12 ms·

Daily steps and all-cause mortality

106 points by cwwc 5y ago

lom 5y ago
I’m very doubtful of these numbers. Everyone is different, there’s no doubt that walking is beneficial for your health and you should try to walk a bit every day. But I wouldn’t try to hit a daily goal, or certain amount of minutes. Just walk for how long you feel like
- ajsnigrutin 5y ago
  Hitting a daily goal means more walking for many. "walk for however long you feel like" means nothing... having 3k steps on the pedometer, while the goal is eg. 10k steps (or 7k i guess now) means many people will go for a walk, which is good for them. I know it's just gamification of exercise, but if it works, I'm all for it.
  - kwhitefoot 5y ago
    I have a pedometer app on my mobile. When I go for a walk I try to walk further than the weekly and monthly averages. I turn it into a silly sort of a game. So instead of trying to beat some externally imposed limit I just try to be a little better than myself. So far it's working and I generally do more than 6 ksteps per day.
- ioslipstream 5y ago
  You should try to walk a lot every day, not just what you "feel like". 7k steps is on the low side.
  - notacoward 5y ago
    Only if your step counts are drastically inflated. I've seen Fitbit users get hundreds of "steps" per hour sitting at their desks. Seven thousand real steps a day is about 5km, which is more than even smug twenty-somethings typically manage.
    - noarchy 5y ago
      Fitness trackers are often quite terrible at counting both steps and heart rate. This means two very important metrics for tracking fitness can't be trusted completely. That said, they can at least give you a rough estimate as to where things stand, so they aren't completely useless.
- phil21 5y ago
  Advice like this isn't for instrinctly motivated people that would walk as much as they feel like anyways. This is for the vast majority of America where a 6 block trip to the corner store is considered driving distance. If I didn't make it a 100% conscious "chore" to do every day when I lived in the suburbs, it was quite easy to go an entire week without walking more than a few hundred outdoor feet in total. In the city it's far more likely I'll be walking to get something done anyways, so it's easy to take the long way home for some extra steps if I've been in front of a screen too long lately.
- newaccount2021 5y ago
- recuter 5y ago
  No, this isn't like thirst. Walking is the easiest most consistent weight loss method. The do Physical Activity Thing X times and metrics like BMI are aggregates for the population meant as generic advice (some doctors can't do math without a calculator sadly). The gist of the advice is always to figure out your base metabolic rate and roughly how many calories you lose per steps/hours of walking. You can derive this experimentally for yourself by doing and eating the exact same thing for a few days in a row. You just need a good enough scale and a spreadsheet. This drifts over time with your age and weight, so repeat the experiment occasionally. 5000-10,000 is the target range, maybe that's how they got 7k. It doesn't matter if you hit your number daily or average it out weekly, as long as you get your steps in the calorie deficit occurs.
  - onpensionsterm 5y ago
    It takes a phenomenal amount of exercise to be equal to reducing food intake. Reducing cardio to a weight loss method means that people who are unfit but not overweight or strong but relatively sedentary think that they don't need to do it for their health. Then they die of heart disease.
    - recuter 5y ago
      I don't disagree? Exercise is best used to build muscle mass and is not very effective if the goal is a caloric deficit. You could run, some people love doing that, but most aren't able to do this consistently enough - and the more overweight the more injury prone. Walking works just as well as high intensity cardio it just takes proportionally longer. You're paying for your extra weight and lethargy with time. However, everybody (who can exercise at least) can do it, and it works. Going from sedentary straight to beast mode rarely works. And most people are in fact overweight. Walk for a month or two to shed weight, improve mood, and form good habits - then progress onwards from there. Maybe throw in pushup sets every mile or get down to the park with the bars, 'etc.
kerblang 5y ago
How far is 7k steps for an adult, roughly? 2km? Edit: From what I'm reading, about 4-6km, or 2.5-3.75 miles. That's a pretty decent walk. Guess I gotta do more.
- JamesAdir 5y ago
  I think it's much more than that - around 5-6km. But take into consideration all the steps you do at home or office just walking around. You don't just need to walk on purpose.
- dylanowen 5y ago
  For me (5'9") it'd be about 5.5km. 2k steps is about a mile
- darrenf 5y ago
  I'm 5'9"/175cm and I generally hit 10k steps at around the 7.5km mark, so for me 7k steps would be just over 5km.
