How do people average 50000 steps per day?

[Emmeli]

Who has the time to average 50,000 steps a day!? How can this be possible?

Moderator edit: updated subject for clarity

[Corney]

Once again, I would ask people who average 50K steps or more everyday, WHY DO YOU DO IT?  What do think you are doing to your lower extemity joints?  I have only received 1 answer to my question.  Are the individuals who log 50K or more steps everyday shy, or can't they come up with a rational answer.

[shipo]

---

@Corney wrote:

Once again, I would ask people who average 50K steps or more everyday, WHY DO YOU DO IT?  What do think you are doing to your lower extemity joints?  I have only received 1 answer to my question.  Are the individuals who log 50K or more steps everyday shy, or can't they come up with a rational answer.

---

I've been privately amused by your lack of response; can't say I'm too surprised.

For my part, I just checked my Fitbit Dashboard and see the following since I get my Fitbit Surge at the end of April 2015:

• 40,000 steps in a day: 0
• 35,000 steps in a day: 7
• 30,000 steps in a day: 36
• 25,000 steps in a day: 81
• 20,000 steps in a day: 146

At this rate, I'm not sure I'll ever officially hit 50,000 steps in a calendar day.  🙂

[Corney]

In the days before Fit Bit I trained 10 months for the Chicago Marathon, ran 7 miles every morning, went to the YMCA to swim laps because part of my training was to compete ina mini triathalon, I also ran a 10 mile race, a half marathon and a 20 K race as part of my training, so I know what training is and I know how to train so I don't injure myself.  How many steps per day, everyday is acceptable, only time will tell!  Are you willing to accept the consequences.  At my age 69, I have found a new yard stick, everything in moderation.  Did you know that you can overhydrate yourself causing your electrolytes to become a health problem, or you breathing too much O2 can be a hazard to your health?  Moderation is the key!

[Corney]

I purchased a Fit Bit to give me positive feedback in my exercise program and use it for that purpose.  I got off the thread concerning fasting because I felt it was unhealthy except for the morbidly obese under a Dr's supervision, now I think these challenges are becoming inane and in no way helpful in one becoming or maintaining their health and fitness.  Sometime in the future these individuals will pay the price. I'm about ready to get off this thread because, I feel it's becoming deleterious to those who choose to compete, and I don't want to hear about it!

[Corney]

Yoyo dieting is unhealthy and all to common these days.  An individual goes on a restricted diet or worse fasts, when this happens the body goes into starvation mode, begins to breakdown muscle when carbs are gone.  After a person reaches their goal weight they goes back to eating what they did pre-diet, since the body has lost muscle mass, it's basal metabolism has slowed down, thus burning fewer calories, so the individual gains back all the weight they lost plus more, so they do it all over again, with the same result.

[SunsetRunner]

with recent events, I would agree with you, I am starting to think why bother

the challenges that I am invited to are all casual and friendly

do they all do their steps what they call 'real' steps, no, do we care? no, in our opinion of the challenges that I am in a step is a step within reason, i'e' attaching it to your dog etc, 

again, I have left the 10 Million step challenge, and will in future read the rules fully/properly and can only apologies, but again, like I said, I seriously doubt that all the steps currently done so far were 'walked' even by you Gershon, I seriously doubt that 'all' your steps were walked, I am sure you have jogged/ran some of them, no matter how few

and like I said, I seriously doubt that a mod can not ban a user from the forum, otherwise users could do what they want, say want they want

looking at the mods, I presume that the ones that can are the ones that have fitbit on the end of their usernames?

if so, I see Helena is active, here is my permission, if you want to call it that, ban me from the forum, so that I can not create threads like these, reply to threads/posts like these etc

I am not the one that can not let it die, it is those that keep throwing accusations, until those accusations etc stop, then I will continue to reply to them, until either they stop or am banned so that I can not reply to them

[Gershon]

There you go calling me a liar again, Wytey. I cannot physically jog or run. I've lost those nerve pathways. I'm trying to regain them. You aren't the only one who is disabled.

This is starting to upset me. In virtually every post you infer I'm lying. This is actionable behavior, and I ask that you stop it right now.

I cannot ban you from a forum as I'm not Fitbit moderator.

I did just discover I can delete a person from a competiton I created. 

[GershonSurge]

---

@Corney wrote:

In the days before Fit Bit I trained 10 months for the Chicago Marathon, ran 7 miles every morning, went to the YMCA to swim laps because part of my training was to compete ina mini triathalon, I also ran a 10 mile race, a half marathon and a 20 K race as part of my training, so I know what training is and I know how to train so I don't injure myself.  How many steps per day, everyday is acceptable, only time will tell!  Are you willing to accept the consequences.  At my age 69, I have found a new yard stick, everything in moderation.  Did you know that you can overhydrate yourself causing your electrolytes to become a health problem, or you breathing too much O2 can be a hazard to your health?  Moderation is the key!

