The question of whether walking or running is superior for heart health is common, as both are accessible forms of aerobic exercise. Both activities provide significant benefits for the cardiovascular system, reducing the risk of heart disease and improving overall wellness. The distinction lies in their intensity, the time commitment required, and the physical toll they take on the body. Ultimately, the choice often depends on an individual’s fitness level and ability to maintain consistency.
Equating the Work: Intensity, Time, and Energy Expenditure
The primary difference between running and walking is the intensity of the effort, which directly relates to the rate of energy expenditure. Walking is classified as a moderate-intensity activity, generally expending between 3.5 and 6 Metabolic Equivalents of Task (METs). Running is a vigorous-intensity activity, with an energy expenditure that ranges from 7 to 12 METs or higher.
This difference means running burns significantly more calories per unit of time than walking. A 30-minute run will expend a greater total amount of energy than a 30-minute walk, making running a more time-efficient way to meet caloric expenditure goals.
To achieve the same total energy expenditure, or “dose” of exercise, a walker must spend significantly more time moving than a runner. For example, walking for an hour at a brisk pace might match the energy burned during a 30-minute run. Physical activity guidelines reflect this, recommending 150 minutes of moderate-intensity activity (like walking) or 75 minutes of vigorous-intensity activity (like running) per week to gain substantial health benefits. The choice between them is often a trade-off between time commitment and exercise intensity.
Direct Impact on Heart Health Markers
When the total volume of exercise is equalized, meaning the total energy expenditure is the same, the resulting benefits to heart health markers are similar for both running and walking. Studies that have matched the total energy spent, measured in MET hours per day, compared the effect of both activities on cardiovascular risk factors. These analyses suggest that equivalent doses of moderate-intensity walking and vigorous-intensity running produce comparable reductions in the risk of hypertension and high cholesterol.
Equivalent energy expenditure from walking and running has been associated with similar reductions in the risk of developing high blood pressure and type 2 diabetes. Studies demonstrate that the total volume of work performed is a primary determinant of the benefit. This implies that the cardiovascular system responds favorably to the total volume of aerobic work, regardless of whether that work is achieved through a shorter, intense burst or a longer, sustained effort.
Improvements in heart health markers, such as blood pressure and lipid profiles, are a direct result of the metabolic demand placed on the body over time. The heart strengthens, blood flow improves, and metabolic health benefits accrue when a consistent energy output is maintained. Because the physiological mechanisms that reduce risk are tied to total workload, a sustained walking program can be as effective as a running program when the total energy burned is matched.
The Trade-Off: Injury Risk and Long-Term Sustainability
The most significant practical difference between the two activities is the mechanical stress placed on the body, which directly impacts injury risk and long-term sustainability. Running is a high-impact activity that subjects the joints to forces roughly two to three times the body’s weight with every stride. This increased impact leads to a higher risk of orthopedic injuries, which commonly include shin splints, runner’s knee, and stress fractures.
Walking, in contrast, is a low-impact activity that is much gentler on the joints and connective tissues. This lower mechanical stress is particularly advantageous for individuals who are new to exercise, older adults, or those with pre-existing joint concerns, as it minimizes the chance of injury. The lower injury rate associated with walking means it is easier for most people to perform the activity consistently over many years.
Consistency is a dominant factor in achieving long-term cardiovascular health, and an exercise that can be sustained without frequent interruptions from injury is often the better choice. For many individuals, walking offers a more sustainable path to a consistent exercise regimen, which translates into steady, enduring benefits for the heart. Therefore, the activity that is “better” for the heart is ultimately the one an individual can adhere to with regularity and without causing physical setbacks.