13 ms·

Do you really need 10,000 steps a day?

403 points by brandonb 11y ago

brandonb 11y ago
Hey all—OP here. I'm working on developing Cardiogram, the Apple Watch app from which this data is derived, and working with UCSF cardiology doing machine learning on heart rate data. Feel free to ask any questions here!
- blakesterz 11y ago
  >> More research funding is needed. Just kidding—isn’t that how all of these are supposed to end? Ha! Really interesting numbers there, and encouraging. It doesn't take all that much work to get your resting heart rate in a good range.
- kenjackson 11y ago
  So is there an app available (hopefully yours) that tells me when/what I need to do to hit the "right" numbers each day?
  - brandonb 11y ago
    Yes—that's certainly our long-term goal. This analysis is a first step, but before providing personalized recommendations, I think we'd want to do a lot more validation. There are a lot of corner cases in the real world, and particularly in the wake of what's been happening with Theranos and Zenefits, I think it's on startups to really do things right in healthcare. In the meantime, if you have an Apple Watch and want the graphs + metrics, feel free to take Cardiogram for a spin: https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/cardiogram/id1000017994?ls=1&mt=8 https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/cardiogram/id1000017994?ls=1... (Android Wear is coming soon.)
- Someone 11y ago
  How come your graphs do not go below a resting heart rate of 70? If you look at http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr041.pdf http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr041.pdf, about half the population should be below that. The only explanations I can think of are either that Apple Watch owners are a non-representative sample (possibly true. But _that_ non-representative?) or that you do not manage to measure resting heart rate that well (how good is the Apple Watch at measuring heart rate?)
  - brandonb 11y ago
    Apple Watch is pretty great at measuring heart rate in my experience. Part of the difference may be the circumstances in which the measurement is taken—in the clinic, "resting heart rate" is typically measured when the patient is sitting, in a controlled setting. For an app like Cardiogram, your heart rate is being measured throughout your day, "in the wild," every 10 minutes. We do filter out any measurements taken while you were moving (walking, during a workout) and for a few minutes after the movement stops. But, of course, your heart rate might be higher in real life than it is at the doctor's office. Maybe you've just had coffee. Or you're stressed out driving in traffic. For example, here's mine in bay area traffic: https://twitter.com/bballinger/status/695704441626886145 https://twitter.com/bballinger/status/695704441626886145 In Cardiogram itself, we show the user their whole distribution of resting heart rates. What's reported in the blog post is the median of all those measurements. By the way, I don't think it's known what the "right" answer is here. We do know stress can trigger a heart attack, and coffee can trigger arrhythmias like atrial fibrillation. So perhaps there's a lot of information lurking in the shape of your personal distribution of heart rates. But before now, nobody has really had the data to answer these types of questions.
    - rconti 11y ago
      So you're not actually measuring resting heart rate, just average non-active heartrate. Those sounds like two different things. My FitBit HR (also using an optical sensor) says my resting HR has varied between about 52 and 59bpm over the past 5 weeks, which passes the sniff test. I tend to be in the high 70s/low 80s when standing and moving about, but when I sit down (to work or relax or whatever), it drops into the low 50s. One that really sticks in my mind was the day I did a free go karting session courtesy of blood donation. Wisely, they had us race first, then donate. I got out of the kart, walked to the waiting area, sat down, and 5 minutes later was called back and given a resting HR of 42.
    - outericky 11y ago
      You hit 140 in traffic? Wow. Resting HR is tricky - I wouldn't consider myself a gym rat but I do run a few times per week and I ride my bike for fitness so I spend far longer than 1 hr above 150 per week. My resting HR is low 40's. I might hit 65 in traffic.... Cool stuff though. Eager to try it.
- 2sk21 11y ago
  I was motivated to download your app based on your article so clearly you did a good job explaining the idea :-) I have to say that the Apple Watch has had a profound impact on my health. For the past 7 years, I work out at a gym almost every morning. However I did not realize that I was excessively sedentary for the rest of the day until I started wearing the watch. I now force myself to move around a lot more and sit less.
  - wdewind 11y ago
    > a profound impact on my health Can you expand on that?
    - 2sk21 11y ago
      Every winter, I tend to gain some wait - a few pounds usually. This winter, I have forced myself to go out for walks in the afternoon, no matter how cold it is to get my overall activity up to my target. No weight gain at all. I suppose this could have been achieved with other fitness trackers but the Apple Watch has a very nice gentle way of reminding me about reaching my movement goals by tapping me on my wrist.
  - CamatHN 11y ago
    Relating to this, does anyone know any good Android apps that record such data?
    - brandonb 11y ago
      You can sign up for our (upcoming) Android Wear beta on the homepage: https://cardiogr.am https://cardiogr.am
    - nl 11y ago
      Google Fit is OK.
- maerF0x0 11y ago
  Is there any research around sum of heart beats as an indicator of life/health? I'm trying to understand if the marathoner's low resting BPM is fewer total beats over time in spite of having temporary higher BPM for exercise? Vs someone who maybe has resting heart rate of 70, but never exercises and thus doesnt have any high period either.
  - outericky 11y ago
    Sum of heartbeats isn't really that indicative. Surely everyone has a finite amount of beats but that's less the point. A low resting heart rate generally indicates a healthier system. but there are so many additional variables.
  - outericky 11y ago
    Sum of heartbeats isn't really that indicative. Surely everyone has a finite amount of beats but that's less the point. A low resting heart rate generally indicates a healthier system. but there are so many additional variables.
- djhn 11y ago
  Could you recommend some seminal books / articles on timeseries analysis of heart rate data and similar physiological variables? PS. Have you heard of / tried Beddit?
schwap 11y ago
I imagine the popularity of '10,000 steps a day' was mainly driven by how cheap/easy it was to measure steps. Nowadays with smart watches or dedicated fitness trackers it's finally becoming possible to come up with better metrics that can be widely used.
HorizonXP 11y ago
Great summary of your findings. I've been wearing a Fitbit Charge HR since last June, and I definitely do not reach 10k steps daily. However, I've noticed that on days I hit the gym and do weight lifting, my caloric burn easily tops 3300, while on days where I'm lazy and just working on my laptop, I barely break 2100. As a rule, I typically do not do any cardiovascular exercise. I think, I do not know for sure, the Fitbit is better suited for measuring cardiovascular activities, so I'm not sure how or why it's adjusting my caloric burn on my gym days. Maybe it's looking at my heart rate and extrapolating? Anyway, I'd be very much interested in some kind of fitness tracker that can provide better estimates on caloric burn. That coupled with calorie counting/recording of meals is what will really help me shed this weight.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- Swizec 11y ago
  > Maybe it's looking at my heart rate and extrapolating? Yes. At least that's what I hope/assume mine is doing. > Anyway, I'd be very much interested in some kind of fitness tracker that can provide better estimates on caloric burn. The 2nd most accurate formula involves weight and heart rate. http://fitness.stackexchange.com/questions/12435/is-it-possible-to-measure-calorie-burn-from-heart-rate-alone http://fitness.stackexchange.com/questions/12435/is-it-possi... Your Charge HR knows both of those, so I would hope it uses them. That's the whole reason I bought one in the first place. It looks like measuring VO2max is even more accurate. But that's very annoying and invasive to measure as it involves breathing through a tube.
  - fefifofu 11y ago
