Skip to content
DE

Rucking: what walking with a weighted backpack can do

Clinical review pending

Rucking makes walking more demanding. What studies show about calorie expenditure, endurance, bone health, and joint loading.

Loose gray shapes enter a clear prism and become three blue light bands.

What is rucking?

Rucking means walking or hiking with added weight. It can make a walk more demanding without turning it into a run. How much it challenges your cardiovascular system and joints depends on the load, pace, terrain, and your fitness.

The weight is carried in a backpack. The studies cited here do not establish a standard load or session length for recreational rucking. Commonly mentioned ranges such as 10%–30% of body weight or 30–90 minutes are therefore not universal starting recommendations. The activity has its roots in military marching with equipment.

Military and special operations units have used loaded marches for decades to build fitness and operational readiness. Studies of military load carriage provide much of today’s evidence on rucking’s metabolic and biomechanical effects. Walking in a weighted vest is a related but biomechanically different activity. Ordinary hiking also differs: its purpose usually is not to carry extra weight beyond the supplies in a daypack. Source 1 Source 2

Four benefits are commonly attributed to rucking:

  • Higher calorie expenditure than walking without added weight at the same pace, with the size of the difference depending on the load.

  • A greater cardiovascular challenge while walking, although that does not establish equivalence to every higher-intensity workout.

  • Maintenance or support of bone density through weight-bearing forces and a stimulus for bone formation.

  • Better posture and greater activation of the trunk muscles while carrying a load for an extended period.

What studies of loaded walking show

The evidence is stronger for some of these claims than for others.

Research has focused on the increase in energy expenditure with load, cardiovascular fitness, possible stimuli for maintaining bone density, and joint loading compared with running.

Higher calorie expenditure with greater load: well supported

Carrying more weight while walking increases energy demand. Where the weight sits and how fast you walk also matter. Exercise physiology studies have repeatedly demonstrated this relationship. Calorie estimates vary considerably with terrain, pace, and individual physiology. In one direct comparison, loaded walking on a treadmill used more energy than loaded walking outdoors. That finding does not provide a universal correction factor for every terrain. The extra energy demand is well supported; the exact calorie count in a fitness app remains an estimate. Source 1 Source 2 Source 3

Cardiovascular effort and long-term fitness: different kinds of evidence

Heavy weighted vests place substantial cardiovascular and metabolic demands on military personnel. Separately, higher daily step counts are associated with lower all-cause and cardiovascular mortality. These findings make rucking a plausible form of endurance exercise. However, an acute study of heavy vest loads does not demonstrate long-term training adaptations, and the step-count studies did not test the extra benefit of a backpack. Much of the load-carriage research comes from predominantly male military groups, although studies specifically involving women are also available. Source 1 Source 2 Source 3

Maintaining bone density through loading: limited evidence

A randomized controlled trial compared walking with and without a weighted vest in working women. Markers of bone resorption, the breakdown of bone tissue, fell similarly in both groups. That supports an effect of moderate-intensity walking, but does not establish an additional benefit from the vest. The broader principle of stimulating bone formation through loading is well supported for high-intensity resistance and impact training. Intensity matters. The strongest evidence for improving bone density comes from jumping and resistance exercise, not loaded walking alone. Rucking may provide an extra loading stimulus, but these studies do not establish that it independently increases bone density or prevents fractures. It does not replace individualized osteoporosis treatment. Source 1 Source 2 Source 3

Less joint stress than running for a similar endurance challenge: limited evidence

Lower vertical ground reaction forces than running at a comparable energy demand are plausible. Carrying a load nevertheless changes movement between the thigh and shin bones at the knee. Systematic reviews also show substantial changes in walking mechanics. Rucking changes impact and compressive loading and how those forces are distributed across joints. Less impact does not automatically mean less total joint loading or fewer injuries. Source 1 Source 2

A practical way to begin

A sensible starting point depends on how much you already walk and how you move and recover with a backpack. No fixed percentage-based program has been tested for everyone.

  • Establish your starting point. For about seven days, note your usual walks, sleep, training load, and any joint or back symptoms. Routine preventive care and tests for an existing condition are separate matters; a special laboratory panel is not an established prerequisite for rucking.

  • Choose a starting load. Begin with a light, stable backpack, initially without extra weight if needed. As a practical example, a Cleveland Clinic sports medicine physician suggests around 5 pounds, or 2.3 kg, for an initial loaded walk. That is not a universally tested dose. Even 10% of body weight may be too much at first; for a 165-pound adult, that percentage is 16.5 pounds, not 15. Practical starting advice

  • Set duration and frequency. Start with a short, comfortable route and allow time to recover. The cited studies of military walking economy and acute heavy-vest exercise do not establish a general recreational schedule of 30–60 minutes on 2–4 days a week. Increase one part of the workout at a time, such as duration or weight, instead of both together. Source 1 Source 2

  • Record sessions and review the week. Completed sessions, perceived effort, and one easy-to-track measure, such as distance, steps, or average speed, are enough. Watch for new knee, hip, or lower-back pain, walking changes that persist between sessions, and unusually marked fatigue.

