NWANA, Nordic Walking Association of North America, logoNWANA Health
Nordic Walking, Health, Rehabilitation and Research

Research

This page does two different jobs, and keeps them separate. Part 1 summarizes what published research actually says about Nordic Walking, with the studies named, including where the evidence is weak, mixed, or contradicts popular claims. Part 2 describes NWANA's own research direction inside the Charity Challenge, stated honestly as a direction, with no results claimed before they exist.

Part 1: What published research says

A harder-working form of walking

The most comprehensive early review (Tschentscher et al., American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 2013; 16 randomized trials, 1,062 participants, plus 11 observational studies) concluded that Nordic Walking was associated with beneficial effects on resting heart rate, blood pressure, exercise capacity, maximal oxygen consumption, and quality of life across healthy people and patients with chronic diseases, comparing favourably with brisk walking in several measures. A field experiment (Church et al., Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 2002) found that walking with poles increased oxygen consumption, calorie expenditure, and heart rate compared with regular walking, without a significant increase in perceived exertion. A laboratory study of expert Nordic walkers (Pellegrini et al., PLOS ONE, 2015) measured oxygen consumption about 22% higher than ordinary walking at the same treadmill speed on the level, with substantially higher upper-body muscle activation.

Heart and cardiovascular health

A systematic review and meta-analysis of cardiac rehabilitation trials (Cugusi et al., European Journal of Preventive Cardiology, 2017) found that adding Nordic Walking to conventional rehabilitation was associated with better exercise capacity and dynamic balance in coronary artery disease, and larger gains in exercise duration and oxygen uptake in peripheral arterial disease. In heart failure, the same meta-analysis found no significant difference from conventional rehabilitation. A smaller, heart-failure-specific meta-analysis (Dhamayanti et al., PM&R, 2025; 4 trials, 282 participants) did find greater improvement in peak oxygen consumption and 6-minute walk distance than conventional care. The heart-failure evidence is therefore genuinely unsettled, and this site presents it that way. In older adults generally, a 2025 meta-analysis of 22 trials (Liu and Kim, Archives of Gerontology and Geriatrics) associated Nordic Walking with lower systolic blood pressure, total cholesterol, LDL cholesterol, and triglycerides, and higher maximal oxygen consumption.

Metabolic health, diabetes, and weight

A 2026 meta-analysis of controlled trials in adults with prediabetes or diabetes (Chen et al., Journal of Diabetes Research; 6 trials, 321 participants) found Nordic Walking associated with modestly lower body weight and glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c), the HbA1c effect being larger in participants with diabetes, alongside a small HDL cholesterol increase and improved peak oxygen uptake. It found no significant change in fasting glucose, insulin resistance, blood pressure, or other lipids, and the HbA1c result varied considerably between trials. For overweight and obesity, a 2020 meta-analysis (Sanchez-Lastra et al., Journal of Physical Activity and Health) found that Nordic Walking groups improved fasting glucose, abdominal adiposity, and body fat compared with their own starting point, but those improvements were not significant when compared with control groups. The honest summary: metabolic effects are real but modest, and Nordic Walking's clearest contribution is being a form of aerobic activity people can sustain.

Joints, back pain, and bones: where popular claims fail

Nordic Walking is often marketed with the claim that poles take a large share of load off the knees. The primary biomechanical studies do not support it. Gait-analysis research (Hansen et al., Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports, 2008) found that Nordic Walking did not reduce knee-joint loading compared with walking without poles in healthy, experienced walkers, and a follow-up experiment (Jensen et al., 2011) found that even pushing through the poles with about 2.4 times normal pole force did not reduce estimated knee compression. NWANA Health does not use the knee-unloading claim.

What the joint evidence does support is narrower. In a randomized trial in older people with hip osteoarthritis (Bieler et al., 2017), a four-month Nordic Walking program was associated with better hip function than strength training and home exercise, with gains still reported at twelve months. No equivalent knee-osteoarthritis trial was verified in our research. For chronic low back pain, the best-verified trial (Hartvigsen et al., BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, 2010; 136 participants) found no significant differences in pain, disability, or function between supervised Nordic Walking, briefly instructed Nordic Walking, and advice to stay active, though average improvement tended to favour the supervised group, and no negative side effects were reported. For bone health, a 2021 systematic review (Rodrigues et al., Journal of Aging and Physical Activity) rated the certainty of Nordic Walking effects as very low, found no significant effect on femoral-neck bone density, and had insufficient data on fractures and falls.

Balance, aging, and a necessary caution

In a meta-analysis of 15 studies in adults aged 60 to 92 (Bullo et al., Rejuvenation Research, 2018), Nordic Walking was associated with better dynamic and functional balance, limb strength, aerobic capacity, body composition, and quality of life compared with sedentary controls, and with better dynamic balance and quality of life than ordinary walking, while ordinary walking was slightly more effective for aerobic capacity in that comparison. One outcome went the other way: Nordic Walking appeared to have a negative effect on static balance tests. Improved balance scores are also not the same as proven fall prevention: our research found no verified trial evidence that Nordic Walking prevents falls. In a trial of previously untrained older adults (Gomeñuka et al., PLOS ONE, 2019), both Nordic Walking and free walking improved static balance and several quality-of-life domains, with the Nordic Walking group additionally improving self-selected walking speed.