    I do not believe Fitbit uses heart rate to track calories. If it uses heart rate to track calories, it would be able to work well with cycling exercises, but it does not. From fitbit website: "Fitbit trackers are optimized for walking, running, and general lifestyle activities but are not recommended for tracking cycling"[0]. Sounds like it uses the step counter and not heart rate to estimate calorie burn along with your weight and age etc. The Charge HR heart rate functionality could be useful to keep my heart rate in a specific range during cardio. However, it doesn't seem like it's good for that either[1]. [0]https://help.fitbit.com/articles/en_US/Help_article/Does-the-Fitbit-tracker-accurately-track-calories-from-cycling/?l=en_US&c=Topics%3AFood_Calories&fs=Search&pn=1 https://help.fitbit.com/articles/en_US/Help_article/Does-the... [1]http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/01/lawsuit-claims-fitbit-devices-dangerously-underestimate-heart-rate/ http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/01/lawsuit-claims-fi...
panglott 11y ago
The article calls it the "manpo-kei", but the Japanese sign clearly says "manpo mētā" (Manpo-Meter) with "meter" in katakana.
jim-greer 11y ago
450M data points is cool, but without knowing how many people that represents, it's hard to say how meaningful this is.
- jim-greer 11y ago
  OP answered my tweet and said that it's thousands of people, which is definitely significant.
jackreichert 11y ago
The measuring stick in this article seems to solely concerning the resting heart rate. Yes, this is because that is the origin for the 10k/day measure; but, surely there are other benefits regardless of what intensity a workout you have.
- guelo 11y ago
  It's probably because that's the only data they have that can serve as a proxy for fitness.
  - brandonb 11y ago
    Yep—resting heart rate is a good proxy, and readily measurable from Apple Watch. A definitive study would randomly assign people to an exercise routine, follow them for 20-30 years, and then measure hard outcomes like heart attacks, strokes, and all-cause mortality. Since that's pretty challenging, all of the studies on exercise (and nutrition, for that matter) make two types of approximation: 1. analyze correlations in data rather than randomize, and/or 2. analyze proxy metrics like resting heart rate or blood pressure rather than hard endpoints. That's part of what makes research on health so complex!
AdmiralAsshat 11y ago
Well that's good to know. I literally can't get to 10,000 steps during a normal day unless I make it a goal during my lunch break to run down to the gym and walk around 4 miles on the treadmill. Since my walking speed is 3.2/3.5 mph, this can't be done leisurely. My only hope for getting to 10,000 is that I'll do the 3.5 or so at the gym and then hopefully be required to run to the grocery store later in the evening so that I can be forced to walk more. The fitness tracker is supposed to be a motivator, but instead when I see that I'm only at 7-8k per day even after an hour-long walk, it feels more like a fat shamer.
- ProAm 11y ago
  Well shame and motivation are pretty much antipodal, the sheer amount of shame should motivate you.
- weinzierl 11y ago
  I have a typical in front of the screen job, just walking to and from work and from meeting to meeting. I found that 10000 steps were not much of a problem for a typical work day, if I consequently walked. No elevator, no bus. 10000 steps should be about 4 to 5 miles or 6 to 8 km. I always thought this is realistic for a typical work day, but your comment made me thinking that maybe my tracker is just off. I should compare it to a GPS log one day.
  - AdmiralAsshat 11y ago
    Most people don't walk to work. I live eight miles away from the office, so that's not really an option for me.
    - bobjob 11y ago
      Then take the bike ... walking is not the only way to exercise.
    - Jedd 11y ago
      Conveniently buses tend to stop at multiple places - not just your home and your office. So, assuming your interest is in walking more (but not necessarily 16 miles a day) you could perhaps walk a little way, and catch the bus from a different stop. And/or perhaps get off the bus a few stops before your office and walk the last bit. You can adjust to taste depending on how you're feeling, how late / early you're running, whether it's raining, and so on.
melling 11y ago
Do people read the Wall Street Journal simply publish the same story 3 weeks later? http://www.wsj.com/articles/stop-counting-10-000-steps-check-your-personal-activity-intelligence-1453313834 http://www.wsj.com/articles/stop-counting-10-000-steps-check...
- brandonb 11y ago
  I thought their metric ("physical activity index") sounded interesting, but at least from the WSJ article, it seems to be a bit of a black box. I'd love to see Mio publish some analysis.
arprocter 11y ago
I walk quickly with long strides, so steps always seemed like a bit of a kludge - someone with shorter legs would presumably take more steps to travel the same distance as me, but would that necessarily make them 'healthier' than me? In high school we had a cardio class and the requirement was 'get your heart rate above xxx BPM' - it would take less effort for out of shape folks to get above the threshold
- csours 11y ago
  I'm not sure if this is a semantic difference, but how do you know it would take less 'effort' to get the heart rate up for out of shape people? I think 'less intensive exercise' would be better phrasing. Heart rate is a pretty good proxy for 'effort'. As you get in better shape, your body is more efficient at all sorts of tasks, including fitness challenges, so to get your heart rate higher, you have to increase the intensity of the activity.
  - jedbrown 11y ago
    Anecdotally, I experience somewhat higher perceived effort at a given (moderate) heart rate when better trained. For example, my resting and max heart rates have been nearly constant at 36-40 and 170-175 since about 18 (I'm 32 now). During that time, I've been a top-10 NCAA nordic skier, alpinist, and a casual runner (2y in Chicago; 'nuff said). I try to avoid "junk" time in the 128-142 zone because the intensity is too high for recovery/endurance benefits, but not high enough to target aerobic threshold or VO2max. When in mediocre shape and trying to do a lower intensity workout, I accidentally end up in that range more easily than when in racing shape. Meanwhile, threshold and VO2max intensities are easier to sustain when better trained, though I can hit similar max heart rates either way. I interpret this as the lactic acid versus heart rate curves have different profiles even with similar endpoints. I've also seen acute short-term effects. For example, I did a 160-mile backcountry race after a competitive nordic ski season. For about a week after the race, I couldn't get my heart rate above 145 (30 beats below my normal max). During that week, I did VO2max-intensity intervals with a well-matched regular training partner and could match a pace that would normally require me to be at 160 while I was at just 140. The pace felt more comfortable than expected (probably "felt like 150"), but there was no headroom to go faster.
kumarski 11y ago
A calorie is not a calorie. Leptin signal blocking counts for something...
- ska 11y ago
  To a first approximation, a calorie is a calorie. The mechanisms that make this not strictly true (and there are many) aren't really worth your time and focus when thinking about diet and exercise, unless you're trying to fool yourself into not doing something difficult.
  - vacri 11y ago
    > To a first approximation, a calorie is a calorie. Nope. A calorie is a thousand calories. It's a silly, ambiguous measure. Kilojoules is unambiguous and should be used instead.
    - ska 11y ago
      That's a bit of pedantry that adds nothing. Sure, it's not a great unit but it is the one that is used. The post I was replying to wasn't about confusion in units. If it helps you, read it as kCalories, but the distinction is not important here.
gthtjtkt 11y ago
Everything about modern fitness is fascinating. We have access to more data about health and exercise than ever before, all kinds of personalized fitness trackers, calorie counters, meal planners, personal trainers, exercise routines and equipment. Yet somehow our society still seems to be getting fatter and more out of shape every year. What is going on!?
- jasonshen 11y ago
  A big reason why is that information is not enough. There are multiple 100B+ industries that are dedicated to driving sedentary and calorie-increasing activities (TV, gaming, fast food, soda, beer). There is far less effort devoted to getting people to exert more physical effort. Think about how the only real way most white collar workers exert ourselves is through "exercising". Aka moving around for the express purpose of burning calories.
