Why Running with Osteoarthritis May Lower Your Risk of a Hip Replacement

Anyone running with osteoarthritis has probably been told to stop. The instruction usually comes early, and it comes with confidence. Swap the jogging for swimming. Protect the joint.

Osteoarthritis means a joint has slowly worn down, leaving it stiff, painful and reluctant to move. More than half a billion people worldwide live with it. The knee and the hip are the two joints it reaches most often.

Clinical guidelines worldwide agree that people with osteoarthritis should stay physically active. However, almost all of them push readers towards low-impact options instead. The reasoning sounds obvious enough. A worn joint should not be jarred repeatedly.

Yet that reasoning rests on a belief about damage, rather than evidence about outcomes. Very little research had actually followed the people who ignored the advice.

A published study has now done exactly that. Researchers tracked 17,661 people in Denmark living with osteoarthritis in a hip or a knee. Some carried on with high-impact activity anyway.

Among those people, the odds of needing a hip replacement within a year fell by 36% to 48%. Their knees, by contrast, showed no change whatsoever. Not better, and importantly not worse.

That split is the part worth your attention. One joint appeared to benefit. The other appeared untouched. Both belonged to the same people, did the same activity, and did so on the same day.

The reasons behind that gap matter more than the headline figure. Researchers went hunting for the mechanism and came back empty-handed. They also could not rule out a far simpler explanation. People still running with osteoarthritis were not starting from the same place as everyone else. Both problems are worth understanding before deciding what the finding is really worth.

Running with Osteoarthritis Is Not the Only Thing That Counts as Impact

The word running dominates almost every conversation about exercise and worn joints. What was measured here, though, was considerably broader.

Researchers recorded activity using a single self-rated scale that runs from 1 to 10. A score of 1 describes someone wholly inactive. A score of 9 describes someone who sometimes takes part in impact sports. That list includes:

• Jogging
• Tennis
• Skiing
• Acrobatics
• Ballet
• Heavy labour
• Backpacking

A score of 10 describes someone who does those things regularly. Those scores were then sorted into four bands. High impact covered 9 and 10. High intensity covered 7 and 8. Moderate intensity covered 5 and 6, while low intensity covered everything from 1 to 4.

The distinction matters more than it first appears. Most earlier research has sorted exercise by how hard the heart and lungs are working. This grouping sorted it by the jolt travelling up through the joint. A hard cycling session is physically demanding, yet the joint absorbs almost nothing.

The people involved were not athletes. They were 17,661 adults enrolled in a Danish exercise and education programme built for osteoarthritis. Their average age sat around 66, and roughly seven in every ten were women. Of those, 5,911 had hip osteoarthritis, and 11,750 had knee osteoarthritis.

High-impact activity was rare among them. Only 5.9% of the hip group fell into that band. For the knee group, the figure was 5.2%. So the people running with osteoarthritis at this level were always a small minority.

The outcome measured was blunt and practical. Twelve months later, participants reported whether they had received a hip or knee replacement.

Osteoarthritis changes far more than comfort. It alters how a joint is loaded and how a person moves through ordinary daily life. Those changes shape what anyone running with osteoarthritis can realistically tolerate week after week.

One detail is easy to miss and worth considering. Nobody was asked to start anything. The activity levels recorded were simply what people were already doing when they walked through the door.

What Happened to the Hips of the People Who Kept Going

The hip result was consistent, and consistency is what makes it interesting.

High-impact participants were compared separately against each of the three other bands. In every comparison, the odds of a hip replacement within twelve months were lower. The reductions ranged from 36% to 48%. For someone running with osteoarthritis in the hip, that is a striking direction of travel.

Consistency is not the same thing as precision, however. The plausible range around each figure was wide. In one comparison it stretched from a very large reduction down to a barely detectable one.

That width has a simple cause. Only 349 people with hip osteoarthritis sat in the high-impact band. Sixteen of them went on to have a hip replacement. Small numbers always produce wide ranges, no matter how large the study is.