Parkinson's disease, multiple sclerosis, and stroke

A systematic review of six randomized trials in Parkinson's disease (Cugusi et al., PM&R, 2017; 221 participants) concluded that Nordic Walking appears feasible in Parkinson's and was associated with improvements in motor and non-motor symptoms and quality of life, while comparisons against other exercise forms were inconsistent and larger, longer trials are needed. A 2022 meta-analysis (Salse-Batán et al.) likewise reported its clearest signals in walking ability and quality of life. Honesty also requires the contrary datapoint: in one Parkinson's trial (Passos-Monteiro et al., 2020), quality of life, cognitive scores, and depressive symptoms improved over time in both the Nordic Walking and free-walking groups, with no clear advantage for poles. In multiple sclerosis, a randomized trial (Santoyo-Medina et al., International Journal of MS Care, 2023; 57 participants) found both outdoor Nordic Walking and stationary aerobic training improved 6-minute walk distance, with the Nordic Walking group additionally improving on both physical and emotional quality-of-life subscales. For stroke, the only Nordic-Walking-specific finding verified in our research is a secondary one inside the 2017 cardiovascular meta-analysis: treadmill training with poles was associated with better functional mobility than treadmill training alone in post-stroke survivors in the included trials.

COPD and respiratory disease

In a randomized trial of clinically stable COPD outpatients (Breyer et al., Respiratory Research, 2010; 60 participants), a three-month supervised Nordic Walking program increased daily walking time and 6-minute walk distance compared with controls, with benefits sustained at 6 and 9 months, and the authors considered it feasible and safe in that supervised setting. A broader 2025 systematic review and meta-analysis across respiratory diseases (Vilanova-Pereira et al., Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine; 13 studies, 514 participants) described qualitative benefits for exercise tolerance, breathlessness, and mood, but in the one outcome that could be pooled, 6-minute walk distance, Nordic Walking's effect was similar to, and not significantly different from, other interventions.

Cancer recovery

A 2025 systematic review and meta-analysis of six randomized trials in people living with and beyond cancer (Casanovas-Álvarez et al., Cancers) found Nordic Walking improved overall muscle strength (low-certainty evidence) and self-reported physical activity (moderate-certainty evidence) compared with no intervention; the effect on cardiorespiratory fitness was not significant, quality-of-life data were insufficient to pool, and no serious intervention-related adverse events were reported. In a 2026 systematic review of 17 studies in women with breast cancer (Ortega-Pérez de Villar et al., Medicina), cardiovascular capacity improved in most studies that assessed it and shoulder range of motion improved in most that assessed that, while sustained lymphedema reductions appeared mainly in multiweek programs where Nordic Walking was combined with another method; Nordic Walking alone was not consistently effective for lymphedema.

Mind: mood and cognition

A 2025 meta-analysis of eight studies in older adults (Li et al., Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience; 327 participants) found a significant improvement in executive function specifically, while effects on global cognition, memory, attention, information processing, and perceptual ability were not significant. For mood, the evidence is thinner: depressive symptoms improved in both walking groups of the Parkinson's trial above, and quality-of-life gains in several trials include psychological domains, but no dedicated meta-analysis of Nordic Walking for depression was verified in our research. Nordic Walking should not be presented as a treatment for depression.

Chronic pain, fatigue, and fibromyalgia

A 2024 systematic review of 14 randomized trials across chronic conditions (González-Devesa et al., Healthcare) found fatigue improved in most studies that assessed it, but Nordic Walking was not superior to ordinary walking or to no activity for fatigue; pain outcomes were beneficial in six of nine studies overall, yet five controlled comparisons found no significant between-group difference in pain. In fibromyalgia, a randomized trial (Mannerkorpi et al., Arthritis Research & Therapy, 2010; 67 women) found fifteen weeks of Nordic Walking improved 6-minute walk performance, physical function scores, and exercise heart rate more than low-intensity walking, while pain severity did not change. The fair conclusion: people with chronic pain often get fitter and function better in these programs; consistent pain relief beyond other activity is not established.

Technique and safety

The research consistently involves taught technique. Laboratory work (Pellegrini et al., PLOS ONE, 2018) found that common deviations from the recommended technique, such as poling with little force or a stiff shoulder-driven style, produced lower muscle activation and metabolic responses than correct technique, though every pole technique still exceeded plain walking. Instruction quality was also associated with how much walkers gained (Fujita et al., PLOS ONE, 2018). Reported adverse events in the trials above were limited: none in the back-pain trial, no serious intervention-related events in the cancer trials, and temporary pain increases reported by some fibromyalgia participants in both exercise groups. No verified study of overall injury incidence in Nordic Walking was found in our research, so this site makes no general injury-rate claim.

How to read this evidence

Part 2: Research in the NWANA Charity Challenge

Published studies answer one kind of question: what does Nordic Walking do for a person inside a program, over weeks or months? NWANA is interested in a second kind of question that studies rarely reach: what happens over seasons and years when ordinary people have a standing, welcoming structure for walking in their lives?

The NWANA Charity Challenge is built as that structure. Participants walk real distance, at their own pace, in their own communities, over long challenge seasons, connected to groups, instructors, and a charitable purpose. Because the Challenge runs continuously and keeps participation records, it creates the conditions for a kind of research laboratory studies cannot do: long-term, real-world research on participation itself.

What NWANA intends to study

An honest status report

The Charity Challenge is a young system, and NWANA's research program inside it is at the beginning. No findings are published on this page yet, and NWANA will not present intentions as results. As data accumulates and studies are designed and carried out, this page is where their methods and findings will be reported, alongside the published literature above.

Take part

Participation is the foundation the research will stand on. Joining a challenge season is free to enter, self-paced, and open to beginners and experienced walkers alike.

Join the Charity Challenge Contact us about research

Researchers and institutions interested in collaboration on Nordic Walking, participation, or community activity research are welcome to get in touch.

Sources

This page was compiled on 2026-10-16 from the sources above, each checked against its publisher or PubMed record during compilation. It will be corrected and extended as the literature develops. Corrections are welcome via the contact page.

undefined