- tremendo 11y ago
  We got fatter and out of shape over the course of the last 30-40 years. All these tools and trackers and planners are only from very recently (less than 5 years?). And I understand the getting heavier curve has indeed leveled off in the last few years, we are no longer getting fatter.
- gukov 11y ago
  Food releases dopamine, an app doesn't.
- pachydermic 11y ago
  The people who are affluent enough to buy all those gizmos and apps and educated enough/have enough leisure time to care are generally already the healthier ones.
- tdicola 11y ago
  Sugar, corn, carbohydrates and bad science from folks like Ancel Keys (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancel_Keys https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancel_Keys). Look at something like a fruit juice from Odwalla, it says 'Super Food' on the label so it must be healthy right? Compare how much sugar is in a 16oz 'superfood' fruit juice (http://www.odwalla.com/products/smoothies/original-superfood http://www.odwalla.com/products/smoothies/original-superfood - 49 grams) vs. a 16oz Coca-Cola (http://www.coca-colaproductfacts.com/en/coca-cola-products/coca-cola/ http://www.coca-colaproductfacts.com/en/coca-cola-products/c... - 52 grams). We're drinking the same amount of crap but with a prettier feel good label.
auganov 11y ago
Without adjusting for BMIs it doesn't tell us that much about causality. If you could get that data that would be huge.
- blakesterz 11y ago
  I just recently read that BMI is turning out to be a not so great measure of things now. http://www.nature.com/ijo/journal/vaop/naam/abs/ijo201617a.html http://www.nature.com/ijo/journal/vaop/naam/abs/ijo201617a.h... " Using BMI categories as the main indicator of health, an estimated 74 936 678 US adults are misclassified as cardiometabolically unhealthy or cardiometabolically healthy. "
neves 11y ago
Now I'm impressed with the data generated from iWatch. I thought it would be used just in complex studies, but we can get important insights for everyday life. I really want to buy an activity tracker now.
newdaynewuser 11y ago
I got into 10,000 steps craze, thanks in part to my company providing Fitbits. I was not really a health nut, just 3 days a week at gym, lifting and cardio. I had a bit of muscle definition. Gym was just something I did like brushing teeth. I didn't focus my life around it. Due to incentives and competition among co-workers, I got into Fitbit seriously. While it was fun, but after a few months, not only I lost some definition but also gained weight. I was expecting to lose muscle mass but didn't know that 10000 steps spread out throughout day were not enough activity. Now I realize Fitbits are great for extremely unhealthy or lazy people. But those of us who been working out without any devices should stay away from any such devices. And not change your workout routines. It is too late for me, now I cannot workout without a device and some nice charts. I ended up getting a HRM based device. I like the charts it provides but I was happy using mirror to judge how much I needed to workout. And I didn't need any external motivation back then.
- _lex 11y ago
  Yeah, something that most people don't know is that extrinsic motivation dissolves intrinsic motivation. see http://www.spring.org.uk/2009/10/how-rewards-can-backfire-and-reduce-motivation.php http://www.spring.org.uk/2009/10/how-rewards-can-backfire-an... This means that fitbit will leave you as either a fitbit addict (if you stick with it), or as someone who's less healthy than you would have been otherwise (if you don't, because now you'll exercise less on your own).
  - Throwaway23412 11y ago
    Yeah, if you're someone who's already spending three days a week at the gym, you probably don't need a Fitbit. Especially in the GP's case where it seems like he may have substituted his gym time with a Fitbit.
  - andersonmvd 11y ago
    The article is very cool. It made me remember that I saw it somewhere, and that's the candle problem TED talk: https://www.ted.com/talks/dan_pink_on_motivation https://www.ted.com/talks/dan_pink_on_motivation I had a good time watching it.
dsmithatx 11y ago
Interesting data but, does lowering my resting heart rate mean I will live longer? Will it decrease the chance of having a heart attack?
- neves 11y ago
  based in the article and the linked research, yes!
petercooper 11y ago
Is resting heart rate a good indicator either? Mine is typically 55-58bpm but I do no organized exercise and am sitting for much of the day (I do try to walk quick and run up stairs to make up for it, so while I'm not "fit", I don't feel unfit per se). I am free from cardiac related symptoms, so does this mean I am "naturally" fit without really trying? (A bit like people who don't focus on their diet but are slim.) Or, as I suspect, is resting heart rate not a very useful indicator of fitness at all?
- outworlder 11y ago
  > so does this mean I am "naturally" fit without really trying? Doesn't mean anything. Could even be the case that you have an existing heart condition which causes brachycardia – this is why many doctors will ask for exams if a patient has a heart rate that low. Or could mean that your heart muscle is stronger than what would be expected with your lifestyle. Only a specialized doctor would know.
ChemicalWarfare 11y ago
I think this is more or less common knowledge that the higher the intensity of exercise the less time or "steps" in this case is needed to achieve the same goal. There is a curve ball however that needs to be taken into the account - the question is what exactly your goal is? For example, a sprinter and a long distance runner might be averaging the same BPM rate over the course of the week both resting and during their workouts, the end result is quite different however. I myself have always been a proponent of high intensity training for everything - short and intense weight lifting workouts, sprinting etc. This changed when at one point in my athletic "career" I switched to boxing at a relatively young age (under 20 y.o.) and my shins/calves started getting sore to the point where it was difficult to walk. The way to condition those for relatively low-intensity but long (2+ hour) workouts? Even longer and lower intensity workouts basically just walking around or light jogging for hours.
baldgeek 11y ago
Been using fitbit for over 2 years now (~ 7.5Million steps logged). Have the data being pushed to other web apps (MyFitnessPal, FitStudio, Higi, Acheivemint, Walgreens balance rewards). Also, trained up and ran 2 half-marathons in this time. Lost 60lbs so far, first 20lbs was from increased walking and diligent choices via calorie logging in MyFitnessPal. Fitbit is not the be all end all, but it definitely keeps me aware.
agumonkey 11y ago
Having gone through a heart failure, I can attest that walking is godsend. Even of moderate effort, as long as it's more than 30 minutes. Small hills are bonuses. -- sent from my dead-oriented design desktop wheelchair.
antirez 11y ago
I and my wife both have 50-53 bpm at rest, mine certain periods were 48 and doctor demanded to do an echocardiogram even after I explained I do a lot of sport. Everything was fine. Btw TLDR, we got those bpms doing crossfit 3/4 times-week (4/5 my wife), we rarely walk at all. I switched to crossfit recently (a few months), before I did powerlifting + cardio for years which provides very similar results from the POV of heart rate, AFAIK. Btw I think my level of cardio fitness is improving with CrossFit compared to PL.
- hueving 11y ago
  Be careful with crossfit, most of the instructors have no idea what they are doing and can have you doing routines bad for your back. I personally know two people that ended up with back problems from crossfit (each at a different gym).
  - antirez 11y ago
    I agree, however if you hit crossfit after 5 years of power lifting, you are much safe and know what box to avoid. In my current box the injuries rate is near zero because the two instructors are crazy about form. Still crossfit is itself partially risky like many other sports, so also self-regulation is needed, and a bit of luck.
- jdhzzz 11y ago
  I have similar high 40's bpm and had a similar experience with my doctor sending me for all manner of tests. All okay. He claimed, and the article seems to back him up, that unless I was a marathoner (I'm not) my heart rate should not be that low. I do high intensity (for me) exercise 3-4 times a week at about an hour a crack. There may be congenital component as both my brothers have low resting pulse and neither is as active as I. I use the FitBit Charge HR after moving over from the version 1 Microsoft Band which had corroded under the onslaught of my profuse sweating after 10 months use. I found the Charge HR MUCH more accurate than the Microsoft Band for heart rate. Neither as accurate as the Azumio Heart Rate android app, but the Charge HR good enough for my own workout tracking.