  • Assess progress. Initially, focus on tolerable effort, recovery, and gradually improving capacity. Blood tests should answer a medical question. A DXA scan after a fixed 6–12 months is not an established way to assess rucking success. Repeat scans are planned around baseline findings, fracture risk, treatment, and whether the result would change care. ISCD: bone density testing

Common rucking mistakes

Frequently discussed and avoidable problems include starting too heavy, using a poorly fitted pack, and expecting rucking to replace treatment for an existing joint condition.

Too much weight too soon. Military surveys frequently report load-carriage injuries. In one survey of 338 soldiers, 34% reported at least one such injury during their military careers. That is not an annual injury rate for recreational ruckers. Previous injury may increase the risk of another injury. The study validates neither 10% of body weight as a safe starting load nor increases of 5% of body weight every 2–4 weeks. In practice, load and volume should rise slowly enough to preserve comfortable walking mechanics and recovery. Source

Poor fit and weight distribution. Shoulder-borne loads create substantial compressive forces at the lower spine and hip joints. A poorly fitted backpack also measurably changes walking mechanics. A hip belt transfers load toward the pelvis. The pack should sit securely between the shoulder blades and lower back rather than sagging toward the tailbone. Source 1 Source 2

Treating rucking as a stand-alone therapy for joint disease. Guidelines recommend low-impact aerobic and strengthening exercise for knee and hip osteoarthritis. They do not specifically recommend loaded walking as treatment. Discuss starting it with a clinician; rucking should not become a self-prescribed treatment for a musculoskeletal condition. Source

Trusting the calorie display too much. Equations that estimate the energy cost of load carriage may be substantially inaccurate in everyday settings. One comparison found higher expenditure on a treadmill than during loaded walking outdoors; there is no single adjustment that applies everywhere. Distance, pace, and consistently completed sessions are more useful progress measures. The calorie figure is, at best, a rough guide. Source 1 Source 2

Who might benefit, and who should reconsider?

Rucking may suit healthy adults who want to add weight to their usual walks. The conditions and circumstances below may call for a tailored training plan.

A healthy person interested in adding a loading stimulus for bone may consider rucking, although specific bone-density evidence remains limited. Walking has well-documented benefits for healthy aging. For targeted bone health improvements, women around and after menopause can discuss professionally supervised resistance and impact training, such as the approach studied in LIFTMOR. Rucking may also appeal to someone returning after a break from endurance exercise who wants to increase cardiovascular effort without running’s impact forces. For people with largely sedentary jobs, it can be a time-efficient way to challenge physical capacity. Source

An individual assessment is worthwhile in these circumstances:

  • Pregnancy: physical activity is generally encouraged in an uncomplicated pregnancy. Whether added weight is suitable should reflect previous activity, the course of the pregnancy, and advice from the maternity team. Trying to conceive is not, on its own, a contraindication to rucking. ACOG: exercise during pregnancy

  • Eating disorders or compulsive exercise: rigid weight, calorie, or training rules can be problematic, so agree on activity with your treatment team. Receiving psychotherapy or psychiatric care is not, by itself, a general reason to avoid rucking.

  • Diagnosed osteoporosis or osteopenia: obtain clinical guidance before starting. LIFTMOR-style programs are professionally supervised; self-directed loaded walking has not been specifically validated for people with established bone disease.

  • An existing knee, hip, or lumbar-spine condition, such as osteoarthritis, disc disease, or an orthopedic implant: seek clinical guidance first. Rucking is not a treatment for a musculoskeletal condition.

If pain, fracture risk, or physical limitations are a concern, a clinician or physical therapist can help you choose an appropriate load.

What laboratory tests can contribute to monitoring

A rucking program does not need a fixed blood panel on “day 0” and “day N.” Laboratory results may be useful for an existing condition or a specific medical question. They do not directly measure whether backpack training suits you.

  • Vitamin D: adequate vitamin D matters for bone health. That does not justify routine testing before training or automatically after 8–12 weeks. The Endocrine Society advises against routine screening in healthy adults without another indication. Vitamin D guideline

  • Calcium: a blood test can investigate disorders of calcium metabolism, but tight regulation means it does not reliably reflect calcium intake or exercise-related bone formation. It is not a simple marker of rucking success. NIH: calcium

  • ApoB: in appropriate circumstances, this helps assess the burden of atherogenic lipoprotein particles. The cited rucking studies do not establish it as the best training marker or justify a general repeat test after 8–12 weeks.

