Two questions get mixed together here. Which burns more energy in the time you have? And which does more for you per unit of energy spent? The first has a clear answer. The second is closer than most people expect.
Energy: running is much faster per minute, closer per mile
The Compendium of Physical Activities rates brisk walking at 3.5 mph as 4.3 METs and running at 6 mph as 9.8. That means running spends energy about 2.3 times as fast per minute. But running covers more ground in that minute, so per mile the gap shrinks to about 1.3 times (our calculation from the ratings).
| Activity | MET rating | Calories per hour at 75 kg* | Calories per mile* |
|---|---|---|---|
| Walking 3.0 mph (20 min per mile) | 3.5 | 262 | 88 |
| Walking 3.5 mph, brisk | 4.3 | 322 | 92 |
| Walking 4.0 mph, very brisk | 5.0 | 375 | 94 |
| Running 6.0 mph (10 min per mile) | 9.8 | 735 | 122 |
*Approximate, including the energy you'd burn at rest (1 MET is about 1 calorie per kilogram per hour). Individuals vary.
So if you have 30 minutes, running wins clearly. If you're deciding how far to go, walking costs about three-quarters as much per mile as running at these paces.
What six years of free-living data say about weight
Paul Williams analysed survey data from 15,237 walkers and 32,216 runners in the National Walkers' and Runners' Health Studies, comparing changes in body mass index with changes in exercise energy over an average of 6.2 years. Changes in both running and walking were linked to changes in BMI, but BMI fell more per unit of energy for running than for walking. Among the heaviest participants, the weight loss per unit of energy was about 90% greater for running.
That is a point for running, but it comes with caveats. The data are self-reported and observational, the walkers were heavier than the runners to begin with, and the analysis measures changes in total energy rather than equal time spent. It doesn't tell you what happens if you swap a run for a walk of the same length.
What equal energy does for heart and metabolic risk
In a companion analysis, Williams and Paul Thompson followed 33,060 runners and 15,945 walkers for about six years. When energy spent was the same, walking and running produced similar reductions in the risk of new high blood pressure, high cholesterol and diabetes, and possibly coronary heart disease.
| Lower risk per MET-hour per day | Running | Walking |
|---|---|---|
| High blood pressure | 4.2% | 7.2% |
| High cholesterol | 4.3% | 7.0% |
| Diabetes | 12.1% | 12.3% |
| Coronary heart disease | 4.5% | 9.3% |
Per additional MET-hour per day of exercise. Differences were not significant for diabetes or heart disease, and only marginal for blood pressure and cholesterol, where they favoured walking.
On a raw comparison the runners did better, with a 38% lower risk of high blood pressure, but that tracked the greater energy they spent. The catch is the time it takes: to match a runner's energy, a walker has to walk for much longer.
Injuries
A 2015 meta-analysis of running injuries (Videbaek and colleagues) put the rate for novice runners at 17.8 injuries per 1,000 hours of running (95% CI 16.7 to 19.1), higher than for recreational runners, for whom other studies report roughly 7 to 9. The authors noted that studies defined injury differently. We could not find a comparable per-hour figure for walking, so we can't give you a ratio, and we'd be wary of any page that does without a source.
Our read
This part is judgment, not data. If you're short on time, reasonably fit, and enjoy running, running gets more done per minute. If you're starting from little, carrying extra weight, or have joints that complain, walking for longer gets you a similar benefit per unit of energy with, as far as the evidence goes, less injury exposure. Many people combine them, alternating a few minutes of jogging with walking, which is the usual structure of beginner running plans.
Either way, volume matters more than the label. For how much walking tends to move the scale, see does walking help you lose weight; for the gym comparison, walking vs the gym; and for stepping up your pace, power walking and our pace chart.
Sources
- Williams PT. Greater weight loss from running than walking during a 6.2-yr prospective follow-up. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise. 2013;45(4):706-713. PubMed
- Williams PT, Thompson PD. Walking versus running for hypertension, cholesterol, and diabetes mellitus risk reduction. Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis, and Vascular Biology. 2013;33(5):1085-1091. PMC
- Videbaek S, Bueno AM, Nielsen RO, Rasmussen S. Incidence of running-related injuries per 1000 h of running in different types of runners: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Sports Medicine. 2015;45(7):1017-1026. PMC
- Ainsworth BE, Haskell WL, Herrmann SD, et al. 2011 Compendium of Physical Activities: a second update of codes and MET values. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise. 2011;43(8):1575-1581. pacompendium.com
Correction note: an earlier version of this page said 50 to 70% of runners are injured every year, cited a 12-month study in which walkers beat runners on weight loss, and claimed walking burns more fat than running because a higher share of its energy comes from fat. We could not trace the first two to sources, and the studies above don't address the third, so all three were removed. We checked the figures above against the published abstracts and summaries on October 2, 2026. This is general information, not medical advice.