Should 15,000 Steps a Day Be Our New Exercise Target?

[vineviz]

The American Heart Association recommends walking 10,000 steps a day, and many of us find that challenging.

And new research suggest that 10,000 is not ideal: 15,000 steps is the point at which the risk of heart disease is normalized.

". . . .mail carriers who walked for more than three hours a day, covering at least 15,000 steps, which is about seven miles, generally had normal body mass indexes, waistlines and metabolic profiles. Together, these factors meant that they had, effectively, no heightened risk for cardiac disease."

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/22/well/move/should-15000-steps-a-day-be-our-new-exercise-target.htm...

[Esya]

I think it is important to move and the more we move the better. Not all activities are step based though. In the end our health is a combination of steps, other exercises and diet. The fact those mail carriers have normal body mass indexes, waistlines and metabolic profiles does not come from the steps they take alone. By focusing only on the step count we lose the bigger picture out of sight. The recommendation is there as walking is the easiest and free exercise anyone can do and I think it is meant as a lower limit recommendation while more is better.

[vineviz]

One of the things I found interesting in this study is that the reduction in risk is associated not so much with moving as it is with NOT sitting down.  From the study abstract: "Those with no metabolic syndrome features walked >15 000 steps per day or spent >7 h per day upright."

This suggests that even people who can't find time to walk 15,000 steps per day can equivalently reduce their risk of cardiac arrest by choosing to stand instead of sitting for the majority of their workday.

[Esya]

@vineviz

That is correct and proven in other studies. That is why I got myself a fitness tracker to begin with a few years ago and what I used it for mainly for a long time to create new habits in that regard (have not been getting to 10K steps until recently). I have a desk job and wanted that hourly reminder to get me up for a few minutes. It is mostly sitting down long times without getting up that increases the risk a lot.

[GershonSurge]

In my opinion, this study had a selection bias. They picked 56 mail carriers and 55 sedentary workers and compared them. The selection bias is only healthy people would take the job as a mail carrier, so of course they are going to be healthier. It's the old chicken and egg fallacy. Do people exercise because they are healthy or are they healthy because they exercise?

To do a study of this sort, they should take a group of people and have them stop exercising or start exercising depending on where they start.

In any case, those who walked 15,000 steps had no increased heart attack risk. What this means is they were in the middle of the bell curve. They also had no decreased heart attack risk. We don't know what indicators they used to assess heart attack risk. Did they use the normal range? Well, the normal range isn't too healthy as we can see by the high incidence of heart disease and other diseases. Normal is just the average for the population. 

I cringe when I see someone says "new research shows." New research tends to be shoddy compared to old research. The Aerobics Plan by Ken Cooper had many thousands of people who were followed for decades. He still missed the fact that you can't outrun a bad diet. He also missed the fact that strength training is important, especially later in life. He did correct this later because his research now spans half a century.

Let's look at the conclusion from the study:

CONCLUSIONS:
Longer time spent in sedentary posture is significantly associated with higher CHD risk and larger waist circumference.International Journal of Obesity advance online publication, 7 March 2017; doi:10.1038/ijo.2017.30.

Having said all this, I agree with the conclusion. For information on a thorough study, you can read:

Get Up!: Why Your Chair is Killing You and What You Can Do About It !
by James A. Levine (Author)

[Mukluk4]

I think you should target calories burned.

15,000 steps walking < 6,000 steps running

[Esya]

@Mukluk4

While that might be true for our fitness level, there are benefits from being up and moving over sitting down. In that sense 15000 steps walking > 6000 steps running. Benefits are decreased risk for heart diseases, decreased risk for diabetics and a better functioning lymph system to just name a few. They are still investigating how it decreases the risk for heart disease and diabetics, but they believe it has to do with changes in metabolism. Even if we have an active lifestyle with sports, but were to sit still for long durations during other times of the day, this will increase those risks. Our health is more than just our fitness level, even more than just our physical health.

[Dominique]

---

@Mukluk4 wrote:

I think you should target calories burned.

 15,000 steps walking < 6,000 steps running

---

I doubt 6,000 steps running burns more calories than 15,000 steps walking, but it’s possible to do the math when setting speeds. Even taking into account the calories burned by the runner doing nothing (if he choses to go couch potato while the walker is still getting his steps). 15,000 steps walking keeps you on your feet and moving for 2+ hours, which has benefits of its own for an otherwise sedentary person (e.g. an office worker), as noted in a previous post.

[vineviz]

@GershonSurge, You can cringe if you want, I suppose.

This is, in fact, new research and it does provide valid evidence that it may be necessary for people to move more than previously thought in order to fully reduce the risk of cardiac disease.

Your criticisms of study design are based, I think, on an incomplete understanding of the work the researchers published.  I won't belabor that here, because it's not the right forum.

The bottom line takeaway remains true: moving 15,000 steps reduces the risk of cardiac disease more than moving 10,000 steps does, as does remaining on your feet for more than seven hours per day.

Move more or, at the very least, sit less.

