Rucking vs. Running: Which Is Better For Weight Loss?
One torches calories, the other maintains muscle.

One torches calories, the other maintains muscle.
When you want to lose weight fast, running is usually the top cardio pick for its off-the-charts calorie-burning potential. But it’s also a high-impact exercise, which stresses your bones and muscles, leading to more recovery time between workouts and a higher risk of injury. If you’re always in recovery mode, or tending to shin splints, it’s tough to stick to a consistent running schedule, which can make consistent calorie burn a challenge.
Enter rucking, or walking with a weighted backpack. Rucking increases the intensity of any walk and is lower impact than running since you always have one foot on the ground (unlike running). So, most people can generally do it for longer periods of time and more often.
The question is, which is better for weight loss: rucking or running? “Running burns more calories,” says research physiologist David Looney, Ph.D. But he also points out that many calorie burn models underestimate the energy expenditure of rucking (1). So, while running may win out in terms of immediate calorie burn, it’s not always that simple.
Rob Shaul, C.S.C.S., is a strength and conditioning coach for mountain and tactical athletes at Mountain Tactical Institute. His training for sport-specific athletes, such as elite athletes and alpine climbers, often involves rucking.
David Looney, Ph.D., is a human performance data scientist at CoachMePlus and a former research physiologist for the U.S. Army Research Institute of Environmental Medicine.
Running is arguably the most efficient way to burn calories. Vigorous runs, like HIIT or interval workouts, torch calories before and after your workout.
It’s easy to get your heart rate up on a run, says strength and conditioning coach Rob Shaul, C.S.C.S. It’s also easier to tweak your pace to hit different training targets. You can slow your pace for a recovery run, pick up the pace for a zone 2 cardio session, tack on speed to challenge your VO2 max, or all-out sprint to work on speed.
A more obvious benefit: Running is convenient and simple. All you need to get started is a pair of running shoes.
Rucking is gentler than running, making it a great option if you want to burn calories without stressing your joints. The weight of a rucksack increases the intensity without the jarring impact on your knees, hips, and ankles.
“Because you’re carrying weight, rucking has a greater strength demand and muscle recruitment than walking,” explains Shaul. It engages multiple muscle groups, particularly your legs, core, and back. Shaul says the biggest value is its impact on your core. “Rucking has an isometric training effect on the midsection—especially the lower back.” Meaning: Similar to a plank, rucking will help you build a strong, stable core.
Rucking’s adaptability makes it ideal for all fitness levels. Beginners can start with a light load. More seasoned athletes can up the challenge by increasing the load or pace, or rucking up a hilly trail.
Working out for weight loss isn’t just about calorie burn. Factors like muscle retention, injury risk, and your ability to maintain a consistent routine matter, too.
Running generally burns more calories in a shorter amount of time, but rucking helps you maintain muscle while torching fat.
That means running, rucking, or a combination of the two might be the best choice. If you’re prone to injuries or find it difficult to recover from high-impact exercise, rucking may be more sustainable. If you’re short on time and want to maximize calorie burn, running might be the way to go.
Due to its high-intensity nature, running generally burns more calories than rucking in a shorter amount of time. But both activities exist on a continuum. The faster you run, the more calories you burn. With rucking, a heavier load, steeper incline, more challenging terrain, or faster pace ups the calorie burn.
According to the 2024 Compendium of Physical Activities, carrying a backpack on flat ground burns a similar number of calories to jogging (2). Notch up the intensity of your ruck—carry a 20+ pound load, at a 5-10 percent grade, at a moderate brisk pace—and you’ll match your calorie burn for a 6.7 miles per hour (MPH) run (about 9:00/mile pace). But sprint and you’ll burn nearly double that.
Looney’s research found that current models underestimate calorie burn for both rucking and running. They aren’t accurate when incline or decline are involved. There’s also the load to consider. A 50-pound rucksack is about 33 percent of a 150-pound woman’s body weight, but only around 20 percent of a 220-plus-pound man’s. For a more accurate calorie burn, Looney’s model calculates load as a percentage of your body weight (1).
Here’s how Looney’s updated model determines the calorie burn for a 180-pound person rucking at 3.0 MPH at different loads (with and without incline) and running at different speeds for 30 minutes:
The key takeaway: Running has a much higher calorie burn potential. That doesn’t mean you’ll always burn more calories running. “Most people can’t run as far as they can ruck,” says Looney. If you can only manage a short run but can ruck for more than an hour, you may end up burning more calories rucking.
It’s no secret that runners are prone to injuries like shin splits, runner’s knee, and plantar fasciitis due to the high-impact nature of the activity. Recent research found that nearly half of all recreational runners sustain injuries (3). Compared to walking or rucking, your joints and muscles absorb more impact while running, even at slower paces. The higher impact—which increases with pace and intensity—can also mean you need more recovery between workouts.
Since rucking is lower impact, you can usually do it for longer, and more often than running. Plus, the reduced injury risk might make it easier to stick to long-term, which is crucial for maintaining weight loss and overall fitness.
Running’s versatility makes it ideal for targeting different aspects of fitness. For example, it’s easier to get your heart rate up running versus rucking, says Shaul. Think about it: With weight on your back you can only walk so fast, and increasing the weight only makes it harder to keep up that pace. You can add incline, but most trails aren’t consistent.
So, if you’re aiming to quickly switch specific intensities on or off, or keep your heart rate in zone 2, rucking isn’t as effective as running. “Unless you run or hike uphill with a pack,” adds Shaul. But ruck running (combining the two) is even higher impact than running, and is particularly hard on the knees, hips, and lower back, he adds.
Your ability to hit specific training targets can impact how efficiently you burn calories and your overall health. Both factors play a crucial role in determining how much weight you lose.
Muscle is key for fat loss (which is typically what we mean when we say weight loss). Muscle burns more calories than fat, so the more you have, the easier it is to maintain a healthy weight and body composition (4).
Running can help you build strong legs and feet, but it isn’t the best for building (or even maintaining) muscle. Some research has shown that high-intensity, extended running can burn muscle for energy.
Rucking, on the other hand, transforms an ordinary walk into a strength workout—working everything from your shoulders to your feet as an integrated system. This improves your functional fitness, or your ability to complete daily activities with ease. And more muscle can help with weight loss efforts in the long run.
Maintaining a calorie deficit is key for weight loss, so choosing a workout you can stick to without burning out or getting injured is a top priority. To safely build training capacity with either activity, Shaul prescribes progressive overload—slowly increasing the intensity or volume of your workouts over time.
For running, that means adding no more than 5 to 10 percent more mileage or time each week. For rucking, get comfortable at a particular load, increase your time spent there, and cut the time back down as you increase the load. Then, work the duration back up.
One example: “Start with a 25-pound pack for 30 minutes twice a week. Then increase to 45 minutes twice a week. Then increase the load to 35 pounds and drop back to 30 minutes,” says Shaul. Work your way up to 30 percent of your body weight in 10-pound increments. Once you get there, tack on time or an incline to increase the challenge.
Rucking and running are both good options for weight loss. Running burns more calories, making it more effective if your goal is to lose weight quickly and you don’t have any joint issues or injury concerns. Rucking offers a sustainable, low-impact alternative that can be effective for steady and consistent weight loss. Choose the activity you enjoy most (or add both to your routine) to consistently work towards your goals.