  - hombre_fatal 5y ago
    I’m 6’1 and my iPhone pedometer says I get about 1000 steps per kilometer.
- Moru 5y ago
  It's not about the steps. If you take 7k steps waking to and from your desk all day it's not really that helpful. If you take a 5-10 min fast walk back home it's already better. Don't overthink it, any movement is good, if your heart rate goes up it's better. If you don't manage more than 5 minutes per day it's still enormously helpful for your body.
  - maybeOneDay 5y ago
    Do you have a source on your claim that 7k of sporadic and slow walking is categorically worse than a 5 minute walk that is fast? I think that is a rather counter intuitive claim, 7k steps is about 5-6km whereas a 5 minute walk even at blistering pace is an order of magnitude less.
throwaway22032 5y ago
Why not just like, exercise properly? Walking is the absolute bare minimum, if you don't walk every day you're not going to just be a bit unfit, you're going to be hilariously unhealthy. Stats like 65% of Americans being overweight make so much sense in this context. Develop a relationship with your body, it's not hard and you'll reap the rewards throughout life. Better _everything_. Walking to and from the platform of my nearest tube station is about 2.5k steps....
- Bancakes 5y ago
  Yeah I'm appalled the studies are fuel for excuses to exercise less. Maybe in 20 years, pop sci will figure out you can even do pushups and pullups - once a week if you feel like it.
  - ericmay 5y ago
    Walking is very underrated. Most of the world is not overweight precisely because they have to walk place to place instead of being cooped up in their suburban home or skyscraper apartment where delivery just works better. Those 300-700 extra calories from daily walking activities and carrying things around add up very quickly. In terms of staying fit, walking is much more beneficial than push-ups or pull-ups. Not that you shouldn't do the latter, but many people have to make exercising a habit, and if our goal is weight loss they're more likely to do that with dedicated walking than with pull-ups or push-ups. It's just too hard to do consistently even with 100-push up programs. Obesity is yet another problem either created by, or exacerbated by our absolutely abhorrent urban planning and architecture practices.
    - lupire 5y ago
      Skyscraper apartments are extremely low portion of units, and anyway don't prevent walking. They enable the density that makes walking efficient.
      - ericmay 5y ago
        They don't prevent walking any more than living in the suburbs do. But there's a slight barrier waiting for an elevator, or walking down stairs, etc. There's a reason that grocery delivery services sprang up in places like NYC first and most prominently instead of, say, Pittsburgh. While they enable density, certainly better than the suburbs do, they're not a great solution. For large cities you want to look at a city like Paris (Ignoring the central business district which is set aside like an upset child that needs to think about what they've done) for even better and more appropriate density. I think often times people assume more skyscrapers == more density therefore good. But I think that level of density isn't healthy either, it's just more healthy in comparison to the abysmal and wasteful suburbs. Also your statement is a bit contradictory. If the skyscraper apartments are an extremely low portion of units, how do they enable density if there are so few?
Koshkin 5y ago
I find it interesting that from a historical perspective exercise for the sole purpose to stay healthy is a relatively recent phenomenon. Traditionally, exercise was considered part of training - whether that of a soldier, an athlete, etc.
- tough 5y ago
  Usually you worked until you were exhausted. or else, No?
  - notreallyserio 5y ago
    Or you worked until you were told you were done for the day, and no sooner.
  - Koshkin 5y ago
    Yes, hard physical work was the main form of "exercise" for most people.
- graeme 5y ago
  In the past most people would have exceeded 7,000 just living
- lupire 5y ago
  In pre modern times, being unhealthy was likely to kill you or starve you.
- ch4s3 5y ago
  It isn't that recent. The ancient greeks lifted weights and ran for general health. We know the Olmecs played ball games and one imagines they observed the health effects of staying active. Boxing is at least 5k years old. There are 15k year old cave paintings of wrestling. The Maasai have intentionally practiced high jumping for ? centuries. One can imagine that early persistence hunters probably ran competitively, as their modern counterparts do. A lot of these activities had non-health purposes but it isn't a stretch to think people in the distant past associated activity with health. It's being sedentary that's quite recent.
neogodless 5y ago
The gist of this article is that you don't need to absolutely walk 10,000 steps every single day to be healthier. You can get almost all of the benefits of that 10K steps by aiming to walk at least 7k steps. If that difference in goal-setting is enough to flip the switch for someone who is thinking "ugh I just can't consistently get 10k steps", and they end up frustrated and giving up... to now being like "ok I'll just try to at least get 5-7k steps a day" then that person is likely ending up much healthier than someone who gave up. If you already walk 10k / day, or have a comprehensive exercise program, you know this (very brief) article is not for you. Let it go.
