Study analysis · Arteriosclerosis, thrombosis, and vascular biology · 2013
Walking vs Running: Which One Really Saves Your Heart? New Study Reveals the Equalizing Factor
If you burn the same number of calories, walking and running give you the same heart health benefits – so choose whichever you enjoy.
Overview
What the study found
The study in plain English — the bottom line, every takeaway we extracted, and what to do with them.
In simple terms
This study is like a big survey where people told researchers how much they walk or run, and then the researchers watched to see who got sick. Because people chose what they wanted to do, we can't say for sure that running or walking caused the lower risk—it might be that people who run are healthier in other ways too. So we can say walking and running are linked to better health, but we can't say they definitely cause it.
What’s the bottom line?
Scientists wanted to know if walking is just as good as running for lowering your chance of getting high blood pressure, high cholesterol, and diabetes, as long as you burn the same amount of energy.
How strong is this study?
This study is pretty good because it followed many people for many years and asked them detailed questions about their exercise and health. But it's not perfect because the people chose themselves if they wanted to walk or run, so we can't be sure there isn't something else about them that makes them healthier. Also, the researchers had to rely on people remembering and reporting their exercise and health problems, which isn't always exact.
40 / 100
- COI disclosure+40/40
- Data availabilitydata not shared
- Code availabilitycode not shared
38 / 100
- Randomizationnot randomized
- Blindingnot blinded
- Control groupno control group
- Sample size (n=49005)+20/20
- Follow-up+10/10
100 / 100
77 / 100
- P-values+15/15
- Effect size+20/20
- Confidence intervals+15/15
- Pre-registrationnot pre-registered
Each component is scored out of 100 and then capped by the study design — a case series cannot reach the ceiling a randomised trial can, however well it is reported.
Where it sits
RCT reviewsReviews of RCTs (Meta-analyses)
Max 100Randomized TrialsRandomized Trials
Max 90Reviews of Cohort StudiesReviews of Cohort Studies
Max 85Cohort StudiesCohort Studies
Max 72Reviews of Case-Control StudiesReviews of Case-Control Studies
Max 63Case-Control StudiesCase-Control Studies
Max 58Cross-Sectional & Case SeriesCross-Sectional & Case Series
Max 50Expert OpinionExpert Opinion
Max 560 / 100
Probability of being correct
Groups of people are followed over time to see who develops an outcome. Strong for identifying risk factors and associations, but cannot prove causation as firmly as RCTs.
This design cannot establish causation — the findings describe an association, not a cause. This is an observational cohort study, not a randomized controlled trial. Participants self-selected their exercise mode (walking vs. running) and dose. There is potential for confounding (e.g., baseline health, other lifestyle factors). The study can only show associations between exercise energy expenditure and outcomes, not cause and effect.
No Conflicts
No conflicts of interest identified
No conflicts of interest were declared, and no funding information was provided. The study appears independently conducted.
The text does not include a Conflict of Interest or Funding Statement section. It is an observational study using existing cohorts from the National Runners' and Walkers' Health Studies. The source of funding for these cohorts is not disclosed in the provided text.
Key takeaways
- 01
They found that if you burn the same number of calories by walking or running, you get about the same health benefits.
- 02
For every extra unit of energy you burn, you lower your risk of diabetes by about 12%, high blood pressure by about 4-7%, and high cholesterol by about 4-7%.
- 03
This means that if you can't run, walking is a great way to improve your health.
- 04
Even small amounts of extra activity can help.
Surprising findings
- Walking is just as effective as running for reducing heart disease risk factors when you burn the same amount of energy.Conventional wisdom suggests vigorous exercise is superior, but this study found equivalent benefits per calorie burned.
- The difference between runners and walkers in health outcomes largely disappears after adjusting for BMI, suggesting weight plays a bigger role than exercise intensity.Many assume running is better, but this shows it's mostly about weight and total activity.
- Exceeding recommended exercise levels by 4x (≥7.2 METh/d) was linked to a 68% lower diabetes risk compared to those who did minimal exercise.Guidelines recommend a certain amount, but this suggests much more can dramatically boost benefits.
Practical takeaways
If you want to reduce your risk of diabetes, high blood pressure, and high cholesterol, aim to burn at least 1,000-2,000 calories per week through exercise, whether it's walking or running.
