Walking vs Running for Weight Loss: Calories, Studies and Trade-Offs

Key takeaways

• Running at 6 mph is rated 9.3 METs and brisk walking 4.8, so an hour burns about 633 versus 327 calories at 150 pounds; per mile the gap is much smaller.^[1]
• Among 47,453 walkers and runners followed for 6.2 years, running was linked with more weight loss per unit of energy, about 90% more in the heaviest quarter.^[3]
• For the same energy spent, walking and running gave similar reductions in new high blood pressure, high cholesterol and diabetes.^[4]
• Adults need 150 to 300 minutes of moderate activity or 75 to 150 minutes of vigorous activity a week, plus strength work 2 days a week.^[7]

In short: Running burns about twice as many calories per hour as brisk walking, and a little more per mile. In a large 6-year study, runners also lost more weight for the same energy spent. But walking gave similar protection against high blood pressure, high cholesterol and diabetes for the same energy, and it is easier on joints and easier to keep up. If you have the time, walking further can match a shorter run; if time is tight, running (or run-walk intervals) packs more into each minute.

This page compares the two using published energy costs and the largest study that followed walkers and runners side by side. It does not name a winner, because the better choice depends on your joints, your time and what you enjoy. For a full walking plan, see our guide to walking for weight loss, and for every other option, our exercise hub. If you have a heart, lung or joint condition or have been inactive for a long time, ask your clinician before you start running.

The two in one minute

	Walking	Running
Energy cost	3.8 METs at 2.8 to 3.4 mph; 4.8 brisk (3.5 to 3.9 mph)	8.5 METs at 5 mph; 9.3 at 6 mph
Calories per hour at 150 lb	About 259 (moderate) to 327 (brisk)	About 578 (5 mph) to 633 (6 mph)
Calories per mile at 150 lb	About 86 to 94	About 105 to 116
Impact on joints	Low: one foot always on the ground	Higher: a flight phase and landing on every stride
Weight loss in the National Runners’ and Walkers’ studies	Less per unit of energy spent	More per unit of energy spent, especially in heavier people
Heart-risk factors for the same energy	Similar reductions	Similar reductions
Cost	Free (walking shoes)	Free (running shoes)

Calories per hour and per mile

The 2024 Adult Compendium of Physical Activities lists energy costs in METs; one MET is the energy you use sitting quietly, about 1 calorie per kilogram of body weight per hour. Per hour, the gap between walking and running is large because running is both harder and faster:

• 150 lb
• 200 lb

Walking, about 3 mph259 kcal345 kcal

Brisk walking, about 3.5 mph327 kcal435 kcal

Very brisk walking, about 4 mph374 kcal499 kcal

Jogging, 5 mph578 kcal771 kcal

Running, 6 mph633 kcal844 kcal

Estimated calories burned in one hour

Item	150 lb	200 lb
Walking, about 3 mph	259 kcal	345 kcal
Brisk walking, about 3.5 mph	327 kcal	435 kcal
Very brisk walking, about 4 mph	374 kcal	499 kcal
Jogging, 5 mph	578 kcal	771 kcal
Running, 6 mph	633 kcal	844 kcal

Calories = MET x body weight in kg x 1 hour. Walking METs 3.8, 4.8 and 5.5 (speed ranges 2.8-3.4, 3.5-3.9 and 4.0-4.4 mph); running 8.5 and 9.3.

Source: 2024 Adult Compendium of Physical Activities (MET values); InstaTuck calculation (checked on October 6, 2026)

Per mile, the gap shrinks, because a walker spends more minutes covering the same ground. Using the low end of each speed range, a mile costs a 150-pound person roughly 86 to 94 calories walking and 105 to 116 running:

• 150 lb
• 200 lb

Walking, 3 mph86 kcal115 kcal

Brisk walking, 3.5 mph93 kcal124 kcal

Very brisk walking, 4 mph94 kcal125 kcal

Jogging, 5 mph116 kcal154 kcal

Running, 6 mph105 kcal141 kcal

Estimated calories burned per mile

Item	150 lb	200 lb
Walking, 3 mph	86 kcal	115 kcal
Brisk walking, 3.5 mph	93 kcal	124 kcal
Very brisk walking, 4 mph	94 kcal	125 kcal
Jogging, 5 mph	116 kcal	154 kcal
Running, 6 mph	105 kcal	141 kcal

Calories per mile = MET x kg / speed in mph, at the low end of each Compendium speed range. These are gross totals, including the energy you would use at rest.