the_economist 11y ago
After I got my iPhone 6 and started monitoring my steps using its pedometer, I started walking 10,000 steps every single day. After a few months, I noticed that my body was quite a bit more toned and muscular. Great benefit to the steps!
anigbrowl 11y ago
The only statistics I care about are the number of exercise reps I do each day and how many hours a week I spend dancing to loud music.Not only do I not want to get hung up on analytics, I see absolutely no reason to share that data with anyone else so they can work out better ways to advertise to me.
bootload 11y ago
Do you need to do 10K steps per day? I don't think your average person is capable, let alone able to set aside the time. Tools that confirm the minimum physical PT requirement in my view, is good. It will individualise the minimum requirement. I do above and below, 10km/day, 6 days per week, year in, year out. [0] This puts me hard case territory. Does everyone need this? Probably not. I move upwards of 1600km to 2000km per year. If you move a minimum of 5km/hr that is 2 hours per day. Time commitment required. I choose to move across broken ground and carry weight, a minimum of 1kg and irregular max of 20Kg, averaging around 8kg. The physical commitment to do this is high. What do I find. 10km/day is hard. In the cold it is better. You have to take precautions in the heat. You don't have to count calories as much. You get sore feet and muscles. Do you need it? I doubt it. For me I can probably meet your requirements with a 5km/day with some resistance gym work. Interesting psychological observations: The most likely time for failure to get out the door is the short time before you start. If you say to yourself, "f*&$-it, just go" you are more likely start and complete. I've tried this for a decade and the resistance to start is pretty constant but one you get out the door, this disappears. Do the hardest thing first ~ http://seldomlogical.com/hard.html http://seldomlogical.com/hard.html [0] currently at 5km/day with weights and gym till I crack 200km.
contravariant 11y ago
Who thought it was a good idea to use bigger bubbles for larger groups of people? Those values should have the least spread, drawing them bigger for no purpose is just confusing. Simple error bars would have been a lot better.
dfar1 11y ago
We should not dismiss products as Fitbits as being ineffective just because maybe 10k steps is not a valid metric. A little competition and settings of goals is good for everyone.
- kilroy123 11y ago
  I agree. As someone currently losing weight, my fitbit is pretty invaluable to me. I track every single thing I eat and drink. My fitbit then automatically tracks my walking/ running, and subtracts those calories I burn from the food tracker.
- agumonkey 11y ago
  Even an inaccurate Google Fit notification about how much I've walked made me feel better and willing to do more and more regularly.
thesz 11y ago
10 000 steps roughly equal to 7-7,5 km walked. To stop the shrinking of important parts of brain you need about 5 km/day average in a week (you can do 35 km in Sunday, for example). BTW, 5 km/h is close to typical walking speed, not fast and not slow either. So yes, you do not need 10K steps a day. Slightly above 7000 steps per day would suffice.
erikb 11y ago
Hm, what about the other goals of walking 10k steps? I started walking to lose weight and found, thanks to all these smart devices, that when I walk more than 15k steps I actually drop in weight. Since I'm on the very unhealthy part of the scale it really helps a lot to improve my health. What I found is that the motivational gain from having data is quite low though. For a month maybe it was good motivation, but if you don't have someone to specifically compete against then you just stop caring.
Guildpact 11y ago
The scale of a lot of this data is from 74-77 bpm resting heart rate. I feel like there is only a small correlation and its a small distance improvement from "couch potato" to "high intensity"
frenchcruz 11y ago
I get 10,000 steps somdays. But sometym, when i dont walk too i get :P
aivosha 11y ago
I dont buy the intense workouts as better alternative to more "slow burn" workouts. I'm a runner and I used to do fast 5k runs 3-4 times a week. I would feel very tired at the end of each run, just depleted. Didnt wanna do anything else but just relax. Had headaches too and most likely due to burning carbs at fast rate (intense workout, high heart rate) and basically depleting my carb reserves, which i think are about 2500 calories in a person. Then I stumbled upon a book, i think here on HN, called Slow Burn by Stu Mittleman [1]. It changed the way i look at the cardio exercise dramatically ! You wanna be healthy - burn fat (slow pace, long time, low HR). You wanna be fit - burn carbs (fast pace, short runs, high HR). These are very different goals as you can imagine ! So which one do you want really ? [1] http://www.amazon.ca/Slow-Burn-Stu-Mittleman/dp/0062736744 http://www.amazon.ca/Slow-Burn-Stu-Mittleman/dp/0062736744 Edit: Just wanted to add, now I run 10k easily, feel great after each run and dont have any headaches and I think, though i dont really care, i loose weight too. Just keeping the HR under control during the run, thats all you need.
- kevinwang 11y ago
  Can one be fit and healthy?
  - aivosha 11y ago
    the book is by ultra-marathon runner, so yes you can be, but if you are just "casual" runner, you probably wanna be healthy first. the point is you need to teach your body to burn fat and intensify the training slowly by getting "fitter", meaning you will run faster in the same HR zone as before - the zone that is indicator of your body burning fat.
  - dcgoss 11y ago
    Exactly. No one should pick between slow burn and fast burn. It's much better to incorporate both into your exercise at different times of the week , to address different areas of fitness and to train both slow and fast twitch muscles.
kazinator 11y ago
Whaddya know. The bogus idea of chewing food 30 times (at least) also originated (or rather was popularized) in Japan. This sort of falls into the same bucket. This was originated by American diet reformer Horace Fletcher in the early 1900's. See here, e.g.: http://www.upi.com/Health_News/2009/10/31/Japan-govt-Chew-food-30-times/47381257015651/ http://www.upi.com/Health_News/2009/10/31/Japan-govt-Chew-fo...
amar-singh 11y ago
Yes, we need 10000 steps every day. Its very good to lead a healthy life..
didibus 11y ago
This simply looked at resting heart rate. Sure, you could do better then 10k step a day to improve that, but this does not mean there are no other benefits to 10k steps. As the article points out, there's no study of it. For me personally, I find walking is fun, and simple to integrate in my routine. It burns an extra 300 cal a day, and forces me to spread my activity throughout the day. That last one is important, because there is a growing number of evidence that inactivity is very bad for you, and that exercise is not enough to counter the effect. What you need is to decrease your periods of inactivity. Finally, walking is very safe and easy on your body. That's not to say any other alternate type of activity wouldn't be just as good, or better. When it comes to exercise though, anything is better then nothing, so if 10k works for you, keep at it.
zobzu 11y ago
if i bike everyday my resting hr is 42bpm if i dont for a month its 47 walking is just one way, bike or swim is better though.. (and yes ive a rather low hr genetically regardless)
rajneeshgopalan 11y ago
I regularly work out, about 3-4 times a week. I do this to stay in shape and have an healthy lifestyle. Although devices and charts can aid me in getting even better, I do not use any. I simply listen carefully to my body and adapt.
z3t4 11y ago
Humans walk very efficient. If you want to burn fat or get your heart rate up, a 20 second sprint is equal to two hours of walking. If you want to increase the capacity of your cardiovascular system, to get a lower resting pulse, the best method is to engage in an activity that gives you around 70% of your max heart rate, for about 45 minutes or more. Examples of such activities (for normal people) is gym training, cleaning the house, mowing the lawn, etc. At least twice a week. Max pulse is around 220 minus age. So if you are 35, you want to average (220-35)*0.7=130, witch will feel easy.