---

Corney,

Your concerns are warranted. I don't think there is anyone actively participating in this thread who averages 50,000 steps a day. The high seems to be 35,000. Most are under 30,000.

In my opinion, the best exercise program I've seen is Ken Cooper's Aerobics program. In fact, he invented the word "aerobics." A person gets  60% of the benefits by earning 30 aerobics points a week -- 80% if they double it. This program doesn't include any incidental activity outside of workouts. He says that anyone who exceeds these goals are doing it for reasons other than health. He does not suggest it's harmful. He would likely add "within reason" if asked directly.

There is the opposite side to your question "How many steps a day are acceptible?" It is "How few steps a day are acceptible." My answer at age 63 is exercise to the point of trivial aches and pains that could develop into a chronic injury. Then back off until they disappear. 

If an older person (which gets older every year for me) wants to run, I suggest they read all of Joe Henderson's books. He thinks in terms of a lifetime of enjoyable running and does not focus on race times or distance. Instead, he thinks in terms of the time spent running if even slowly.

Time to go paint the garage doors.

[SunsetRunner]

I have already exited the challenge

if I was cheating, then looking at the user in the number 1 position they are more than double the person in second place, and considering how much effort I had to put in to get my steps in, then what are they?

the difference is that you can go out walking, I can not

I am not calling you a liar, however, every post is literally calling me a cheater

[BruceBu]

Two general comments:

1) about steps vs non-steps and cheating. The definition of 'step', both as a noun and as a verb is quite precise - go look them up in your dictionary (unless you are moving your body mass down the road by putting one foot in front of the other, without using mechanical aids, it ain't a step). I have no problem with folks using their Fitbit acceleration sensors as exercise counters. However, if you are not doing steps, but call those exercise counts 'steps,' then you are claiming something falsely about your exercise performance, which is clearly cheating. Note that this is the general comment of a purist and is not dirrected at anyone in particular.

2) In the discussion of what is possible long term, and the problems of associated injuries, I think there needs to be a differentiation between running and walking. Running does joint damage, walking does not (as a general rule, I sure you can give me anecdotal exceptions) - simple physics, the kinetic energy dissapated in a foot strike is proportional to velocity squared - going twice as fast increases shock-wave energy by a factor of four (actually more due to other factors), and is much more likely to exceed thresholds for damage. Walkers don't need recovery days the way runners do - the system is used a lot but it is not stressed; this make it easier it keep up long term averages, as is typical of long distance trail hikers. A cadence of 120 is something that can be maintained ad infinitum by experienced walkers, 7200 steps per hour - 14 hours of real walking to hit 100k, you still have 10 hours to do the other things you need to do in your life. I believe it is possible to average 100k/day for extended periods of time without ever invoking running to increase cadence by 20-30%. The are many, many PCT and App. Trail speed hikers that have demonstrated that this is quite routine. On the other hand, trying to average 100k/day long-term by running is probably very difficult and injury prone.

[GershonSurge]

3. Walking also includes keeping one foot on the ground at a time. For racewalking, the leg has to be straight when it lands. Let's leave out that part of the definition.

4. While walking, the vertical impact is approximately half of a person's weight. You can test this by taking a step onto a scale and holding the position. While running, which doesn't occur until both feet leave the ground at once, all the weight is dropped onto one foot.

Addendum:

I don't quite agree with the square of the velocity concept. If the foot landed with significant horizontal velocity, it would either slide or at least give significant braking action. The foot would slip in the shoe. Ideally, the foot should land under or slightly forward of the center of gravity for both walking and running. 

[BruceBu]

Didn't say that your foot is moving at your traveling velocity at the initiation of foot strike. Only that everything is going on faster as your speed increases, both horizontal and vertical components increase proportionately. E = 0.5mv^2 still applies. The 'other factors' which make it even worse, as you point out, include the one-footed full weighted landing of running vs the supported set-down of walking.

Let's not even talk about race walking & associated technique. IMHO, biomechanically it is just as silly as it looks visually, with the sole purpose of keeping you in contact with the ground as speeds where you really should be running.

[Corney]

I hate to disagree with you, but I must.  When I stand on my scale with 1 foot all of my weight goes to that foot.  You stated when walking the vertical impact is 1/2 body weight, then what supports the other half since the other foot is off the ground?  I suggest you stand on your scale again with just one foot. when running the vertical impact of the foot hitting the ground can be as much as 3 times body weight depending on speed and terrain, if running down hill the force can be more than 3 times body weight.

