10000 Steps - The Scientific Reality

[NGWehner]

Is there something magic about doing 10000 steps a day? Not really. The 10000 steps a day actually started as a marketing gimmick for one of the earliest pedometers in the 1960s.

Only in very recent times have actual scientific studies on the benefit of counting steps been done. The results - Google "10000 steps a day myth" and look for reliable articles from Scientific American and Northern Arizona University (among others). The bottom line:

1. The benefits of how many steps a day you do depends on your age and fitness level. The older and/or less fit you are the more benefit you get.

2. Movement is good, but the benefits taper off at some level. Doing more and more does not necessarily give more benefit, at least in terms of life expectancy. Other factors such as diabetes control/prevention, weight control, blood pressure, etc. are still being studied - we have no real answers yet.

3. Steps are energy expenditure and that's what counts in the end - active minutes of moderate to vigorous activity. Tailor your step goals to your needs.

[danwatson76]

I respectfully disagree.  The average person walks roughly 3-4k steps a day, so shooting for a goal like 10k pushes people to do more activity and it’s a much easier metric to track for average folks to track compared to zones or calories (and most fitness devices can’t accurately count calories burned anyways).    My cardiologist told me to simply walk several miles each day to get into my best health.  He told me not waste money on gym memberships and fitness equipment and just to focus on this simple metric of 30 minutes of activity each day. YMMV. 

[NGWehner]

I did not say that walking is unimportant, only that there is nothing magical about 10000 steps - it was a marketing gimmick. The scientific study results clearly show that walking = energy expenditure and so is good for you. And it is easy to track, that I will grant. If counting steps pushes people more, that's great. I do worry that people get obsessed with hitting a particular number of steps and then get worried and stressed if they don't. That's not good. There are other equally valid ways to get your energy expenditure without getting hung up on steps - see my other recent post in this forum.

[danwatson76]

I stand corrected about its origins, I did some research and you are correct.  Must be the same people who sold standing desks for health lol.  You have fair points.  I mostly just walk a few miles each day and rarely can I hit 10k steps.  Sorry, didn’t mean to argue !

[Gershon]

In my opinion, a post claiming "Scientific Reality" is not very scientific without a reference. You seem to have only posted an unreferenced opinion.

[NGWehner · Accepted solution]

As a career scientist, my experience is that the average person has no interest in reading full-blown scientific articles. So, I pointed to reputable lay-person articles by groups like Scientific American (150+ years of science reporting). But for the hand-full that might like to read the actual study, it was published here:

Journal of the American College of Cardiology

Volume 82, Issue 15, 10 October 2023, Pages 1483 to1494

Link: Relationship of Daily Step Counts to All-Cause Mortality and Cardiovascular Events - ScienceDi...

[Gershon]

I suggest starting with Ken Cooper in 1968. In his book, "Aerobics" he found that exercise at different levels reduced all-cause mortality. In practice, he found that without a proper diet, exercise had no effect. It turned out people who exercised tended to have better diets.

The diet giants of that era were Ken Cooper, Dr. Esselstyne, Dr. Campbell, Dr. Pritikin, and Dr. McDougal. Except for Dr. Pritikin, they are all still alive and old. (He had leukemia.) Oh, and Jack LaLanne. He died in his 90s.

I'm not going to get in a diet war. Just some encouragement. People only get one shot at living a long, and more importantly, a healthy life.

[Triletics]

@Gershon there is nothing wrong with using steps as a main metric and even a little obsessing about it. True, it's not the most useful metric in the world (but neither calories nor AZM are 🤷) but it really depends on what the metric is used for and individual goal. Calories are fine when you aim to lose/gain/maintain weight. Steps are good when you challenge "time on legs" (from couch potato to spending most time moving, regardless of whether it gets your HR higher, moving is a goal). All those metrics (including AZM) are created for people who have just started their journey from a sedentary lifestyle. This is probably the main user base of Fitbit. Some people do obsess. I know users doing 50k-60k steps every day yet those steps are not real steps but using trickery like attaching a watch to the foot during cycling so cycling cadence adds steps, stepping in place which has no forward motion (not step in my book but who cares what "my book" says 🤷). Some spend hours doing it and yes, it does borderline with obsession and like everything from something healthy, it may turn into an unhealthy habit. I prefer quality over quantity. When it comes to steps, it doesn't matter how many you have but how. There is a huge difference when it comes to the effect when 10k steps are done when walking or when running. When running, it makes a huge difference whether those steps are obtained doing fartlek, steady easy, hill sprints or tempo - all bring different effects. With gaining more fitness and getting into sports people move away from steps. Those who keep counting steps usually stick with walking for various reasons (age, injuries, weight, not feeling a need to do something different, anything goes). At some point, steps become meaningless (for reasons I described above).