[vineviz]

Just to amplify what @Esya pointed out, the relative value of walking versus running depends entirely on your goals.

There is some evidence that runners lose more weight and hold it off when compared to walkers who burn the same exercise calories, but walkers actually have a lower risk of cardiac disease and diabetes than the runners.

This article from the New York Times is a little dated, but I don't see anything in it that is no longer supported by science. https://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/05/29/is-it-better-to-walk-or-run/?_r=0

[Megzzzx]

---

@vineviz wrote:

One of the things I found interesting in this study is that the reduction in risk is associated not so much with moving as it is with NOT sitting down.  From the study abstract: "Those with no metabolic syndrome features walked >15 000 steps per day or spent >7 h per day upright."

This suggests that even people who can't find time to walk 15,000 steps per day can equivalently reduce their risk of cardiac arrest by choosing to stand instead of sitting for the majority of their workday.

---

This is why it is very important that if you have a desk job to either get a standing desk set up or make sure you get up often.

[repcosy]

Oh my gosh, I hope not.... I sometimes struggle to achieve 5k with my daily activities. Im happy if I can achieve that daily. 

Since having my fitbit I have been more active that I have ever been in my life so whether im doing 5,000 or or 15,000 steps a day its better than what I was doing before I got my fitbit. So it has to be good for me, right? Thats my outlook on it.

[Dave001]

Targets are just that. Something to to aim for.

Whether the target is 5000, 10000, 15000 or something else is not really the point. If we aim for the centre of a target and miss, at least we're making an effort! Hitting the outer ring of an archery target is better than not picking up the bow at all! I suspect we're all "Fitbitters" because we want to improve ourselves.

Our underlying health and motivation determines our starting point. If we can improve ourselves and be consistent, we are making a difference. 

At the end of last year, I was a big fat sloth. After work I'd sit in my chair stuffing my mouth with chocolate whilst gawping at the idiot lantern in the corner.

I made a promise to my wife and myself that I'd improve. Initially, I found 10k steps quite difficult. Then it became easier, then it became fun. And now I've even started running again. I've recently increased my daily step goal to 11000. I've lost almost 20kg of weight this year. I sleep better. I'm happier. I feel more alive. 

Do I feel like I'm failing because I'm not hitting a target set by a researcher I've never met? Of course not! I know that I'm improving my health. I know that being consistent and making slow, steady, realistic increases in my activity levels is better for me than dashing headlong to a huge increase, falling short and becoming disheartened. 

I'd never deny the advantage of research to health improvement, but the ivory towers inhabited by researchers do not always reflect the reality of our everyday lives. Research should inform our decisions, not take them for us.

So @repcosy, be happy when you hit 5000! Celebrate it every single time. When it becomes a little easier and less of a chore and you feel ready, set your sights on 5500.

5500 is 9500 short of the target in this research. But more importantly, it's 5500 more than doing nothing!

Keep up the good work. Be happy!

[Esya]

@repcosy

While the study might sound like it is about 15000 steps, it really is about spending less time sitting down. Sitting long times in one go really increases certain risks. So try to limit that where you can by getting up often for a moment, as that is way more important than the step count.

[y2kcrash]

5000 ----- 10000 ------- 15000 ------  etc

What is not taken into consideration in this discussion is that NOT ALL steps are created equal.

I walk an area that  6000 steps will do in most people if completed in full..

The downhills are short sharp declines  while the uphills are long / steep inclines.

The time to complete the 6000 is not far off what most would take to complete a normal everyday continuous 10,000 step on the flat.

[GershonSurge]

Here is a study being done on an indigenous tribe in Bolivia. They have a tiny rate of heart disease.

This is a quote from the study:

Anthropologists have learned a lot about the lives of the Tsimane since they began studying them 15 years ago. The men typically spend seven hours or so of every day hunting, fishing or poling their canoes to towns to sell and procure food. The women devote almost as much time to gathering nuts and farming rice, corn and plantains. Men and women each cover roughly eight miles, or 17,000 steps, each day.

Their diet is heavy on carbs: 72 percent of their daily calories derive from unprocessed starches, 14 percent from saturated and unsaturated fats and 14 percent from protein.

None of this is new information. Nathan Pritikin said the same thing in a book he published in 1979. Dr. Cooper has said the same thing.

Many of the Whole Food Plant Based researchers I favor say the same thing minus emphasis on exercise, but by their example they agree with getting exercise.

Every population I've read about that lived long healthy lives ate a diet dominated by starches. They ate some vegetables and few if any animal products.

[emili]

The thing about studies is someone will come along tomorrow and have a study that contradicts or changes this study. But... the root is right. Move. Move more and your body will want to move more. Cardio health will be better, circulation will be better, etc. Walking, standing, jumping, running- whatever your body can do, do it.

[vineviz]

@y2kcrash When it comes to reducing the risk of disease (e.g. heart disease, diabetes), what this study shows is that the amount of time you spend NOT sitting down is likely the most important factor.

Having a short but intense workout might improve strength and/or speed, but it is the quantity of movement that matters most in reducing heart disease and not the quality of the movement.