  • hs-CRP: this nonspecific inflammatory marker can vary with infections, illness, and recent physical exertion, among other factors. A schedule of 2–3 measurements over 4–8 weeks has not been validated as a rucking-monitoring protocol in the cited studies.

  • HbA1c: this reflects average blood glucose over approximately three months. It may be useful in diabetes or for a related diagnostic question. Whether and when to repeat it depends on clinical care, not a universal rucking calendar.

Changes in medically indicated results can be discussed with the treating clinician. A single before-and-after comparison does not prove that rucking caused them. Conversely, unchanged numbers do not mean regular activity is useless. Walking capacity, recovery, and well-being may improve without every laboratory value falling.

Symptoms that deserve medical assessment

If symptoms are the reason you are considering rucking, have them assessed first.

Examples include persistent knee or hip pain that could reflect undiagnosed osteoarthritis, suspected bone loss without a current bone-density assessment, chest pain or breathlessness during exertion, and unusual fatigue out of proportion to the activity. These call for medical evaluation. Primary care can coordinate further assessment, involving orthopedics, rheumatology, or endocrinology when needed. If new chest pain or marked breathlessness develops during exercise, stop and seek prompt medical help; persistent or severe symptoms are an emergency.

Frequently asked questions

What is rucking, and how does it work?

Rucking is walking or hiking with a weighted backpack. The extra weight raises metabolic demand because moving it takes more energy. Heart rate and energy expenditure increase compared with walking without an additional load.

Where did rucking come from?

Its roots are in carrying military equipment. It later became popular as recreational exercise. The history of one brand does not establish a single starting date for the civilian activity.

Which effects are supported by evidence?

Rucking increases energy expenditure as the load increases, with the relationship influenced by load placement and pace. The exact expenditure varies substantially with terrain, speed, and individual factors. One study found higher values on a treadmill than during loaded outdoor walking, so not every display can be corrected using the same factor. Bone-density benefits remain plausible but have not been confirmed specifically for rucking. Source 1 Source 2

How long does it take to see results?

The extra energy expenditure happens immediately. Longer-term gains depend on starting fitness, consistency, and training dose. The cited studies support neither a general 8–12-week promise for changes in oxygen uptake or CRP nor an established bone-density gain from rucking after 6–12 months. A study of walking with and without a vest found fitness improvements in both groups after 12 weeks, with no significant difference between them. That is a positive finding for walking, not proof of an extra benefit from a backpack.

Who should avoid rucking?

People with diagnosed knee, hip, or spinal conditions, including lumbar-spine disorders, or with osteoporosis or osteopenia should not start without clinical guidance.

What are the risks?

Main concerns include injuries associated with repeated knee and lower-back loading when the load is unsuitable or increased too quickly, and discomfort from a poorly fitted backpack. Altered trunk-muscle activation is a biomechanical observation, not itself an injury. These studies do not establish a universal harm threshold at 20% of body weight. Osteoporosis, an existing knee, hip, or spine condition, or unexplained heart-related symptoms calls for medical advice before starting. Source 1 Source 2

Is rucking better than running?

They emphasize different things. Running is a useful way to improve maximal oxygen uptake, or VO2max, and cardiovascular performance. Rucking combines endurance exercise with loading along the body and work for the trunk and lower-body muscles. The better fit depends on your goals; a combination may suit some people.

Which biomarkers should I track if I ruck?

There is no established rucking blood-test panel. Vitamin D, calcium, ApoB, hs-CRP, or HbA1c should be selected to answer a medical question. Regular, well-tolerated sessions, walking speed, distance, and recovery are usually more immediate measures of training progress.

Sources

  • Grenier JG, Peyrot N, Castells J, Oullion R, Messonnier L, Morin JB (2012). Energy cost and mechanical work of walking during load carriage in soldiers. Medicine and science in sports and exercise, 44(6), 1131-40. https://doi.org/10.1249/MSS.0b013e3182456057

  • Puthoff ML, Darter BJ, Nielsen DH, Yack HJ (2006). The effect of weighted vest walking on metabolic responses and ground reaction forces. Medicine and science in sports and exercise, 38(4), 746-52. https://doi.org/10.1249/01.mss.0000210198.79705.19

  • Potter AW, Santee WR, Mullen SP, Karis AJ, Blanchard LA, Rome MN, Pitts KP, Looney DP (2018). Complex Terrain Load Carriage Energy Expenditure Estimation Using Global Positioning System Devices. Medicine and science in sports and exercise, 50(10), 2145-2149. https://doi.org/10.1249/MSS.0000000000001669