403 points by brandonb 11y ago

Hey all—OP here. I'm working on developing Cardiogram, the Apple Watch app from which this data is derived, and working with UCSF cardiology doing machine learning on heart rate data. Feel free to ask any questions here!

blakesterz 11y ago
>> More research funding is needed. Just kidding—isn’t that how all of these are supposed to end? Ha! Really interesting numbers there, and encouraging. It doesn't take all that much work to get your resting heart rate in a good range.
kenjackson 11y ago
So is there an app available (hopefully yours) that tells me when/what I need to do to hit the "right" numbers each day?
- brandonb 11y ago
  Yes—that's certainly our long-term goal. This analysis is a first step, but before providing personalized recommendations, I think we'd want to do a lot more validation. There are a lot of corner cases in the real world, and particularly in the wake of what's been happening with Theranos and Zenefits, I think it's on startups to really do things right in healthcare. In the meantime, if you have an Apple Watch and want the graphs + metrics, feel free to take Cardiogram for a spin: https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/cardiogram/id1000017994?ls=1&mt=8 https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/cardiogram/id1000017994?ls=1... (Android Wear is coming soon.)
Someone 11y ago
How come your graphs do not go below a resting heart rate of 70? If you look at http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr041.pdf http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr041.pdf, about half the population should be below that. The only explanations I can think of are either that Apple Watch owners are a non-representative sample (possibly true. But _that_ non-representative?) or that you do not manage to measure resting heart rate that well (how good is the Apple Watch at measuring heart rate?)
- brandonb 11y ago
  Apple Watch is pretty great at measuring heart rate in my experience. Part of the difference may be the circumstances in which the measurement is taken—in the clinic, "resting heart rate" is typically measured when the patient is sitting, in a controlled setting. For an app like Cardiogram, your heart rate is being measured throughout your day, "in the wild," every 10 minutes. We do filter out any measurements taken while you were moving (walking, during a workout) and for a few minutes after the movement stops. But, of course, your heart rate might be higher in real life than it is at the doctor's office. Maybe you've just had coffee. Or you're stressed out driving in traffic. For example, here's mine in bay area traffic: https://twitter.com/bballinger/status/695704441626886145 https://twitter.com/bballinger/status/695704441626886145 In Cardiogram itself, we show the user their whole distribution of resting heart rates. What's reported in the blog post is the median of all those measurements. By the way, I don't think it's known what the "right" answer is here. We do know stress can trigger a heart attack, and coffee can trigger arrhythmias like atrial fibrillation. So perhaps there's a lot of information lurking in the shape of your personal distribution of heart rates. But before now, nobody has really had the data to answer these types of questions.
  - rconti 11y ago
    So you're not actually measuring resting heart rate, just average non-active heartrate. Those sounds like two different things. My FitBit HR (also using an optical sensor) says my resting HR has varied between about 52 and 59bpm over the past 5 weeks, which passes the sniff test. I tend to be in the high 70s/low 80s when standing and moving about, but when I sit down (to work or relax or whatever), it drops into the low 50s. One that really sticks in my mind was the day I did a free go karting session courtesy of blood donation. Wisely, they had us race first, then donate. I got out of the kart, walked to the waiting area, sat down, and 5 minutes later was called back and given a resting HR of 42.
  - outericky 11y ago
    You hit 140 in traffic? Wow. Resting HR is tricky - I wouldn't consider myself a gym rat but I do run a few times per week and I ride my bike for fitness so I spend far longer than 1 hr above 150 per week. My resting HR is low 40's. I might hit 65 in traffic.... Cool stuff though. Eager to try it.
2sk21 11y ago
I was motivated to download your app based on your article so clearly you did a good job explaining the idea :-) I have to say that the Apple Watch has had a profound impact on my health. For the past 7 years, I work out at a gym almost every morning. However I did not realize that I was excessively sedentary for the rest of the day until I started wearing the watch. I now force myself to move around a lot more and sit less.
- wdewind 11y ago
  > a profound impact on my health Can you expand on that?
  - 2sk21 11y ago
    Every winter, I tend to gain some wait - a few pounds usually. This winter, I have forced myself to go out for walks in the afternoon, no matter how cold it is to get my overall activity up to my target. No weight gain at all. I suppose this could have been achieved with other fitness trackers but the Apple Watch has a very nice gentle way of reminding me about reaching my movement goals by tapping me on my wrist.
- CamatHN 11y ago
  Relating to this, does anyone know any good Android apps that record such data?
  - brandonb 11y ago
    You can sign up for our (upcoming) Android Wear beta on the homepage: https://cardiogr.am https://cardiogr.am
  - nl 11y ago
    Google Fit is OK.
maerF0x0 11y ago
Is there any research around sum of heart beats as an indicator of life/health? I'm trying to understand if the marathoner's low resting BPM is fewer total beats over time in spite of having temporary higher BPM for exercise? Vs someone who maybe has resting heart rate of 70, but never exercises and thus doesnt have any high period either.
- outericky 11y ago
  Sum of heartbeats isn't really that indicative. Surely everyone has a finite amount of beats but that's less the point. A low resting heart rate generally indicates a healthier system. but there are so many additional variables.
- outericky 11y ago
  Sum of heartbeats isn't really that indicative. Surely everyone has a finite amount of beats but that's less the point. A low resting heart rate generally indicates a healthier system. but there are so many additional variables.
djhn 11y ago
Could you recommend some seminal books / articles on timeseries analysis of heart rate data and similar physiological variables? PS. Have you heard of / tried Beddit?

schwap 11y ago

I imagine the popularity of '10,000 steps a day' was mainly driven by how cheap/easy it was to measure steps. Nowadays with smart watches or dedicated fitness trackers it's finally becoming possible to come up with better metrics that can be widely used.

HorizonXP 11y ago

Great summary of your findings. I've been wearing a Fitbit Charge HR since last June, and I definitely do not reach 10k steps daily. However, I've noticed that on days I hit the gym and do weight lifting, my caloric burn easily tops 3300, while on days where I'm lazy and just working on my laptop, I barely break 2100. As a rule, I typically do not do any cardiovascular exercise. I think, I do not know for sure, the Fitbit is better suited for measuring cardiovascular activities, so I'm not sure how or why it's adjusting my caloric burn on my gym days. Maybe it's looking at my heart rate and extrapolating? Anyway, I'd be very much interested in some kind of fitness tracker that can provide better estimates on caloric burn. That coupled with calorie counting/recording of meals is what will really help me shed this weight.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
Swizec 11y ago
> Maybe it's looking at my heart rate and extrapolating? Yes. At least that's what I hope/assume mine is doing. > Anyway, I'd be very much interested in some kind of fitness tracker that can provide better estimates on caloric burn. The 2nd most accurate formula involves weight and heart rate. http://fitness.stackexchange.com/questions/12435/is-it-possible-to-measure-calorie-burn-from-heart-rate-alone http://fitness.stackexchange.com/questions/12435/is-it-possi... Your Charge HR knows both of those, so I would hope it uses them. That's the whole reason I bought one in the first place. It looks like measuring VO2max is even more accurate. But that's very annoying and invasive to measure as it involves breathing through a tube.
- fefifofu 11y ago
  I do not believe Fitbit uses heart rate to track calories. If it uses heart rate to track calories, it would be able to work well with cycling exercises, but it does not. From fitbit website: "Fitbit trackers are optimized for walking, running, and general lifestyle activities but are not recommended for tracking cycling"[0]. Sounds like it uses the step counter and not heart rate to estimate calorie burn along with your weight and age etc. The Charge HR heart rate functionality could be useful to keep my heart rate in a specific range during cardio. However, it doesn't seem like it's good for that either[1]. [0]https://help.fitbit.com/articles/en_US/Help_article/Does-the-Fitbit-tracker-accurately-track-calories-from-cycling/?l=en_US&c=Topics%3AFood_Calories&fs=Search&pn=1 https://help.fitbit.com/articles/en_US/Help_article/Does-the... [1]http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/01/lawsuit-claims-fitbit-devices-dangerously-underestimate-heart-rate/ http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/01/lawsuit-claims-fi...