This is based on observational data; individual results may vary.
medium confidenceFor accurate tracking, use distance or step counts rather than time to estimate your exercise energy expenditure, as time-based estimates may underrepresent benefits.
This is from the study's analysis; not all fitness trackers use distance accurately.
medium confidenceConsider increasing your exercise dose beyond the minimum guidelines if you can, as the study found progressive benefits – even up to 4x the recommended amount, diabetes risk was 68% lower.
High levels of exercise may not be feasible for everyone; consult a doctor before extreme changes.
medium confidenceWhy this study matters
Calories Matter More Than Intensity
The study found that for every unit of exercise energy (METh/d), running and walking produced nearly identical reductions in risk for hypertension, high cholesterol, and diabetes. Specifically, per METh/d, running reduced diabetes risk by 12.1% and walking by 12.3% – essentially the same. This suggests that total energy expenditure, not exercise intensity, is key.
This means you don't have to run to get significant health benefits; brisk walking can be just as effective if you burn the same total calories.
More Exercise, Even Beyond Guidelines, Brings Bigger Rewards
The study showed progressive reductions in risk with increasing exercise doses. Compared to less than 1.8 METh/d, those who did ≥7.2 METh/d from running had a 68% lower risk of type 2 diabetes. Even 3.6-5.4 METh/d offered substantial benefits. This suggests that exceeding the recommended 450-750 MET-minutes per week can further lower your risk.
Many people think hitting the minimum guidelines is enough, but this shows a clear dose-response – more is better.
The Runner's Advantage Vanishes After Adjusting for BMI
Initially, runners had 38% lower hypertension risk, 36% lower cholesterol risk, and 71% lower diabetes risk compared to walkers. However, after adjusting for body mass index (BMI), these differences shrank to 14%, 18%, and 41%, respectively. This suggests that runners' advantages are largely due to their lower BMI and higher energy expenditure, not intensity alone.
It challenges the idea that running is inherently better for your health – it might just be that runners tend to be leaner and exercise more.
Distance-Based Tracking Gives More Accurate Health Benefits
The study found that when exercise energy expenditure was calculated from distance instead of time, the associated risk reductions were at least twice as large. For example, per METh/d run, time-based estimates showed 52% less reduction in hypertension risk than distance-based estimates. This implies that many studies may underestimate exercise benefits when using time-based data.
For fitness tracking, this means using distance or calories burned rather than minutes might give a better sense of real health impact.
Want the whole report?
Detailed mode opens the full scientific breakdown — every score component, the methodology, conflicts of interest, the evidence analysis behind each claim, and the raw study data.
Overview
What the study found
The study in plain English — the bottom line, every takeaway we extracted, and what to do with them.
Not medical advice. For informational purposes only. Always consult a healthcare professional. Terms
Scientists wanted to know if walking is just as good as running for lowering your chance of getting high blood pressure, high cholesterol, and diabetes, as long as you burn the same amount of energy.
Research results
They found that if you burn the same number of calories by walking or running, you get about the same health benefits. For every extra unit of energy you burn, you lower your risk of diabetes by about 12%, high blood pressure by about 4-7%, and high cholesterol by about 4-7%.
What this means - more context
This means that if you can't run, walking is a great way to improve your health. Even small amounts of extra activity can help.
To test whether equivalent energy expenditure by moderate-intensity (e.g., walking) and vigorous-intensity exercise (e.g., running) provides equivalent health benefits.
In a large prospective cohort study of runners and walkers, equivalent energy expenditure from walking and running was associated with similar reductions in risk for hypertension, hypercholesterolemia, type 2 diabetes, and possibly coronary heart disease, suggesting that total energy expenditure is more important than exercise intensity.
Methods Used
Prospective cohort study using National Runners' (n=33,060) and Walkers' (n=15,945) Health Study cohorts. Baseline exercise energy expenditure (METh/d) was compared with self-reported incident hypertension, hypercholesterolemia, diabetes, and CHD over 6.2 years of follow-up. Cox proportional hazard models were used.
Main Finding
Equivalent energy expenditures by walking and running produced similar risk reductions for hypertension, hypercholesterolemia, and diabetes, with per METh/d reductions of about 4-12% for running and 7-12% for walking. Higher doses beyond guidelines reduced risk further, with up to 68% lower diabetes risk at highest doses.
