New publications
Which to choose - walking or running?
Last reviewed: 01.07.2025
All iLive content is medically reviewed or fact checked to ensure as much factual accuracy as possible.
We have strict sourcing guidelines and only link to reputable media sites, academic research institutions and, whenever possible, medically peer reviewed studies. Note that the numbers in parentheses ([1], [2], etc.) are clickable links to these studies.
If you feel that any of our content is inaccurate, out-of-date, or otherwise questionable, please select it and press Ctrl + Enter.
Among the few free sports, jogging and walking stand out. The pros and cons of such training have long been debated. It remains a proven fact that a sedentary lifestyle harms all systems of the human body.
According to experts, running helps in the fight against excess weight. Research by the American magazine published data from a large-scale project by the Lawrence Lab, which involved more than 40,000 fans of running and walking. At the beginning of the testing, they measured weight, waist circumference, recorded nutritional characteristics, diet, and the distance covered daily. After a certain period of time (maximum 6 years), scientists noted that the runners were slimmer at the beginning and after the experiment. They were able to control their weight better than the walkers.
The results were particularly noticeable in the 55-year-old group. Runners of this age managed to burn the same amount of calories per week as older participants who chose to walk. However, their indicators, such as body mass index and waist circumference, were characterized by smaller values than those of walkers of the same age.
Naturally, running burns more calories. However, it is obvious that runners and walkers burned approximately the same amount of calories over the course of a week. This is because the walking subjects covered longer distances than their competitors could run.
An equally interesting experiment on the effect of activity on appetite was conducted by researchers from the University of Wyoming. They studied a group of nine female runners and ten walkers. The essence of the study was to observe energy expenditure and the presence of a hormone in the blood that affects appetite. Representatives of both groups trained on treadmills for about an hour every other day. Afterwards, they were invited to a buffet, with no restrictions on their choice. And then it was noticed that the ladies who chose walking consumed approximately fifty calories more than they could burn while walking. While the running subjects ate an average of two hundred calories less. A substance that reduces appetite was also found in their blood.
Active people are less susceptible to developing age-related cataracts, which cannot be said about those who like to sit on their butts. Based on studies, it was established that there are no problems with blood pressure, cholesterol levels, cardiovascular diseases and diabetes, both in runners and walkers. Running for an hour every day helps to reduce the risk of heart disease by almost 5%. If you manage to spend the same amount of energy while walking, then falling into the risk group decreases by 9%. It is noted that walkers have to spend more time walking and cover a greater distance to burn the same amount of calories as runners.
Walking is chosen by people who find it difficult to run or have contraindications for health reasons. And there are many varieties of walking - sports (by the way, an Olympic discipline), Nordic with ski poles (has even replaced the popular jogging), etc. For every taste, as they say. In any case, an active lifestyle brings more benefits than "getting a callus" on a soft spot. Still lacking motivation? I would like to note the following: the latest experimental data showed that among people sitting for an hour, a wild thirst for food woke up, which eventually turned into an excess of at least three hundred calories.
There is only one conclusion to be drawn: jogging before meals is a must!