Earlier research had pointed in several directions at once. One large cohort found no overall link between activity level and hip replacement. The picture became stranger once sex was taken into account. Other work reported a reduced risk of hip replacement among women. Younger men appeared to run the opposite way. In that group, research linked the highest activity levels to a higher risk.

Against that messy background, a reduction holding across three separate comparisons carries some weight. None of this proves that running with osteoarthritis protects a hip. It does narrow the question considerably.

Why Running with Osteoarthritis Left Knees Exactly Where They Were

Nothing happened to the knees. That sentence reads like a failure. In this case, it is the entire finding. High-impact activity showed no difference in the odds of a knee replacement. The comparison held against high-intensity, moderate-intensity, and low-intensity activity alike.

The expectation being tested was harm, not benefit. Guidelines steer people away from impact precisely because knees are assumed to suffer from it. An absence of harm therefore answers the question. Running with osteoarthritis did not appear to accelerate anyone towards surgery.

Other research has also shown this pattern. People with knee osteoarthritis who reported running showed no worsening on X-ray. Their knee pain improved rather than deteriorated. Longer tracking has produced comparable results. Activity patterns followed across eight years showed no link to later knee replacement.

Not every study has agreed. One earlier cohort connected the highest activity levels to a greater chance of knee replacement.

A null result deserves exactly the same scepticism as a positive one. The ranges around the knee figures were wide too. They comfortably included a meaningful reduction and a meaningful increase. Only 612 people with knee osteoarthritis sat in the high-impact band, and 15 of them had a replacement.

So the honest reading is no signal, rather than proven safety. For anyone running with osteoarthritis in the knee, that distinction is not academic. What the knee did not do across a year is now reasonably clear. What it might do across decades remains untested.

A Hip and a Knee Are Not the Same Joint Problem

One activity produced two different answers. That points the finger squarely at the joints themselves.

A hip is a ball sitting inside a socket. Load spreads across a broad, curved contact surface. A knee works closer to a hinge, and it carries higher loads during many ordinary activities. Impact therefore reaches the two joints in different quantities and shapes. Anyone running with osteoarthritis is loading two structures that behave nothing alike.

The evidence connecting load to damage also differs between them. For the knee, higher joint load is more firmly associated with structural progression. For the hip, that same relationship remains genuinely uncertain.

Knee osteoarthritis also appears to involve more low-grade inflammation, meaning mild but persistent immune activity inside the joint. That may leave the knee more exposed when repeated heavy loading arrives. Body weight fits the same pattern. Carrying more of it raises the risk of knee replacement more sharply than hip replacement.

One further possibility remains, and the researchers deliberately labelled it as speculation. High strain at the hip may encourage more favourable bone and cartilage turnover. Bone is living tissue, and it responds to the loads placed through it rather than simply wearing away. If the hip tolerates that stimulus better than the knee does, the split starts to make sense.

That remains an idea, not a demonstrated mechanism. It also explains why advice about running with osteoarthritis cannot sensibly treat both joints as one problem.

Nothing in this comparison was measured inside a joint. The reasoning is built entirely from the outside looking in.

The Reason Everyone Expected to Find Was Not There

The researchers did not stop at whether. They went after how. They tested three candidate explanations, each measured three months after enrolment.

1. The first was pain.
2. The second was how many times a person could stand up from a chair in thirty seconds.
3. The third was whether that person feared activity would damage the joint.

Each candidate had a reasonable case. Activity has previously been linked to pain flares in knee osteoarthritis. Chair stand performance, meanwhile, is a plain measure of leg function. It reflects the strength and the architecture of the thigh muscles. Strength matters well beyond the chair, since greater strength has been associated with slower osteoarthritis progression.

None of the three explained the hip finding. Not one of them carried the effect.