- neves 5y ago
  10.000 is very hard to attain every day. I walk a lot and just get this value in very active days.
  - albrewer 5y ago
    Anecdata: I recently visited Amsterdam with my wife. On the less active days, just leaving our room 3x a day for food and weed put us way over 10k steps every day. We were hitting 30k on our really touristy days. Now I'm back at my house in an American suburb and struggling to get 5k naturally. From my point of view, the problem is most of the built environment caters toward cars and not enough toward outdoor living space.
    - brimble 5y ago
      The damn 'burbs. Nothing to walk to, everything's been spread way too far apart. Maybe a park or neighborhood pool if you're lucky. Too much non-place taking up space between places is killer. Literally, given heart disease.
      - JeremyStinson 5y ago
        You don't need a destination when the walk is the goal.
magpi3 5y ago
I find that car-driven, suburban culture makes this difficult to achieve. I have lived in many different environments: cities, villages, suburbs, even farms. Only in the suburbs was walking actually disincentivized. A comfortable house with a big TV and urban sprawl that made it impossible to walk anywhere useful just leads to a lot of sitting either on the couch or in the car. The ability to walk places whether it be your job or the supermarket makes such a huge, huge difference for a person's health.
- lupire 5y ago
  You can walk around your block with your dog, from the back of the parking lot to the shop, and around your big house. TV doesn't make walking impossible.
  - 1270018080 5y ago
    Obviously not. But needed/not needing to walk are different. It's a lot easier to get 7000 steps in when you need to.
  - markstos 5y ago
    The mention of TV doesn't matter here, it's that you are forced to drive to accomplish basic tasks. Yes, you can walk in the neighborhood when you get home, although a lack of sidewalks may discourage even that in some places. But you have less time due to driving your errands and exercise is not built into your day as it would be walking or biking was the transportation. Parking at the back of parking lot is a good idea if your best option is driving to the store.
  - runevault 5y ago
    and if you still need entertainment just listen to a podcast or audiobook while you walk.
  - ShakataGaNai 5y ago
    They didn't say walking was "impossible" just "disincentivized" which I'd have to agree with. A majority of the housing developments I've seen go up in the Bay Area put you several miles, at least, from any shopping. Your friends probably live way farther away than that. So you've got nowhere to "walk to", for a purpose. Sure it's probably walkable in so far as their are slow streets and sidewalks - but you have to walk for the sake of walking vs walking for destination hence "disincentivized". I go for a 30mn walk everyday in my neighborhood in the 'Burbs. It totally can be done, but just in the modern "go go go" society. Most people want walking to at least be a means to an end. And yes, I mean a directly "right here, right now" end, not "being health".
ChrisMarshallNY 5y ago
I start every day with a 2-mile walk. That’s about 5K steps. Been doing that for years. Been thinking of extending it, maybe by a mile. That would do it.
arghwhat 5y ago
False advertising, it's apparently 7k steps per day. There goes my chance for salvation. opens another bag of chips
dan1234 5y ago
I've never understood the fascination with counting 'steps' - a smaller person will cover 10,000 steps before a taller person, due to stride length. Why not just tell people get 30mins (or whatever today's recommendation is) of brisk walking in? They wouldn't even need to buy a pedometer/smart watch!
- Moru 5y ago
  Some people needs to be gamed to do something. I find turfgame.com to be my carrot to get out more but that one is best in Sweden and as long as you live in a halfway big town. You take zones, your neighbour blocks you and takes them back. Others are happy when they can compare number of steps to their co-workers I guess.
