Walking vs Running: Which is Better for your Health? What Research Actually Says
Walking and running are among the most accessible forms of physical activity worldwide, yet debate continues over which offers greater health benefits.
Both activities improve cardiovascular fitness, support weight management, enhance metabolic health, and reduce the risk of chronic disease. However, they differ substantially in intensity, mechanical load, injury risk, and long-term sustainability.
This article examines walking and running through the lens of scientific research, comparing their effects on cardiovascular health, metabolic outcomes, musculoskeletal health, injury risk, longevity, and overall suitability across different populations.
Understanding the Physiological Differences
The primary distinction between walking and running lies in exercise intensity. Walking is typically classified as a moderate-intensity activity, while running is considered vigorous-intensity exercise.
Running produces higher oxygen consumption, heart rate, and energy expenditure per unit time. Walking, in contrast, places lower mechanical stress on joints and connective tissues while still eliciting meaningful physiological adaptations when performed consistently.
These differences influence how each activity affects health outcomes, recovery demands, and long-term adherence.
Cardiovascular Health Benefits
Large epidemiological studies demonstrate that both walking and running significantly reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease.
Data from the National Runners' and Walkers' Health Studies show that when total energy expenditure is matched, walking and running produce comparable reductions in hypertension, hypercholesterolemia, and coronary heart disease.
Running may achieve these benefits in less time due to higher intensity, while walking requires greater duration or frequency to reach similar energy expenditure.
Blood Pressure and Lipid Effects
Regular walking has been shown to lower systolic and diastolic blood pressure, particularly in sedentary or older adults.
Running produces similar or slightly greater improvements in blood pressure and lipid profiles, though the magnitude of benefit is strongly influenced by baseline fitness and training volume.
Importantly, moderate-intensity walking remains highly effective for individuals unable to tolerate vigorous exercise.
Weight Management and Energy Expenditure
Running burns more calories per minute than walking due to higher metabolic demand.
However, total daily energy expenditure depends on duration, frequency, and adherence. Many individuals can walk for longer periods and more frequently without excessive fatigue or injury risk.
Studies suggest that long-term weight management is more strongly associated with consistency of physical activity than exercise intensity alone.
Metabolic Health and Diabetes Risk
Both walking and running improve insulin sensitivity and glucose regulation.
Prospective cohort studies show that brisk walking significantly reduces the risk of type 2 diabetes, particularly when performed at sufficient intensity to raise heart rate.
Running confers similar benefits and may offer additional metabolic improvements in shorter time frames, though adherence remains a critical determinant.
Impact on Musculoskeletal Health
Walking places lower compressive and shear forces on joints compared to running.
This makes walking particularly suitable for individuals with osteoarthritis, obesity, or prior joint injury.
Running, when progressed gradually and performed with appropriate footwear, does not appear to increase the risk of knee osteoarthritis in healthy individuals, contrary to earlier assumptions.
Bone Density and Skeletal Adaptation
Weight-bearing activity stimulates bone remodeling.
Running generates higher ground reaction forces, which may produce greater improvements in bone mineral density compared to walking.
However, brisk walking still contributes positively to skeletal health, especially in older adults and postmenopausal populations.
Injury Risk and Safety Considerations
Running is associated with a higher incidence of overuse injuries, particularly in beginners or individuals who increase mileage too rapidly.
Common running-related injuries include tendinopathies, stress fractures, and muscle strains.
Walking carries a substantially lower injury risk and is widely recommended as a safe entry point for sedentary individuals.
Recovery Demands and Sustainability
Running requires longer recovery periods due to greater muscular and connective tissue stress.
Walking produces minimal recovery burden, allowing for daily participation without significant fatigue.
From a long-term health perspective, sustainability and consistency are critical advantages of walking.
Effects on Mental Health
Both walking and running are associated with reductions in symptoms of depression and anxiety.
Walking, particularly in natural environments, has been shown to improve mood and cognitive function.
Running may produce stronger endorphin responses in some individuals, though enjoyment varies widely.
Longevity and All-Cause Mortality
Population-level studies consistently show that both walkers and runners have lower all-cause mortality compared to inactive individuals.
When adjusted for energy expenditure, walking and running appear similarly effective in extending lifespan.
This supports the concept that regular movement, rather than exercise intensity alone, drives longevity benefits.
Which Is Better for Beginners?
Walking is generally the preferred starting point for individuals new to exercise.
It allows gradual cardiovascular adaptation with minimal injury risk.
Once a base level of fitness is established, some individuals may transition to running if desired.
Which Is Better for Time Efficiency?
Running offers superior time efficiency, delivering comparable cardiovascular benefits in shorter sessions.
This may be advantageous for individuals with limited time availability.
However, time efficiency must be balanced against recovery capacity and injury risk.
Individual Preference and Adherence
Enjoyment and personal preference strongly influence adherence.
An exercise modality that fits an individual's lifestyle, physical capacity, and enjoyment is more likely to be sustained.
From a public health standpoint, consistent walking may offer broader population-level benefits.
Key Takeaways from the Evidence
- Both walking and running significantly improve cardiovascular and metabolic health
- Running is more time-efficient but carries higher injury risk
- Walking is safer, more accessible, and highly sustainable
- Total energy expenditure matters more than exercise type
Conclusion
Scientific evidence does not support a single “better” choice between walking and running for health.
Both activities offer substantial benefits when performed consistently and appropriately.
The optimal choice depends on individual health status, goals, injury history, and personal preference. For many people, a combination of walking and occasional running provides a balanced and sustainable approach to long-term health.
References
- Lee IM, et al. Exercise and all-cause mortality: Dose-response relationship. J Am Coll Cardiol.
- Williams PT. Walking and running reduce risk of hypertension, hypercholesterolemia, and diabetes. Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol.
- American Heart Association. Walking for heart health.
- Chakravarty EF, et al. Long distance running and knee osteoarthritis. Arthritis Rheum.
- Piercy KL, et al. Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans. JAMA.
How we reviewed this article:
Our team continually monitors and updates articles whenever new information becomes available.
Written and Medically Reviewed by Ian Nathan, MBChB