Source: 2024 Adult Compendium of Physical Activities (MET values); InstaTuck calculation (checked on October 6, 2026)

Two things to keep in mind. First, these are averages for adults 19 to 59, and fitness, terrain and stride change your own numbers. Second, the gross totals include the energy your body would use anyway. If you subtract the resting 1 MET, running costs roughly 20 to 40% more per mile than brisk walking in these figures. Our calories burned calculator works out your own estimate. In practical terms, distance matters more than speed for a walker: adding a mile to a daily walk adds roughly 90 calories at 150 pounds and about 120 at 200 pounds.

What the walkers-and-runners studies found

Weight change over 6.2 years (Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 2013)

Researcher Paul Williams followed 15,237 walkers and 32,216 runners from the National Walkers’ and Runners’ Health Studies, who reported their activity and weight at the start and about 6 years later. Both more walking and more running were linked with lower BMI over time. But for each unit of extra energy spent, BMI fell more with running than with walking in men and in the heaviest women. In the heaviest quarter of both men and women, running was linked with about 90% more weight loss per unit of energy than walking. Running also slowed the usual gain of weight with age in both sexes, and walking did so in women.

These are observational studies: people chose to walk or run, and they reported their own activity and weight. At the start, runners were already leaner and spent more than twice as much energy exercising (about 5.3 versus 2.2 MET-hours a day in men), and walkers kept up their activity better over time. So the results show a link, not proof that running itself causes more weight loss.

Heart-risk factors (Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis, and Vascular Biology, 2013)

Using 33,060 runners and 15,945 walkers from the same studies, Williams and Thompson compared new diagnoses over 6.2 years. For each MET-hour a day of exercise, running lowered the risk of new high blood pressure by 4.2%, high cholesterol by 4.3% and diabetes by 12.1%; walking lowered them by 7.2%, 7.0% and 12.3%. The differences between walking and running were not significant except for a slightly larger benefit from walking for cholesterol. The authors concluded that the same energy spent walking or running gave similar reductions in these risks.

• Running
• Walking

High blood pressure4.2%7.2%

High cholesterol4.3%7%

Diabetes12.1%12.3%

Lower risk per MET-hour a day of exercise

Item	Running	Walking
High blood pressure	4.2%	7.2%
High cholesterol	4.3%	7%
Diabetes	12.1%	12.3%

Percent reduction in new diagnoses per MET-hour a day over 6.2 years. Walking and running did not differ significantly except a slightly larger benefit from walking for cholesterol.

Source: Williams PT and Thompson PD, Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis, and Vascular Biology 2013 (33,060 runners, 15,945 walkers) (checked on October 6, 2026)

Pace matters within walking, too. In a separate analysis of nearly 39,000 walkers, a slower usual pace was linked with higher mortality even after accounting for total walking energy, and people who walked slower than a 24-minute mile had higher risk even though they met the activity guidelines. That is another observational finding, but it supports picking up the pace when you can.

Why the results look this way

• More energy per minute. At 9.3 METs, a 6 mph run burns about as much in 30 minutes as an hour of moderate walking, so runners tend to spend more energy in the time they have.
• Possible effects beyond calories. The authors of the 2013 weight study pointed to earlier research showing a larger rise in metabolism and more appetite suppression after vigorous exercise, but their study could not test those explanations.
• Who sticks with it. Walkers in the study kept their activity steadier over the years than runners did, and the best plan is the one you keep doing.
• Food still leads. Exercise alone usually brings modest weight loss; the American College of Sports Medicine links more than 250 minutes a week of moderate activity with clinically significant loss, and activity works better with a moderate calorie deficit.

What people weigh up

• Joints and body weight: walking keeps one foot on the ground, which many people with knee or hip pain or a higher body weight find easier. Our low-impact workouts list has more joint-friendly options, and weighted vests are one way to make walks harder without running.
• Time: running covers more energy per minute; walking needs more minutes for the same total.
• Fitness level: beginners often start with walking and add short jogs; the Compendium rates a jog-walk mix at 6.0 METs.
• Hills: walking up a 6 to 10% grade is rated 7.0 METs, close to a slow jog, with far less pounding.
• Social and practical: walking fits into errands, dog walks and chats with friends; running often needs a dedicated slot and a shower afterward.

Making walking harder without running

If running isn’t for you, you can still raise the energy cost of a walk a long way. The Compendium values show how much pace, hills and a few simple tools add:

Walking style	METs	kcal per 30 min at 150 lb	kcal per 30 min at 200 lb
Brisk, 3.5 to 3.9 mph, level	4.8	163	218
Hills, 1 to 5% grade, moderate to brisk	5.3	180	240
Nordic walking with poles, 3.6 to 4.4 mph	5.3	180	240
Very brisk, 4.0 to 4.4 mph, level	5.5	187	249
Race walking	6.5	221	295
Stair climbing, general	6.8	231	308
Hills, 6 to 10% grade, moderate to brisk	7.0	238	318
Very, very brisk, 4.5 to 4.9 mph, level	7.0	238	318

A steep hill walk (7.0 METs) is not far below a 5 mph jog (8.5 METs), with one foot always on the ground. Build pace and hills gradually, especially if your calves or Achilles tendons are not used to it.

