Nordic Walking vs Brisk Walking vs Jogging: Which Sport to Choose?
Faced with these three accessible activities practised by millions, the question of choice comes up often. The answer depends on your goals, the state of your joints and your current fitness level.
Comparing the three activities
| Criterion | Nordic walking | Brisk walking | Jogging |
|---|---|---|---|
| Muscles engaged | 90% of the body | 60–70% of the body | 70–80% of the body |
| Calorie burn/h | 350–600 kcal | 280–350 kcal | 450–700 kcal |
| Joint impact | Very low | Low | High |
| Upper-body work | Significant | Minimal | Moderate |
| Accessibility at any age | Very high | High | Medium |
| Required equipment | Poles + shoes | Shoes | Shoes |
Nordic walking: more effective than walking, gentler than jogging
Nordic walking occupies a unique position between brisk walking and jogging. It burns 20 to 46% more calories than ordinary walking at equivalent speed, thanks to the engagement of the upper-body muscles. But unlike jogging, it generates very little impact on the knees and hips. It is this efficiency/joint-risk ratio that makes it the favoured sport of people over 50.
Why Nordic walking beats brisk walking
Brisk walking barely engages the upper-body muscles. Nordic walking works the arms, shoulders, pectorals, back muscles and abdominals, making it a complete workout in a single activity. For the same outing duration, Nordic walking provides a noticeably higher cardio-muscular stimulus.
When to prefer jogging?
If you are under 45, have no joint fragility and your goal is mainly sporting performance or competition, jogging remains an excellent choice. On the other hand, as soon as knee, hip or back pain appears, or if you are overweight, Nordic walking is often recommended by physiotherapists as a therapeutic alternative.
Key takeaway: Nordic walking offers the best ratio of calorie expenditure to joint protection. It surpasses brisk walking in muscular engagement and has a far lower joint impact than jogging.