A single small exception surfaced on the knee side. A slight benefit appeared in chair stand performance. Its size was equivalent to roughly half an extra stand in thirty seconds. The researchers then tested how fragile that result was, and found it moderately sensitive to influences they had not measured.

The reason behind the general failure is more interesting than the failure itself. All three factors genuinely did predict joint replacement, and that was never in doubt. What high-impact activity did not do was shift them by very much. People doing it reported slightly less fear and managed a few more chair stands. Those differences were far too small to carry a reduction of 36% to 48%.

So running with osteoarthritis does not appear to work through less pain, stronger legs or greater confidence. Whatever protected those hips travelled by a route nobody thought to measure. The benefit seen in people running with osteoarthritis remains genuinely unexplained.

What Fear of Damaging Your Joints Has to Do with Running with Osteoarthritis

Fear failed as an explanation. It did not fail as a finding. Participants answered one question at the very start. They were asked whether they feared physical activity and exercise would damage their joints. The answer was yes or no, and nothing more. That question comes from a programme which has now recorded it in tens of thousands of patients.

People who answered yes had roughly double the odds of a hip replacement within the year. The knee figures sat close to double as well. Those associations did not appear in every comparison, though, so they should be taken with caution.

Fear also tracked closely with activity level. Among people with hip osteoarthritis who reported it, only 6.3% came from the high-impact band. Fear of movement has previously been connected to lower activity levels in knee osteoarthritis. Fear and running with osteoarthritis clearly point in opposite directions.

A tempting reading is that fear itself pushes people towards surgery. The evidence does not support that leap. Fear is also a perfectly reasonable response to a joint that hurts badly. Somebody whose hip has deteriorated has every reason to be careful with it. So fear may partly be reporting the state of the joint, rather than shaping it.

What does hold firmly is that pain and physical capacity predict who ends up receiving a replacement. Fear sat alongside them as a third signal, drawn from a single yes or no. None of this shows that running with osteoarthritis removes worry, or that worry causes surgery.

One question captured what a person believed about their own joint. It went on to predict a surprising amount.

The People Who Kept Running Were Not Like Everyone Else

At the very start, the high-impact group and the least active group looked nothing alike. Among people with hip osteoarthritis, the gaps ran like this.

• Average age: 64.0 years against 67.9 years
• Joint symptom score out of 100, where higher is better: 58.1 against 47.9
• Pain score out of 100, where higher is worse: 42.8 against 51.1
• Chair stands managed in thirty seconds: 14.0 against 11.4
• Share of all strong painkiller users: 2.1% against 52%

The pattern is not subtle. The people running with osteoarthritis were younger, stronger and in noticeably less pain. Put plainly, those whose hips still allowed them to jog had better hips to begin with.

That is the central difficulty with research of this design. The researchers adjusted for every one of those differences, and for several others besides. However, adjustment can only account for what somebody actually measured. X-ray severity was never recorded, so researchers could not identify and set aside the most damaged joints.

Almost everything else was self-reported, including the activity level and the surgery itself. Self-reported activity is known to differ from device-captured activity.

Missing information was substantial too. Depending on the comparison, complete records existed for somewhere between a third and just over half of participants. Statistical methods filled those gaps, which is standard practice and still an assumption.

Then there is time. The follow-up ran for twelve months. Osteoarthritis develops across decades, so a single year captures only those already close to a decision.

That word decision deserves attention. A joint replacement is not a measurement of a joint. It is an agreement reached between a patient in pain and a surgeon. Waiting lists, personal willingness and access to care all shape it. Everyone here lived in Denmark and attended the same structured programme. So this counted who reached the operating table, not whose cartilage survived.

Evidence from elsewhere points the other way. Heavy physical work has been associated with roughly twice the risk of joint replacement. Reviews have reached similarly cautious conclusions. One found that intensive physical activity raises the risk of hip and knee replacement.

