weekly minutes of moderate activity.

Which is easier on your knees and joints?

Walking, clearly — and the running story is more nuanced than the locker-room myth. Each running stride loads the knee with force several times body weight, while walking keeps ground reaction forces near one to 1.5 times body weight. Yet running is not established as a cause of knee osteoarthritis: a 2017 systematic review and meta-analysis in the Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy (Alentorn-Geli and colleagues) found recreational runners had a lower prevalence of hip and knee osteoarthritis than sedentary non-runners (3.5 percent versus about 10 percent), with only competitive elite-level runners showing elevated rates. The realistic joint risk with running is injury from training load, not arthritis.

Related stories: Cardio or Weights First? What the Research Says About Order · Strength Training After 40: What the Evidence Says Works.

Which causes more injuries?

Running, by a wide margin. A frequently cited review in the British Journal of Sports Medicine (van Gent and colleagues, 2007) reported annual injury rates in runners ranging from roughly 20 to 79 percent, with the knee the most common site — numbers recreational walkers never approach. Most running injuries are overuse problems tied to abrupt increases in training volume, so gradual progression matters more than footwear brand, and walkers starting a running program should alternate running and walking intervals for the first weeks.

How do you choose between them?

Match the activity to your body and constraints:

FactorWalkingRunning
Heart/metabolic benefitSimilar at equal energy (Sports Medicine, 2015)Same benefits, less time
Time cost~2x longer for same caloriesHigh energy burn per minute
Injury riskLowUp to ~79% annually (BJSM, 2007)
Joint impactLow forcesHigh forces, but recreational running not linked to higher OA
Best fitBeginners, joint pain, long consistency streaksTime-crunched, existing base, goals of pace or racing

A hybrid is not a compromise — it is the standard recommendation: walk on most days, run once or twice a week if you enjoy it, and let the federal benchmark of 150 moderate minutes be the scoreboard that both sports feed.

How do you start if you currently do neither?

Start with walking, because the adherence research favors the easier entry point: habit studies tracking new exercise behaviors found low-intensity starts are the ones people keep. A practical on-ramp: walk briskly for 20-30 minutes on five days of the week for your first two weeks — brisk means you can talk in sentences but not sing, the moderate-intensity test the 2018 federal guidelines use. From week three, if your knees and schedule allow, add two sessions of alternating one minute of easy jogging with four minutes of walking, repeated four to six times. Expand the jogging intervals gradually over the following month. Both activities count fully toward the recommended 150 weekly minutes of moderate activity, so there is no wrong door — only the one you will actually walk through.

When should you talk to a clinician?

See a clinician before running if you have chest symptoms with exertion, unexplained dizziness, a history of stress fractures, significant hip or knee pain, or you are returning from injury. During either activity, stop and get advice about pain that worsens mid-stride, joint swelling that persists overnight, or pain that changes the way you walk.

The bottom line

At equal energy burned, walking and running show similar cardiovascular benefit (Sports Medicine, 2015); running gets you there faster, walking gets you there with a fraction of the injury risk (BJSM, 2007). Choose the one you will still be doing in six months — consistency, not modality, is the variable the research keeps rewarding. Start with 20-30 brisk minutes and add time before you add speed.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is walking as good as running for your heart?
Largely, yes, when energy expenditure is matched. A 2015 systematic review in Sports Medicine (Murtagh and colleagues) found walkers and runners burning similar energy showed comparable reductions in cardiovascular risk factors, though some analyses (Williams and Thompson, 2013) suggest running edges ahead for equal energy.
Does running ruin your knees?
The evidence does not support that. A 2017 meta-analysis in the Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy found recreational runners had lower hip and knee osteoarthritis prevalence than sedentary non-runners (about 3.5 percent versus 10 percent); only competitive elite runners showed higher rates.
How much walking equals a run?
Roughly double the time for equal calories: per the HHS 2018 guidelines' estimates, about 154 pounds of body weight walking briskly at 3.5 mph burns around 280 calories an hour versus roughly 590 running at 5 mph.
Which is better for beginners over 50?
Walking. Injury reviews in runners (British Journal of Sports Medicine, 2007) report annual injury rates up to roughly 79 percent, so beginners and older adults usually do better starting with brisk walking and adding short running intervals gradually if desired.

Sources

  1. CDC physical activity basics
VUGA NetworkOUR BRANDS