panglott 11y ago

The article calls it the "manpo-kei", but the Japanese sign clearly says "manpo mētā" (Manpo-Meter) with "meter" in katakana.

jim-greer 11y ago

450M data points is cool, but without knowing how many people that represents, it's hard to say how meaningful this is.

jim-greer 11y ago
OP answered my tweet and said that it's thousands of people, which is definitely significant.

jackreichert 11y ago

The measuring stick in this article seems to solely concerning the resting heart rate. Yes, this is because that is the origin for the 10k/day measure; but, surely there are other benefits regardless of what intensity a workout you have.

guelo 11y ago
It's probably because that's the only data they have that can serve as a proxy for fitness.
- brandonb 11y ago
  Yep—resting heart rate is a good proxy, and readily measurable from Apple Watch. A definitive study would randomly assign people to an exercise routine, follow them for 20-30 years, and then measure hard outcomes like heart attacks, strokes, and all-cause mortality. Since that's pretty challenging, all of the studies on exercise (and nutrition, for that matter) make two types of approximation: 1. analyze correlations in data rather than randomize, and/or 2. analyze proxy metrics like resting heart rate or blood pressure rather than hard endpoints. That's part of what makes research on health so complex!

AdmiralAsshat 11y ago

Well that's good to know. I literally can't get to 10,000 steps during a normal day unless I make it a goal during my lunch break to run down to the gym and walk around 4 miles on the treadmill. Since my walking speed is 3.2/3.5 mph, this can't be done leisurely. My only hope for getting to 10,000 is that I'll do the 3.5 or so at the gym and then hopefully be required to run to the grocery store later in the evening so that I can be forced to walk more. The fitness tracker is supposed to be a motivator, but instead when I see that I'm only at 7-8k per day even after an hour-long walk, it feels more like a fat shamer.

ProAm 11y ago
Well shame and motivation are pretty much antipodal, the sheer amount of shame should motivate you.
weinzierl 11y ago
I have a typical in front of the screen job, just walking to and from work and from meeting to meeting. I found that 10000 steps were not much of a problem for a typical work day, if I consequently walked. No elevator, no bus. 10000 steps should be about 4 to 5 miles or 6 to 8 km. I always thought this is realistic for a typical work day, but your comment made me thinking that maybe my tracker is just off. I should compare it to a GPS log one day.
- AdmiralAsshat 11y ago
  Most people don't walk to work. I live eight miles away from the office, so that's not really an option for me.
  - bobjob 11y ago
    Then take the bike ... walking is not the only way to exercise.
  - Jedd 11y ago
    Conveniently buses tend to stop at multiple places - not just your home and your office. So, assuming your interest is in walking more (but not necessarily 16 miles a day) you could perhaps walk a little way, and catch the bus from a different stop. And/or perhaps get off the bus a few stops before your office and walk the last bit. You can adjust to taste depending on how you're feeling, how late / early you're running, whether it's raining, and so on.

melling 11y ago

Do people read the Wall Street Journal simply publish the same story 3 weeks later? http://www.wsj.com/articles/stop-counting-10-000-steps-check-your-personal-activity-intelligence-1453313834 http://www.wsj.com/articles/stop-counting-10-000-steps-check...

brandonb 11y ago
I thought their metric ("physical activity index") sounded interesting, but at least from the WSJ article, it seems to be a bit of a black box. I'd love to see Mio publish some analysis.

arprocter 11y ago

I walk quickly with long strides, so steps always seemed like a bit of a kludge - someone with shorter legs would presumably take more steps to travel the same distance as me, but would that necessarily make them 'healthier' than me? In high school we had a cardio class and the requirement was 'get your heart rate above xxx BPM' - it would take less effort for out of shape folks to get above the threshold

csours 11y ago
I'm not sure if this is a semantic difference, but how do you know it would take less 'effort' to get the heart rate up for out of shape people? I think 'less intensive exercise' would be better phrasing. Heart rate is a pretty good proxy for 'effort'. As you get in better shape, your body is more efficient at all sorts of tasks, including fitness challenges, so to get your heart rate higher, you have to increase the intensity of the activity.
- jedbrown 11y ago
  Anecdotally, I experience somewhat higher perceived effort at a given (moderate) heart rate when better trained. For example, my resting and max heart rates have been nearly constant at 36-40 and 170-175 since about 18 (I'm 32 now). During that time, I've been a top-10 NCAA nordic skier, alpinist, and a casual runner (2y in Chicago; 'nuff said). I try to avoid "junk" time in the 128-142 zone because the intensity is too high for recovery/endurance benefits, but not high enough to target aerobic threshold or VO2max. When in mediocre shape and trying to do a lower intensity workout, I accidentally end up in that range more easily than when in racing shape. Meanwhile, threshold and VO2max intensities are easier to sustain when better trained, though I can hit similar max heart rates either way. I interpret this as the lactic acid versus heart rate curves have different profiles even with similar endpoints. I've also seen acute short-term effects. For example, I did a 160-mile backcountry race after a competitive nordic ski season. For about a week after the race, I couldn't get my heart rate above 145 (30 beats below my normal max). During that week, I did VO2max-intensity intervals with a well-matched regular training partner and could match a pace that would normally require me to be at 160 while I was at just 140. The pace felt more comfortable than expected (probably "felt like 150"), but there was no headroom to go faster.

kumarski 11y ago

A calorie is not a calorie. Leptin signal blocking counts for something...

ska 11y ago
To a first approximation, a calorie is a calorie. The mechanisms that make this not strictly true (and there are many) aren't really worth your time and focus when thinking about diet and exercise, unless you're trying to fool yourself into not doing something difficult.
- vacri 11y ago
  > To a first approximation, a calorie is a calorie. Nope. A calorie is a thousand calories. It's a silly, ambiguous measure. Kilojoules is unambiguous and should be used instead.
  - ska 11y ago
    That's a bit of pedantry that adds nothing. Sure, it's not a great unit but it is the one that is used. The post I was replying to wasn't about confusion in units. If it helps you, read it as kCalories, but the distinction is not important here.

gthtjtkt 11y ago

Everything about modern fitness is fascinating. We have access to more data about health and exercise than ever before, all kinds of personalized fitness trackers, calorie counters, meal planners, personal trainers, exercise routines and equipment. Yet somehow our society still seems to be getting fatter and more out of shape every year. What is going on!?