Long ago, with my first Fitbit and when challenges were a thing, I joined a few and it was ok but my problem was time. Getting steps in requires plenty of time when walking and that is what I don't have. This is when obsession may become unhealthy, when because of steps a person starts neglecting daily life, sleep, family, and work because getting thousands of steps is more important and I strongly believe there are such people out there. Yet, this aren't many and probably such obsession would be cut short by the environment.

For me, neither calories, AZM or steps are a good metric of progress. These are metrics created (calories isn't a metric of fitness, it's estimated energy expenditure and based on HR it's more like a guesstimate) to be simple, easily implemented by users who are not familiar with things like TSS, ATL, CTL, TSB, RSB, Pw:Hr, IF, NP, VO2Max (Fitbit supports it but only fraction of users can do a proper test (going all out for 10 to 12min running) so it's another guesstimate for most), and many others useful when athlete (or coach) understands what they are for. Steps, AZM and calories (and floors when Fitbit supports it) are easy to track for most Fitbit users. 10000 steps is a good starting point (even if it's a "bro-science" but the same is "2000kcal" or "maxHR = 220-age" nowadays fall into "bro-science" brackets) for most who used to be sedentary, it takes time to get to that goal. It will have a random aerobic effect (depends on intensity, used muscles when getting those steps) but it will add "time on legs" (which is a thing ie. for long-distance runners).

In other words, neither Fitbit metric is better or worse. They are as useful as a user makes them to be. They are not "an oracle of fitness" but mere indicators of changes.

[Gershon]

I've been around running and exercise for 50 years since the running boom started. The best track has always been just outside my door. The best runs were the ones I did. Although I did low level competition, I ran my last race (the San Francisco Marathon) in 1983. 

Of all the training methods I've tested, I prefer the Maffetone method. Run or walk or swim or whatever to keep the heart rate just below 180 minus your age. I just set a metronome at the start and check my pulse every so often. I wish there was a device that would adjust the pace slightly every few seconds to maintain the target heart rate.

Generally, I listen to books while I walk. These days, I carry a bucket and a litter grabber with me.

[Triletics]

Watched that video long ago that explains that walking and steps are not enough after reaching a certain level of fitness regardless of how many steps we do. Dr Mike Israetel, who's a bodybuilder but also an exercise scientist, has plenty of good content (although his juvenile jokes some may find offputting but he resisted in this particular video). My approach is always quality over quantity and I'm at the level where walking doesn't do much for me (although it is a part of my ultra training now that is crafted to my current goal but this is usually run/hike on a day with distances over 30miles+ exercising "time on legs", steps don't matter, duration matters). The same problem is with any simpler metrics (that includes AZM, floors, and calories in some way), easy to understand, and easy to implement but their value degrades with increasing the fitness level. On the other hand, if somebody likes to do step challenges (now outside the Fitbit platform but there are users who do challenges on Stridekick and similar apps) then why not? If this is what they like doing then who's business to judge it?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jscD2hhP11k

@Gershon you may try switching HR to power, a much more responsive metric that allows for more steady effort regardless of elevation and surface. HR always lags behind, you know that you're overexerting much later than it happens but with power, you see that instantly. Here's an example of how it works for me:

In this example, I pushed an all-out up the hill, so generated maximum power (maximum effort) but HR climbed a lot slower. I reach peak HR (anaerobic/neuromuscular) at the top of that hill. That was the goal for this training to go all-out but in the real world, this information tells me that my HR will start to increase soon if I keep maintaining the same power so I can lower the power early and prevent the response from the HR. You won't prevent 100% HR drift but this is how you can control the level of effort (eventually, power trains you to do it by "feel" and you can throw away any watch 🤣).

[Gershon]

I don't do anerobic. Feel isn't as accurate as the watch, but that doesn't mean I stare at the watch. If a person throws away the documentation, all results are anecdotal.