The short answer is yes, running movements are registered as steps by most devices. However, the process is more complex than simply counting footfalls, and accuracy depends heavily on the difference between a running stride and a walking stride. Understanding how your device translates movement into data is necessary to interpret your overall activity metrics effectively.
How Step Trackers Define a Step
The function of counting steps begins with a micro-electro-mechanical system (MEMS) sensor known as a three-axis accelerometer. This sensor detects changes in speed and direction, allowing it to recognize the rhythmic, repeated motion associated with human gait. As a person walks or runs, their body experiences a slight vertical bounce, and this recognizable acceleration signal is what the pedometer counts.
The raw data collected by the accelerometer is not automatically classified as a step. Instead, it is fed into a proprietary algorithm that filters out non-step movements like typing or shifting position while seated. This algorithm is trained to recognize the specific frequency and pattern of vibrations characteristic of a legitimate step. Sophisticated trackers may also use a gyroscope, which measures orientation and rotation, to better distinguish a true step from arm flailing.
Running vs. Walking Strides
The biomechanical differences between running and walking complicate the step-counting process. When walking, a person always has at least one foot in contact with the ground, maintaining a steady motion. In contrast, running involves a distinct “flight phase” where both feet are airborne simultaneously, demanding greater force.
A running gait features a significantly longer stride length compared to walking. While an average adult’s walking step length is around 60 to 70 centimeters, a running stride can be closer to 115 centimeters. This difference means a runner covers the same distance in fewer steps than a walker, which affects the raw count. Furthermore, running generates much higher impact forces, often two to four times the runner’s body weight, compared to walking, which is about the same as body weight.
Accuracy and Calibration Issues
Applying a step-counting algorithm to the distinct motion of running introduces specific reliability problems. Wrist-worn devices, the most common form of tracker, are susceptible to recording extraneous arm movements that do not correspond to footfalls. This can lead to overcounting when the arm swing during running is pronounced or erratic.
Conversely, the longer, smoother stride and lower frequency of steps per distance covered can sometimes lead to undercounting. Trackers that rely primarily on a generic algorithm struggle to maintain accuracy without leveraging additional data streams. Studies suggest that even high-end smartwatches can struggle to accurately count running strides compared to walking, with errors sometimes reaching a significant margin. This variability, typically 5 to 10 percent for general steps, often increases during high-impact activities like running.
Practical Tracking and Goal Setting
Given the inherent variability, runners should consider how they use step counts in their fitness routine. For a runner, distance, pace, and time are more reliable and informative metrics than a raw step count. The step count is a useful tool for monitoring non-exercise activity, also known as Non-Exercise Activity Thermogenesis (NEAT), throughout the day.
When setting daily targets, view the step count as a general approximation of movement rather than a precise clinical measurement. Many modern wearables include the ability to track “active minutes” or “intensity minutes,” which better quantify the physiological effort of a run than a simple step number. By focusing on distance for structured runs and steps for general daily movement, users gain a more complete picture of their activity level.