  • Vickery-Howe DM, Drain JR, Clarke AC, Dascombe BJ, McWilliam JT, Middleton KJ (2021). Treadmill load carriage overestimates energy expenditure of overground load carriage. Ergonomics, 64(4), 521-531. https://doi.org/10.1080/00140139.2020.1839675

  • Arcidiacono DM, Lavoie EM, Potter AW, Vangala SV, Holden LD, Soucy HY, Karis AJ, Friedl KE, Santee WR, Looney DP (2023). Peak performance and cardiometabolic responses of modern US army soldiers during heavy, fatiguing vest-borne load carriage. Applied ergonomics, 109, 103985. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2023.103985

  • Banach M, Lewek J, Surma S, Penson PE, Sahebkar A, Martin SS, Bajraktari G, Henein MY, Reiner, Ž., Bielecka-Dąbrowa A, Bytyçi I (2023). The association between daily step count and all-cause and cardiovascular mortality: a meta-analysis. European journal of preventive cardiology, 30(18), 1975-1985. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurjpc/zwad229

  • Pryor JL, Pryor RR, Potter AW, Friedl KE, Begalle RL, Schafer EA, Chapman CL, Hostler D, Looney DP (2025). Female Energy Expenditure during Load Carriage in Thermal Environments. Medicine and science in sports and exercise, 57(12), 2902-2910. https://doi.org/10.1249/MSS.0000000000003807

  • Tantiwiboonchai N, Kritpet T, Yuktanandana P (2011). A comparison between the effects of the walking exercise with and without weighted vests on bone resorption and health-related physical fitness in the working women. Journal of the Medical Association of Thailand = Chotmaihet thangphaet, 94 Suppl 5, S24-30. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22338922/

  • Watson SL, Weeks BK, Weis LJ, Harding AT, Horan SA, Beck BR (2018). High-Intensity Resistance and Impact Training Improves Bone Mineral Density and Physical Function in Postmenopausal Women With Osteopenia and Osteoporosis: The LIFTMOR Randomized Controlled Trial. Journal of bone and mineral research : the official journal of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research, 33(2), 211-220. https://doi.org/10.1002/jbmr.3284

  • Kitagawa T, Hiraya K, Denda T, Yamamoto S (2022). A comparison of different exercise intensities for improving bone mineral density in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Bone reports, 17, 101631. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bonr.2022.101631

  • Johnson CC, Dzewaltowski AC, Dever DE, Krajewski KT, Rai A, Ahamed NU, Allison KF, Flanagan SD, Graham SM, Lovalekar M, Anderst WJ, Connaboy C (2024). Load carriage changes tibiofemoral arthrokinematics during ambulatory tasks in recruit-aged women. Scientific reports, 14(1), 9542. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-60187-3

  • Walsh GS, Low DC (2021). Military load carriage effects on the gait of military personnel: A systematic review. Applied ergonomics, 93, 103376. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2021.103376

  • Orr RM, Coyle J, Johnston V, Pope R (2017). Self-reported load carriage injuries of military soldiers. International journal of injury control and safety promotion, 24(2), 189-197. https://doi.org/10.1080/17457300.2015.1132731

  • Sturdy JT, Sessoms PH, Silverman AK (2021). A backpack load sharing model to evaluate lumbar and hip joint contact forces during shoulder borne and hip belt assisted load carriage. Applied ergonomics, 90, 103277. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2020.103277

  • Devroey C, Jonkers I, de Becker A, Lenaerts G, Spaepen A (2007). Evaluation of the effect of backpack load and position during standing and walking using biomechanical, physiological and subjective measures. Ergonomics, 50(5), 728-42. https://doi.org/10.1080/00140130701194850

  • van Doormaal MCM, Meerhoff GA, Vliet Vlieland TPM, Peter WF (2020). A clinical practice guideline for physical therapy in patients with hip or knee osteoarthritis. Musculoskeletal care, 18(4), 575-595. https://doi.org/10.1002/msc.1492

  • Vine CAJ, Coakley SL, Blacker SD, Doherty J, Hale BJ, Walker EF, Rue CA, Lee BJ, Flood TR, Knapik JJ, Jackson S, Greeves JP, Myers SD (2022). Accuracy of Metabolic Cost Predictive Equations During Military Load Carriage. Journal of strength and conditioning research, 36(5), 1297-1303. https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0000000000003644

  • Ungvari Z, Fazekas-Pongor V, Csiszar A, Kunutsor SK (2023). The multifaceted benefits of walking for healthy aging: from Blue Zones to molecular mechanisms. GeroScience, 45(6), 3211-3239. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11357-023-00873-8

  • Li SSW, Chow DHK (2018). Effects of backpack load on critical changes of trunk muscle activation and lumbar spine loading during walking. Ergonomics, 61(4), 553-565. https://doi.org/10.1080/00140139.2017.1365950