None of that makes the finding worthless, but it does mean running with osteoarthritis cannot claim the credit alone. Two explanations remain standing side by side. Impact may protect a hip, or healthier hips may simply permit impact. This design cannot separate them.

How to Approach Running with Osteoarthritis from Here

Nobody in this research was told to take up jogging. They recorded activity levels, not assigned them. So the finding cannot tell an inactive person what would happen if they started tomorrow. Instead, it speaks to people who were already active and wondering whether to give it up.

The researchers’ own conclusion was carefully measured. Higher-impact activity should not be routinely discouraged based on joint replacement risk alone. For hip osteoarthritis, they suggested it could be considered where activity is built up sensibly. For knee osteoarthritis, they suggested supporting people who already take part, where symptoms, capacity and personal goals allow it.

Blanket advice to stop carries its own costs. Physical activity brings wide benefits across hip and knee osteoarthritis. That position is not remotely controversial among the bodies who write treatment guidance. Exercise and education form the backbone of their recommendations.

Some of its benefits have nothing to do with joints. Brief bursts of vigorous daily activity have been linked to lower mortality in the wider population. Stopping everything removes that too.

Continuing, of course, does not mean continuing unchanged. Symptoms fluctuate, and you can adjust activity around flare-ups rather than abandoning it altogether.

Two things from this research can be measured at home tonight. The first is the chair test, counting how many times you can stand fully upright in thirty seconds. The second is the fear question, answered honestly. Neither tells anybody what to do. Both simply describe where a person currently stands.

The decision belongs to the person with the hip, and to the doctor who knows that hip. What has shifted is the starting assumption. Stopping impact was long treated as the safe default, and this evidence does not support that approach. So running with osteoarthritis becomes a judgement about one person’s circumstances rather than a rule applied to everybody. Whether it should be reversed, and for whom, is a question for the next decade of research.