jasonshen 11y ago
A big reason why is that information is not enough. There are multiple 100B+ industries that are dedicated to driving sedentary and calorie-increasing activities (TV, gaming, fast food, soda, beer). There is far less effort devoted to getting people to exert more physical effort. Think about how the only real way most white collar workers exert ourselves is through "exercising". Aka moving around for the express purpose of burning calories.
tremendo 11y ago
We got fatter and out of shape over the course of the last 30-40 years. All these tools and trackers and planners are only from very recently (less than 5 years?). And I understand the getting heavier curve has indeed leveled off in the last few years, we are no longer getting fatter.
gukov 11y ago
Food releases dopamine, an app doesn't.
pachydermic 11y ago
The people who are affluent enough to buy all those gizmos and apps and educated enough/have enough leisure time to care are generally already the healthier ones.
tdicola 11y ago
Sugar, corn, carbohydrates and bad science from folks like Ancel Keys (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancel_Keys https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancel_Keys). Look at something like a fruit juice from Odwalla, it says 'Super Food' on the label so it must be healthy right? Compare how much sugar is in a 16oz 'superfood' fruit juice (http://www.odwalla.com/products/smoothies/original-superfood http://www.odwalla.com/products/smoothies/original-superfood - 49 grams) vs. a 16oz Coca-Cola (http://www.coca-colaproductfacts.com/en/coca-cola-products/coca-cola/ http://www.coca-colaproductfacts.com/en/coca-cola-products/c... - 52 grams). We're drinking the same amount of crap but with a prettier feel good label.

auganov 11y ago

Without adjusting for BMIs it doesn't tell us that much about causality. If you could get that data that would be huge.

blakesterz 11y ago
I just recently read that BMI is turning out to be a not so great measure of things now. http://www.nature.com/ijo/journal/vaop/naam/abs/ijo201617a.html http://www.nature.com/ijo/journal/vaop/naam/abs/ijo201617a.h... " Using BMI categories as the main indicator of health, an estimated 74 936 678 US adults are misclassified as cardiometabolically unhealthy or cardiometabolically healthy. "

neves 11y ago

Now I'm impressed with the data generated from iWatch. I thought it would be used just in complex studies, but we can get important insights for everyday life. I really want to buy an activity tracker now.

newdaynewuser 11y ago

I got into 10,000 steps craze, thanks in part to my company providing Fitbits. I was not really a health nut, just 3 days a week at gym, lifting and cardio. I had a bit of muscle definition. Gym was just something I did like brushing teeth. I didn't focus my life around it. Due to incentives and competition among co-workers, I got into Fitbit seriously. While it was fun, but after a few months, not only I lost some definition but also gained weight. I was expecting to lose muscle mass but didn't know that 10000 steps spread out throughout day were not enough activity. Now I realize Fitbits are great for extremely unhealthy or lazy people. But those of us who been working out without any devices should stay away from any such devices. And not change your workout routines. It is too late for me, now I cannot workout without a device and some nice charts. I ended up getting a HRM based device. I like the charts it provides but I was happy using mirror to judge how much I needed to workout. And I didn't need any external motivation back then.

_lex 11y ago
Yeah, something that most people don't know is that extrinsic motivation dissolves intrinsic motivation. see http://www.spring.org.uk/2009/10/how-rewards-can-backfire-and-reduce-motivation.php http://www.spring.org.uk/2009/10/how-rewards-can-backfire-an... This means that fitbit will leave you as either a fitbit addict (if you stick with it), or as someone who's less healthy than you would have been otherwise (if you don't, because now you'll exercise less on your own).
- Throwaway23412 11y ago
  Yeah, if you're someone who's already spending three days a week at the gym, you probably don't need a Fitbit. Especially in the GP's case where it seems like he may have substituted his gym time with a Fitbit.
- andersonmvd 11y ago
  The article is very cool. It made me remember that I saw it somewhere, and that's the candle problem TED talk: https://www.ted.com/talks/dan_pink_on_motivation https://www.ted.com/talks/dan_pink_on_motivation I had a good time watching it.

dsmithatx 11y ago

Interesting data but, does lowering my resting heart rate mean I will live longer? Will it decrease the chance of having a heart attack?

neves 11y ago
based in the article and the linked research, yes!

petercooper 11y ago

Is resting heart rate a good indicator either? Mine is typically 55-58bpm but I do no organized exercise and am sitting for much of the day (I do try to walk quick and run up stairs to make up for it, so while I'm not "fit", I don't feel unfit per se). I am free from cardiac related symptoms, so does this mean I am "naturally" fit without really trying? (A bit like people who don't focus on their diet but are slim.) Or, as I suspect, is resting heart rate not a very useful indicator of fitness at all?

outworlder 11y ago
> so does this mean I am "naturally" fit without really trying? Doesn't mean anything. Could even be the case that you have an existing heart condition which causes brachycardia – this is why many doctors will ask for exams if a patient has a heart rate that low. Or could mean that your heart muscle is stronger than what would be expected with your lifestyle. Only a specialized doctor would know.

ChemicalWarfare 11y ago

I think this is more or less common knowledge that the higher the intensity of exercise the less time or "steps" in this case is needed to achieve the same goal. There is a curve ball however that needs to be taken into the account - the question is what exactly your goal is? For example, a sprinter and a long distance runner might be averaging the same BPM rate over the course of the week both resting and during their workouts, the end result is quite different however. I myself have always been a proponent of high intensity training for everything - short and intense weight lifting workouts, sprinting etc. This changed when at one point in my athletic "career" I switched to boxing at a relatively young age (under 20 y.o.) and my shins/calves started getting sore to the point where it was difficult to walk. The way to condition those for relatively low-intensity but long (2+ hour) workouts? Even longer and lower intensity workouts basically just walking around or light jogging for hours.

baldgeek 11y ago

Been using fitbit for over 2 years now (~ 7.5Million steps logged). Have the data being pushed to other web apps (MyFitnessPal, FitStudio, Higi, Acheivemint, Walgreens balance rewards). Also, trained up and ran 2 half-marathons in this time. Lost 60lbs so far, first 20lbs was from increased walking and diligent choices via calorie logging in MyFitnessPal. Fitbit is not the be all end all, but it definitely keeps me aware.

agumonkey 11y ago

Having gone through a heart failure, I can attest that walking is godsend. Even of moderate effort, as long as it's more than 30 minutes. Small hills are bonuses. -- sent from my dead-oriented design desktop wheelchair.

antirez 11y ago

I and my wife both have 50-53 bpm at rest, mine certain periods were 48 and doctor demanded to do an echocardiogram even after I explained I do a lot of sport. Everything was fine. Btw TLDR, we got those bpms doing crossfit 3/4 times-week (4/5 my wife), we rarely walk at all. I switched to crossfit recently (a few months), before I did powerlifting + cardio for years which provides very similar results from the POV of heart rate, AFAIK. Btw I think my level of cardio fitness is improving with CrossFit compared to PL.

hueving 11y ago
Be careful with crossfit, most of the instructors have no idea what they are doing and can have you doing routines bad for your back. I personally know two people that ended up with back problems from crossfit (each at a different gym).
- antirez 11y ago
  I agree, however if you hit crossfit after 5 years of power lifting, you are much safe and know what box to avoid. In my current box the injuries rate is near zero because the two instructors are crazy about form. Still crossfit is itself partially risky like many other sports, so also self-regulation is needed, and a bit of luck.
jdhzzz 11y ago
I have similar high 40's bpm and had a similar experience with my doctor sending me for all manner of tests. All okay. He claimed, and the article seems to back him up, that unless I was a marathoner (I'm not) my heart rate should not be that low. I do high intensity (for me) exercise 3-4 times a week at about an hour a crack. There may be congenital component as both my brothers have low resting pulse and neither is as active as I. I use the FitBit Charge HR after moving over from the version 1 Microsoft Band which had corroded under the onslaught of my profuse sweating after 10 months use. I found the Charge HR MUCH more accurate than the Microsoft Band for heart rate. Neither as accurate as the Azumio Heart Rate android app, but the Charge HR good enough for my own workout tracking.