Confidence Level
High confidence due to large sample size and prospective design, but limitations include self-reported outcomes and exercise, and observational nature.
Study Flags
Red Flags
- •Self-reported outcomes and exercise
- •Observational design cannot prove causation
- •Limited statistical power for coronary heart disease
No biological mechanisms were identified in this study. This may be an epidemiological, observational, or survey-based study that reports associations rather than proposing causal biological pathways.
Surprising Findings
Walking is just as effective as running for reducing heart disease risk factors when you burn the same amount of energy.
Conventional wisdom suggests vigorous exercise is superior, but this study found equivalent benefits per calorie burned.
Practical Takeaways
If you want to reduce your risk of diabetes, high blood pressure, and high cholesterol, aim to burn at least 1,000-2,000 calories per week through exercise, whether it's walking or running.
RCT reviewsReviews of RCTs (Meta-analyses)
Max 100Randomized TrialsRandomized Trials
Max 90Reviews of Cohort StudiesReviews of Cohort Studies
Max 85Cohort StudiesCohort Studies
Max 72Reviews of Case-Control StudiesReviews of Case-Control Studies
Max 63Case-Control StudiesCase-Control Studies
Max 58Cross-Sectional & Case SeriesCross-Sectional & Case Series
Max 50Expert OpinionExpert Opinion
Max 560 / 100
Probability of being correct
Groups of people are followed over time to see who develops an outcome. Strong for identifying risk factors and associations, but cannot prove causation as firmly as RCTs.
Human Cohort Study
Subject
Moderate probability
on the GRADE evidence scale
This study is like a big survey where people told researchers how much they walk or run, and then the researchers watched to see who got sick. Because people chose what they wanted to do, we can't say for sure that running or walking caused the lower risk—it might be that people who run are healthier in other ways too. So we can say walking and running are linked to better health, but we can't say they definitely cause it.
No conflicts of interest were detected in this study. No score impact.
Strengths
- Large sample size (49,005)
- Prospective design with follow-up (6.2 years)
- Use of validated questionnaires (though self-reported)
Weaknesses
- Observational design (no randomization) - confounding
- Self-selection of exercise mode (walkers vs runners differ in baseline characteristics)
- Self-reported outcomes (physician-diagnosed but self-reported)
Methodology
Evidence Keywords
Statistical Reporting
Not medical advice. For informational purposes only. Always consult a healthcare professional. Terms
Scientists wanted to know if walking is just as good as running for lowering your chance of getting high blood pressure, high cholesterol, and diabetes, as long as you burn the same amount of energy.
Research results
They found that if you burn the same number of calories by walking or running, you get about the same health benefits. For every extra unit of energy you burn, you lower your risk of diabetes by about 12%, high blood pressure by about 4-7%, and high cholesterol by about 4-7%.
What this means - more context
This means that if you can't run, walking is a great way to improve your health. Even small amounts of extra activity can help.
To test whether equivalent energy expenditure by moderate-intensity (e.g., walking) and vigorous-intensity exercise (e.g., running) provides equivalent health benefits.
In a large prospective cohort study of runners and walkers, equivalent energy expenditure from walking and running was associated with similar reductions in risk for hypertension, hypercholesterolemia, type 2 diabetes, and possibly coronary heart disease, suggesting that total energy expenditure is more important than exercise intensity.
Methods Used
Prospective cohort study using National Runners' (n=33,060) and Walkers' (n=15,945) Health Study cohorts. Baseline exercise energy expenditure (METh/d) was compared with self-reported incident hypertension, hypercholesterolemia, diabetes, and CHD over 6.2 years of follow-up. Cox proportional hazard models were used.
Main Finding
Equivalent energy expenditures by walking and running produced similar risk reductions for hypertension, hypercholesterolemia, and diabetes, with per METh/d reductions of about 4-12% for running and 7-12% for walking. Higher doses beyond guidelines reduced risk further, with up to 68% lower diabetes risk at highest doses.
Confidence Level
High confidence due to large sample size and prospective design, but limitations include self-reported outcomes and exercise, and observational nature.
Study Flags
Red Flags
- •Self-reported outcomes and exercise
- •Observational design cannot prove causation
- •Limited statistical power for coronary heart disease
No biological mechanisms were identified in this study. This may be an epidemiological, observational, or survey-based study that reports associations rather than proposing causal biological pathways.