Sources

• Ageberg E, Engstrom G, Gerhardsson de Verdier M, et al. Effect of leisure time physical activity on severe knee or hip osteoarthritis leading to total joint replacement: a population-based prospective cohort study. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2012;13:73.
• Apold H, Meyer HE, Nordsletten L, et al. Risk factors for knee replacement due to primary osteoarthritis, a population based, prospective cohort study of 315,495 individuals. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2014;15(1):217.
• Altai Z, Hayford CF, Phillips ATM, et al. Lower limb joint loading during high-impact activities: implication for bone health. Journal of Bone and Mineral Research Plus 2024;8(11):ziae119.
• Bannuru RR, Osani MC, Vaysbrot EE, et al. OARSI guidelines for the non-surgical management of knee, hip, and polyarticular osteoarthritis. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2019;27(11):1578-89.
• Baumbach L, Gronne DT, Moller NC, et al. Changes in physical activity and the association between pain and physical activity, a longitudinal analysis of 17,454 patients with knee or hip osteoarthritis from the GLA:D registry. Osteoarthr Cartil 2023;31(2):258-66.
• Bjerre-Bastos JJ, Nielsen HB, Andersen JR, et al. A biomarker perspective on the acute effect of exercise with and without impact on joint tissue turnover: an exploratory randomized cross-over study. Eur J Appl Physiol 2021;121(10):2799-809.
• Cinarli FS, Ulubaba HE, Ucar O, et al. Relationship between quadriceps muscle architecture and lower limb strength and physical function in older adults community-dwelling individuals: a cross-sectional study. Front Public Health 2024;12:1398424.
• Hall M, van der Esch M, Hinman RS, et al. How does hip osteoarthritis differ from knee osteoarthritis? Osteoarthr Cartil 2022;30(1):32-41.
• Hussain SM, Wang Y, Shaw JE, et al. Relationship of weight and obesity with the risk of knee and hip arthroplasty for osteoarthritis across different levels of physical performance: a prospective cohort study. Scand J Rheumatol 2019;48(1):64-71.
• Johnsen MB, Hellevik AI, Baste V, et al. Leisure time physical activity and the risk of hip or knee replacement due to primary osteoarthritis: a population based cohort study (The HUNT Study). BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2016;17:86.
• Kilinc H, Karahan S, Atilla B, et al. Can Fear of Movement, Depression and Functional Performance be a Predictor of Physical Activity Level in Patients With Knee Osteoarthritis? Arch Rheumatol 2019;34(3):274-80.
• Kraus VB, Sprow K, Powell KE, et al. Effects of Physical Activity in Knee and Hip Osteoarthritis: A Systematic Umbrella Review. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2019;51(6):1324-39.
• Liu SH, Eaton CB, Driban JB, et al. Comparison of self-report and objective measures of physical activity in US adults with osteoarthritis. Rheumatol Int 2016;36(10):1355-64.
• Lo GH, Musa SM, Driban JB, et al. Running does not increase symptoms or structural progression in people with knee osteoarthritis: data from the osteoarthritis initiative. Clinical Rheumatology 2018;37(9):2497-504.
• Long H, Liu Q, Yin H, et al. Prevalence Trends of Site-Specific Osteoarthritis From 1990 to 2019: Findings From the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019. Arthritis & rheumatology (Hoboken, NJ) 2022;74(7):1172-83.
• Migliorini F, Pintore A, Torsiello E, et al. Intensive Physical Activity Increases the Risk of Knee and Hip Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review. Sports Medicine and Arthroscopy Review 2022;30(2)
• Morup-Petersen A, Skou ST, Holm CE, et al. Measurement properties of UCLA Activity Scale for hip and knee arthroplasty patients and translation and cultural adaptation into Danish. Acta orthopaedica 2021;92(6):681-88.
• Overton C, Nelson AE, Neogi T. Osteoarthritis treatment guidelines from six professional societies: similarities and differences. Rheumatic Disease Clinics of North America 2022;48(3):637-57.
• Patterson BE, Girdwood MA, West TJ, et al. Muscle strength and osteoarthritis of the knee: a systematic review and meta-analysis of longitudinal studies. Skeletal Radiol 2023;52(11):2085-97.
• Roos EM, Gronne DT, Skou ST, et al. Immediate outcomes following the GLA:D program in Denmark, Canada and Australia. A longitudinal analysis including 28,370 patients with symptomatic knee or hip osteoarthritis. Osteoarthr Cartil 2021;29(4):502-06.
• Skou ST, Roos EM. Good Life with osteoArthritis in Denmark (GLA:D): evidence-based education and supervised neuromuscular exercise delivered by certified physiotherapists nationwide. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2017;18(1):72.
• Stamatakis E, Ahmadi MN, Gill JMR, et al. Association of wearable device-measured vigorous intermittent lifestyle physical activity with mortality. Nat Med 2022;28(12):2521-29.
• Steinmetz JD, Culbreth GT, Haile LM, et al. Global, regional, and national burden of osteoarthritis, 1990-2020 and projections to 2050: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2021. Lancet Rheumatol 2023;5(9):e508-e22.
• Thomas MJ, Rathod-Mistry T, Parry EL, et al. Triggers for acute flare in adults with, or at risk of, knee osteoarthritis: a web-based case-crossover study in community-dwelling adults. Osteoarthr Cartil 2021;29(7):956-64.
• Wang Y, Shen Z, Xing X, et al. Association of physical activity trajectories over 8 years and risk of knee replacement: data from the osteoarthritis initiative. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2024;25(1):586.
• Wang Y, Simpson JA, Wluka AE, et al. Is Physical Activity a Risk Factor for Primary Knee or Hip Replacement Due to Osteoarthritis? A Prospective Cohort Study. The Journal of Rheumatology 2011;38(2):350.
• Zeni JA, Jr., Axe MJ, Snyder-Mackler L. Clinical predictors of elective total joint replacement in persons with end-stage knee osteoarthritis. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2010;11:86.