When the weather turns to shit and the sky can’t stop sobbing, one debate never fails to be brought up: did the Myth Busters prove you get less wet if you run or walk in the rain? I, once and for all, will settle that debate today. 

In the year 2003, Mr and Mr Myth Buster (Adam and Jamie) put to the test whether running or walking in the rain provided a higher level of dryness. They created a 100-foot, indoor rainstorm simulating 2–3 inches of rain per hour—enough to soak any poor soul unlucky enough to brave it. Each walked twice and ran twice through the deluge. The boyfriends both wore identical cotton jumpsuits, and they measured the weight of their jumpsuits before and after project rain walk/run. In this simulation, they discovered that running in the rain caused 5–13 grams more water absorption compared to walking. Thus, walking in the rain is the far better option—at least, according to their results under controlled conditions with no wind. 

HOWEVER, two years later, in MythBusters Revisited, our favourite TV duo tested the walk-or-run-in-the-rain theory outdoors, braving real-world weather variability, including wind and uneven rainfall. The beret-wearing and ginger goatee baddies donned their cotton jumpsuits once again and discovered the unimaginable: this time, their results flipped. Running got them to shelter faster, and they emerged with noticeably less water absorbed, proving real-world rain hits you differently than a neat laboratory shower. This revisit showed how environmental factors can dramatically change the outcome. 

What does this tell us? If you are wanting to minimise wetness from travels in the rain, it’s definitely better to run than walk. I, however, think running in the rain looks stupid, so if you’re going for the care-free, nonchalant option, I say still walk—but be prepared for heavier waterlogging.