Fitting either into a weight-loss plan

Walking and running both help most as part of a bigger plan. Our guide to losing weight covers the basics, and Find My Options helps you see which approaches suit your situation. Neither walking nor running burns fat from one chosen spot, such as the belly (our belly fat guide explains what does help), but both lower overall body fat over time when combined with eating a little less than you burn. Many people settle on a mix: walking most days, a run, hike or hill session once or twice a week, and strength work twice a week to protect muscle while the weight comes off. Our strength training guide explains how to start, and the calorie calculator helps you set a sensible daily target.

From walking to running, gradually

If you want to add running, a run-walk approach lets your heart, muscles and joints adapt. A common pattern looks like this (general guidance, not a medical plan):

Whichever you choose, the Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans recommend 150 to 300 minutes a week of moderate activity (brisk walking counts) or 75 to 150 minutes of vigorous activity (running counts), plus muscle-strengthening work at least 2 days a week. See cardio vs strength training for how the two fit together, and the best exercises for weight loss for other options ranked by calories. A fitness tracker counts steps reliably if you like numbers, a walking pad adds walking on workdays, and the TDEE calculator shows how either changes your daily energy needs. Staying active is also part of keeping weight off. More side-by-side pages are in our comparisons hub.

Questions to ask a professional

• Is running safe for my heart, knees and hips right now?
• How fast and how far should I walk or run when I start?
• Could physical therapy or different shoes help with pain when I walk or run?
• How should I combine walking or running with my eating plan?

Frequently asked questions

Is walking or running better for weight loss?

Running burns about twice as many calories per hour and was linked with more weight loss per unit of energy in a large study. Walking gives similar heart-risk benefits for the same energy and is easier to keep up. The better choice is the one you will do most weeks.

Does walking a mile burn the same as running a mile?

Not quite. Using Compendium values, a 150-pound person burns roughly 86 to 94 calories per mile walking and 105 to 116 running. Without the resting energy, running costs roughly 20 to 40% more per mile.

How long do I need to walk to equal a 30-minute run?

A 6 mph run is rated 9.3 METs and a 3 mph walk 3.8, so 30 minutes of running is about the energy of 70 to 75 minutes of moderate walking, or about 58 minutes of brisk walking.

Is running bad for your knees?

Running puts more load through the joints than walking, which some people with knee pain or a higher body weight find hard. If running hurts, walking, hills, cycling or swimming are joint-friendlier options; a clinician can advise on your knees.

Can I mix walking and running?

Yes. Run-walk intervals are a common way to start running, and the Compendium rates a jog-walk mix at 6.0 METs, between brisk walking and steady jogging.

References

1. 2024 Adult Compendium (activity lists and PDF). Compendium of Physical Activities, 2024. (accessed October 7, 2026) Other
2. Herrmann SD, Willis EA, Ainsworth BE, et al.. 2024 Adult Compendium of Physical Activities: A third update of the energy costs of human activities. Journal of Sport and Health Science, 2024. doi:10.1016/j.jshs.2023.10.010 · PMID 38242596 (accessed October 7, 2026) Review
3. Williams PT.. Greater weight loss from running than walking during a 6.2-yr prospective follow-up. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 2013. doi:10.1249/MSS.0b013e31827b0d0a · PMID 23190592 (accessed October 6, 2026) Other
4. Williams PT, Thompson PD.. Walking versus running for hypertension, cholesterol, and diabetes mellitus risk reduction. Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis, and Vascular Biology, 2013. doi:10.1161/ATVBAHA.112.300878 · PMID 23559628 (accessed October 6, 2026) Other
5. Williams PT, Thompson PD.. The relationship of walking intensity to total and cause-specific mortality. Results from the National Walkers’ Health Study. PLoS One, 2013. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0081098 · PMID 24260542 (accessed October 6, 2026) Other
6. Donnelly JE, Blair SN, Jakicic JM, et al.. American College of Sports Medicine Position Stand: Appropriate physical activity intervention strategies for weight loss and prevention of weight regain for adults. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 2009. doi:10.1249/MSS.0b013e3181949333 · PMID 19127177 (accessed October 7, 2026) Society statement
7. Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans, 2nd edition. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2018. (accessed October 7, 2026) Guideline

Facts checked on October 6, 2026

Educational information, not medical advice. Talk with a qualified healthcare professional about your own situation. In an emergency call 911.