Surprising Findings
Walking is just as effective as running for reducing heart disease risk factors when you burn the same amount of energy.
Conventional wisdom suggests vigorous exercise is superior, but this study found equivalent benefits per calorie burned.
Practical Takeaways
If you want to reduce your risk of diabetes, high blood pressure, and high cholesterol, aim to burn at least 1,000-2,000 calories per week through exercise, whether it's walking or running.
RCT reviewsReviews of RCTs (Meta-analyses)
Max 100Randomized TrialsRandomized Trials
Max 90Reviews of Cohort StudiesReviews of Cohort Studies
Max 85Cohort StudiesCohort Studies
Max 72Reviews of Case-Control StudiesReviews of Case-Control Studies
Max 63Case-Control StudiesCase-Control Studies
Max 58Cross-Sectional & Case SeriesCross-Sectional & Case Series
Max 50Expert OpinionExpert Opinion
Max 560 / 100
Probability of being correct
Groups of people are followed over time to see who develops an outcome. Strong for identifying risk factors and associations, but cannot prove causation as firmly as RCTs.
Human Cohort Study
Subject
Moderate probability
on the GRADE evidence scale
This study is like a big survey where people told researchers how much they walk or run, and then the researchers watched to see who got sick. Because people chose what they wanted to do, we can't say for sure that running or walking caused the lower risk—it might be that people who run are healthier in other ways too. So we can say walking and running are linked to better health, but we can't say they definitely cause it.
No conflicts of interest were detected in this study. No score impact.
Strengths
- Large sample size (49,005)
- Prospective design with follow-up (6.2 years)
- Use of validated questionnaires (though self-reported)
Weaknesses
- Observational design (no randomization) - confounding
- Self-selection of exercise mode (walkers vs runners differ in baseline characteristics)
- Self-reported outcomes (physician-diagnosed but self-reported)
Methodology
Evidence Keywords
Statistical Reporting
Scoring
How strong is this study?
This study is pretty good because it followed many people for many years and asked them detailed questions about their exercise and health. But it's not perfect because the people chose themselves if they wanted to walk or run, so we can't be sure there isn't something else about them that makes them healthier. Also, the researchers had to rely on people remembering and reporting their exercise and health problems, which isn't always exact.
40 / 100
- COI disclosure+40/40
- Data availabilitydata not shared
- Code availabilitycode not shared
38 / 100
- Randomizationnot randomized
- Blindingnot blinded
- Control groupno control group
- Sample size (n=49005)+20/20
- Follow-up+10/10
100 / 100
77 / 100
- P-values+15/15
- Effect size+20/20
- Confidence intervals+15/15
- Pre-registrationnot pre-registered
Each component is scored out of 100 and then capped by the study design — a case series cannot reach the ceiling a randomised trial can, however well it is reported.
Where it sits
RCT reviewsReviews of RCTs (Meta-analyses)
Max 100Randomized TrialsRandomized Trials
Max 90Reviews of Cohort StudiesReviews of Cohort Studies
Max 85Cohort StudiesCohort Studies
Max 72Reviews of Case-Control StudiesReviews of Case-Control Studies
Max 63Case-Control StudiesCase-Control Studies
Max 58Cross-Sectional & Case SeriesCross-Sectional & Case Series
Max 50Expert OpinionExpert Opinion
Max 560 / 100
Probability of being correct
Groups of people are followed over time to see who develops an outcome. Strong for identifying risk factors and associations, but cannot prove causation as firmly as RCTs.
This design cannot establish causation — the findings describe an association, not a cause. This is an observational cohort study, not a randomized controlled trial. Participants self-selected their exercise mode (walking vs. running) and dose. There is potential for confounding (e.g., baseline health, other lifestyle factors). The study can only show associations between exercise energy expenditure and outcomes, not cause and effect.
No Conflicts
No conflicts of interest identified
No conflicts of interest were declared, and no funding information was provided. The study appears independently conducted.
The text does not include a Conflict of Interest or Funding Statement section. It is an observational study using existing cohorts from the National Runners' and Walkers' Health Studies. The source of funding for these cohorts is not disclosed in the provided text.
Standing
Who’s using this study?
The videos and claims on this site that lean on this study, and the researchers who wrote it.
1 video from FoundMyFitness Clips cite this study, drawing 1 claim from it.
- Contradicted
Evidence contradicts this claim.
Evidence