[SunsetRunner]

@BruceBu

not trying to create a arguement but by that definition

1) about steps vs non-steps and cheating. The definition of 'step', both as a noun and as a verb is quite precise - go look them up in your dictionary (unless you are moving your body mass down the road by putting one foot in front of the other, without using mechanical aids, it ain't a step). I have no problem with folks using their Fitbit acceleration sensors as exercise counters. However, if you are not doing steps, but call those exercise counts 'steps,' then you are claiming something falsely about your exercise performance, which is clearly cheating. Note that this is the general comment of a purist and is not dirrected at anyone in particular.

'steps' done by a treadmill are technically, elliptical trainer, cross trainer not steps

technically, they are a mechanical aid and although the movement of the feet is the same as walking/running, the body is not moving in the same way if you were to actually walk/run, i.e. it is in the same place

which would mean I can't give an exact number, but I pretty sure that I am not the only one by that definition, even when I get the treadmill or elliptical trainer back out, be cheating, even those in a gym

so then, until FitBit allows us to customise challenges, even groups, then we can not participate in them

like I said, I am not trying to cause an arguement, but want your view, or others

treadmill/elliptical trainer/cross trainer steps, ok or not?

[GershonSurge]

---

@Corney wrote:

I hate to disagree with you, but I must.  When I stand on my scale with 1 foot all of my weight goes to that foot.  You stated when walking the vertical impact is 1/2 body weight, then what supports the other half since the other foot is off the ground?  I suggest you stand on your scale again with just one foot. when running the vertical impact of the foot hitting the ground can be as much as 3 times body weight depending on speed and terrain, if running down hill the force can be more than 3 times body weight. 

---

This may be incorrect. I'll make another post. (I left it here because others may have read it.)

Corney, I may have expressed myself unclearly. When walking, the trailing foot is still on the ground when the front foot strikes. Then the rest of the weight transfers when the back foot leaves the ground.

Running is a different story. The vertical impact would depend on how high the person was when they started coming down. Three g's sounds close enough. The number of g's would depend on the shoe.I'm happy with saying a bunch.

[GershonSurge]

I think we are all off on measuring the forces.

This is a fascinating study of the development of military combat boots.

The force of our body falling will be transmitted to our foot. The key factor is the deceleration rate which is a function of the springiness of the heel and sole. Think inflated vs. almost deflated basketball.

Most quality running shoes will be in the ballpark for running, but not so good for walking. I prefer a Danner combat boot for walking or hiking.

The maximum g force MAY be about the same for walking and running with well-tuned footwear. The idea is to keep it low enough in both cases not to cause injury.

None of what I'm suggesting conflicts with the basic assertion that feet take more of a beating in running. 

[BruceBu]

They are all 'ok' - they can be good exercise, but they are still not steps, per definition. Spinning and and elliptical have a flywheel that helps you along - mechanical advantage X, and feet do not loose contact X. Treadmill comes close, but does not involve creating, maintaining, and altering the inertia of your body mass, in essence you learn to flutter your legs under your center of mass. It is apples and oranges, they are all good but they are not the same.

[BWright1175]

Wow, so now we've devolved this conversation to the point that not even walking/running on a treadmill qualifies as actually taking steps?

Ridiculous...

[SunsetRunner]

I have an under the desk stepper, treadmill, elliptical trainer and an exercise bike, I'm sure I have some small dumbells somewhere, a mini gym as it were, the exercise bike was only a recent purchase stop the joints hurting, plus the walking on the treadmill hurt the bottom of my feet

I rather get it out in the open as it were, as I don't want to go into another step challenge only to be called a cheat, as I am sure nor do others, and I am sure I am/was not the only one jogging on the spot, using an exercise bike, treadmill etc

plus

considering recent events, the thread re customizing challenges, https://community.fitbit.com/t5/Feature-Requests/Customize-Challenges/idi-p/691569 I would have thought since posting it, would have gotten more than 1 vote other than myself, I know that it could be time difference, but still

and considering it has 1569 votes, shouldn't Fitbit have done something, or are they saying that it is not enough votes yet?

[BruceBu]

RE running vs walking and injury. I think we are missing the forest for the trees

http://www.mathaware.org/mam/2010/essays/TongenWunderlichRunWalk.pdf

Running creates roughly 3 times the peak inpact G-force of walking. When considering that we are talking about being below or above the threshold for joint component damage, this is an extremely, extremely large difference. I've been walking long for 40+ years, maybe I'm just lucky but no injuries.