When discussing walking versus running, the most common question is which of the two activities is better for overall health and weight loss. According to Professor Stefano Palermi—Sports Physician and Lecturer in Locomotor System Diseases at UniCamillus—there is no single answer that applies to everyone. Both activities are effective, but they act differently on the body and, above all, involve very different levels of intensity and sustainability.
Walking is an activity accessible to almost everyone, regardless of age or fitness level. Running, on the other hand, is more intense and can deliver cardiovascular and metabolic benefits more quickly, but it requires greater physical preparation and places more stress on muscles and joints.
In many cases, the best strategy is a gradual one: starting with walking, progressing to brisk walking, and only then introducing running. This approach reduces the risk of injury and increases the likelihood of maintaining the activity over time.
Therefore, the choice between walking and running should not be seen as a ‘competition’ between better or worse activities, but rather as a personalised evaluation based on one’s health status and goals.
The benefits of walking according to sports medicine
Walking is often underestimated, but from a medical perspective it is one of the most complete and safest activities. The benefits of walking mainly concern the cardiovascular and metabolic systems. “Daily walking has numerous positive effects: it lowers blood pressure, improves lipid profile and insulin sensitivity, and helps reduce the risk of cardiovascular events”, explains Professor Palermi.
A particularly interesting role is played by brisk walking, which sits halfway between light activity and actual training. When performed at a sustained pace, the benefits of brisk walking become very similar to those of more intense activities such as running, especially in untrained individuals.
“For this reason, walking is often the first recommended approach for sedentary people, older adults, individuals who are overweight, or those with chronic conditions. It allows them to build a solid foundation without exposing them to high risks”, says Professor Palermi.
10,000 steps a day: are they really necessary?
The idea of taking 10,000 steps a day has become very popular, but it is not a scientifically mandatory threshold. Even between 6,000 and 8,000 steps per day, significant cardiovascular and metabolic benefits can already be achieved.
But how many calories do 10,000 steps actually burn? On average, this corresponds to roughly 300–500 calories, although the exact number depends on body weight, walking speed and type of movement.
And in terms of time, how many minutes are 10,000 steps? “They correspond to about 70–100 minutes of activity, depending on the pace”, replies Professor Palermi.
The benefits of running and its characteristics
Running is a high-intensity aerobic activity which, when practised regularly and progressively, leads to important physiological adaptations. “The benefits of running include a significant improvement in cardiorespiratory capacity, higher calorie expenditure with consequent weight control, an overall increase in physical performance, and a positive effect on metabolism”, explains our expert.
However, it is important to remember that running is not risk-free. “The greater impact on joints and tendons can increase the likelihood of injuries, especially in beginners or in those who start without adequate preparation”.
For this reason, when discussing running, the benefits linked to its effectiveness must always be balanced with long-term sustainability.
Walking or running for weight loss: what really works?
One of the most debated topics is whether it is better to walk or run to lose weight. “It is true that running burns more calories in the same amount of time, but the comparison becomes more interesting when we think in terms of ‘equivalence’ between the two activities”, explains Professor Palermi.
From a physiological perspective, one can say that 1 minute of running is roughly equivalent to 2–3 minutes of brisk walking in terms of energy expenditure. This means, for example, that a 20-minute run can have a similar caloric impact to about 40–60 minutes of brisk walking.
In practical terms: those who choose to run achieve results more quickly in less time, while those who prefer walking can reach the same benefits by increasing the duration of the activity. It is therefore not a matter of deciding which is ‘better’, but of adjusting intensity and duration to what is truly sustainable in one’s routine.
In this sense, walking and running are not opposing alternatives, but different tools to achieve the same goal: creating adequate energy expenditure throughout the day or week.
The real key factor: consistency
Beyond the choice between walking or running, the real determining factor for health is consistency. “Moderate activity performed regularly has greater benefits than intense activity done only occasionally”, emphasises the expert. As for frequency, for both walking and running, Professor Palermi recommends 3–5 days per week.
This is precisely the core principle of the modern approach to physical activity: movement must be sustainable, tailored to the individual, and maintained over the long term.
More than choosing between walking or running, the real questions to ask are: which activity can I truly integrate into my daily life? Which one do I enjoy more, find more fun, and makes me feel better? Because it is over the long term that real health benefits are built.
In the end, it’s not about who runs the most or who walks the longest… but about who keeps going!