the_economist 11y ago

After I got my iPhone 6 and started monitoring my steps using its pedometer, I started walking 10,000 steps every single day. After a few months, I noticed that my body was quite a bit more toned and muscular. Great benefit to the steps!

anigbrowl 11y ago

The only statistics I care about are the number of exercise reps I do each day and how many hours a week I spend dancing to loud music.Not only do I not want to get hung up on analytics, I see absolutely no reason to share that data with anyone else so they can work out better ways to advertise to me.

bootload 11y ago

Do you need to do 10K steps per day? I don't think your average person is capable, let alone able to set aside the time. Tools that confirm the minimum physical PT requirement in my view, is good. It will individualise the minimum requirement. I do above and below, 10km/day, 6 days per week, year in, year out. [0] This puts me hard case territory. Does everyone need this? Probably not. I move upwards of 1600km to 2000km per year. If you move a minimum of 5km/hr that is 2 hours per day. Time commitment required. I choose to move across broken ground and carry weight, a minimum of 1kg and irregular max of 20Kg, averaging around 8kg. The physical commitment to do this is high. What do I find. 10km/day is hard. In the cold it is better. You have to take precautions in the heat. You don't have to count calories as much. You get sore feet and muscles. Do you need it? I doubt it. For me I can probably meet your requirements with a 5km/day with some resistance gym work. Interesting psychological observations: The most likely time for failure to get out the door is the short time before you start. If you say to yourself, "f*&$-it, just go" you are more likely start and complete. I've tried this for a decade and the resistance to start is pretty constant but one you get out the door, this disappears. Do the hardest thing first ~ http://seldomlogical.com/hard.html http://seldomlogical.com/hard.html [0] currently at 5km/day with weights and gym till I crack 200km.

contravariant 11y ago

Who thought it was a good idea to use bigger bubbles for larger groups of people? Those values should have the least spread, drawing them bigger for no purpose is just confusing. Simple error bars would have been a lot better.

dfar1 11y ago

We should not dismiss products as Fitbits as being ineffective just because maybe 10k steps is not a valid metric. A little competition and settings of goals is good for everyone.

kilroy123 11y ago
I agree. As someone currently losing weight, my fitbit is pretty invaluable to me. I track every single thing I eat and drink. My fitbit then automatically tracks my walking/ running, and subtracts those calories I burn from the food tracker.
agumonkey 11y ago
Even an inaccurate Google Fit notification about how much I've walked made me feel better and willing to do more and more regularly.

thesz 11y ago

10 000 steps roughly equal to 7-7,5 km walked. To stop the shrinking of important parts of brain you need about 5 km/day average in a week (you can do 35 km in Sunday, for example). BTW, 5 km/h is close to typical walking speed, not fast and not slow either. So yes, you do not need 10K steps a day. Slightly above 7000 steps per day would suffice.

erikb 11y ago

Hm, what about the other goals of walking 10k steps? I started walking to lose weight and found, thanks to all these smart devices, that when I walk more than 15k steps I actually drop in weight. Since I'm on the very unhealthy part of the scale it really helps a lot to improve my health. What I found is that the motivational gain from having data is quite low though. For a month maybe it was good motivation, but if you don't have someone to specifically compete against then you just stop caring.

Guildpact 11y ago

The scale of a lot of this data is from 74-77 bpm resting heart rate. I feel like there is only a small correlation and its a small distance improvement from "couch potato" to "high intensity"

frenchcruz 11y ago

I get 10,000 steps somdays. But sometym, when i dont walk too i get :P

aivosha 11y ago

I dont buy the intense workouts as better alternative to more "slow burn" workouts. I'm a runner and I used to do fast 5k runs 3-4 times a week. I would feel very tired at the end of each run, just depleted. Didnt wanna do anything else but just relax. Had headaches too and most likely due to burning carbs at fast rate (intense workout, high heart rate) and basically depleting my carb reserves, which i think are about 2500 calories in a person. Then I stumbled upon a book, i think here on HN, called Slow Burn by Stu Mittleman [1]. It changed the way i look at the cardio exercise dramatically ! You wanna be healthy - burn fat (slow pace, long time, low HR). You wanna be fit - burn carbs (fast pace, short runs, high HR). These are very different goals as you can imagine ! So which one do you want really ? [1] http://www.amazon.ca/Slow-Burn-Stu-Mittleman/dp/0062736744 http://www.amazon.ca/Slow-Burn-Stu-Mittleman/dp/0062736744 Edit: Just wanted to add, now I run 10k easily, feel great after each run and dont have any headaches and I think, though i dont really care, i loose weight too. Just keeping the HR under control during the run, thats all you need.

kevinwang 11y ago
Can one be fit and healthy?
- aivosha 11y ago
  the book is by ultra-marathon runner, so yes you can be, but if you are just "casual" runner, you probably wanna be healthy first. the point is you need to teach your body to burn fat and intensify the training slowly by getting "fitter", meaning you will run faster in the same HR zone as before - the zone that is indicator of your body burning fat.
- dcgoss 11y ago
  Exactly. No one should pick between slow burn and fast burn. It's much better to incorporate both into your exercise at different times of the week , to address different areas of fitness and to train both slow and fast twitch muscles.

kazinator 11y ago

Whaddya know. The bogus idea of chewing food 30 times (at least) also originated (or rather was popularized) in Japan. This sort of falls into the same bucket. This was originated by American diet reformer Horace Fletcher in the early 1900's. See here, e.g.: http://www.upi.com/Health_News/2009/10/31/Japan-govt-Chew-food-30-times/47381257015651/ http://www.upi.com/Health_News/2009/10/31/Japan-govt-Chew-fo...

amar-singh 11y ago

Yes, we need 10000 steps every day. Its very good to lead a healthy life..

didibus 11y ago

This simply looked at resting heart rate. Sure, you could do better then 10k step a day to improve that, but this does not mean there are no other benefits to 10k steps. As the article points out, there's no study of it. For me personally, I find walking is fun, and simple to integrate in my routine. It burns an extra 300 cal a day, and forces me to spread my activity throughout the day. That last one is important, because there is a growing number of evidence that inactivity is very bad for you, and that exercise is not enough to counter the effect. What you need is to decrease your periods of inactivity. Finally, walking is very safe and easy on your body. That's not to say any other alternate type of activity wouldn't be just as good, or better. When it comes to exercise though, anything is better then nothing, so if 10k works for you, keep at it.

zobzu 11y ago

if i bike everyday my resting hr is 42bpm if i dont for a month its 47 walking is just one way, bike or swim is better though.. (and yes ive a rather low hr genetically regardless)

rajneeshgopalan 11y ago

I regularly work out, about 3-4 times a week. I do this to stay in shape and have an healthy lifestyle. Although devices and charts can aid me in getting even better, I do not use any. I simply listen carefully to my body and adapt.

z3t4 11y ago

Humans walk very efficient. If you want to burn fat or get your heart rate up, a 20 second sprint is equal to two hours of walking. If you want to increase the capacity of your cardiovascular system, to get a lower resting pulse, the best method is to engage in an activity that gives you around 70% of your max heart rate, for about 45 minutes or more. Examples of such activities (for normal people) is gym training, cleaning the house, mowing the lawn, etc. At least twice a week. Max pulse is around 220 minus age. So if you are 35, you want to average (220-35)*0.7=130, witch will feel easy.