  - TecoAndJix 5y ago
    I love this concept! Sadly, no one plays it near me
    - Moru 5y ago
      It's an old game so might need some fresh blood. You could do some flyers, there are some on the forum to download and print :-) I usually stop and talk to people when they look at me funnily. You do look funny when you come on the bicycle - stopping in the middle of nowhere, stand still for 15 seconds and then run off again. They are all curios what you are doing and how it works, especially older people and some even start turfing after a while.
  - dan1234 5y ago
    I did play a game similar to that called Ingress (I think it was by Google, and they were presumably collecting GPS data to improve their pedestrian mapping). I'll check out turfgame when I get a chance!
    - maicro 5y ago
      Respectfully - Ingress is by Niantic, the same company behind Pokemon Go (and maybe that Harry Potter version?). They share data between the two games - points of interest tagged in Ingress still usually map to Pokemon Go Stops and Gyms; energy (can't remember the name for it - the golden energy you collect by walking near) usually maps to individual Pokemon spawn locations. They get their raw map data from OpenStreetMap; I'm not sure if anyone knows where they get their specific data on user/internet use density which informs some of their map features, but Google GPS analytics is probably a fair guess. I used to play a lot of Pokemon Go, but plenty of things made me drift away; as for motivating me to walk, it kinda helped, but really just ended up with a lot of "walk 300 ft. (~100m), stop and stare/tap at your phone for several minutes", vs. the more enjoyable and directly beneficial (towards distance/time/step goals) uninterrupted pattern.
dwpdwpdwpdwpdwp 5y ago
Measuring time is more convenient than counting steps or calculating distance, in my experience. A normal pace for me is about 100 steps per minute. It’s a convenient way to estimate steps taken.
- macintux 5y ago
  Presumably depends on whether you have a device to do it for you. Since I wear a watch anyway, it’s dramatically simpler to let it count steps for me.
- brimble 5y ago
  Steps are more convenient if you own a smartwatch or health-monitoring watch. Most people don't ("but I never see anyone without one!" yes, you live in a tech-hub bubble), so yeah, time would be easier.
legalcorrection 5y ago
I hate this "steps" bullshit. Imagine writing this whole article and not once saying what that means in terms of miles or kilometers.
- hans1729 5y ago
  It’s not about distance, it’s about movement repetitions. Imagine having such strong opinions on matters outside of your expertise.
- pentae 5y ago
  Well, every person with a cell phone can open it right now during the article and see how many steps they've taken on average in the last week, month, etc. So it's not like it's absolutely meaningless
- jabbany 5y ago
  Steps seems like a reasonable measure though? It seems reasonable that each step results in similar exertion for any person. Distance, OTOH, would be affected by the length of your stride (-> your height), so it might be a worse measure.
russellbeattie 5y ago
So, at 100 steps per minute at a brisk pace, 7,000 steps is only an hour and 10 minutes of walking, minimum, per day. This is the recommendation? That we all spend two hours a day walking? Such practical health advice for today's modern world.
- timbit42 5y ago
  For millions of years, we didn't have cars. If you didn't have your car, you'd easily take that many steps every day. We're lazy.
jabbany 5y ago
Kind of curious about this (and this is something mentioned in the study itself). It seems that the observations about step count are just correlational and not causal. I wonder if the step count thing correlates with some other factors that are more causal? Like in the case of older adults, maybe those who walked more didn't have other physical conditions correlated with earlier mortality that prevented them from doing so? Also the meta-analysis linked to doesn't seem to say that mortality risk is _reduced_ by _increasing_ step count (implying an intervention) as the article implies. Rather just that people with the higher step counts had lower mortality rates.
- generalenvelope 5y ago
  I don't think there's anything uniquely beneficial about walking in comparison to other types of aerobic activity (running, biking, playing a sport) - though it may be more accessible/enjoyable which is important when considering adherence. It makes sense that mortality risk would be reduced by increasing step count, as that means increasing aerobic activity. See the 2019 Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans: https://health.gov/sites/default/files/2019-09/Physical_Activity_Guidelines_2nd_edition.pdf https://health.gov/sites/default/files/2019-09/Physical_Acti... Page 35 specifically outlines their justification for the recommendation of 150-300 minutes of moderate physical activity per week for adults. I will add that something like 80-90% of Americans don't meet the physical activity guidelines (150-300min moderate intensity aerobics + 2 days of muscle strengthening activities for major muscle groups, per week) - walking is one of the most accessible activities and is fairly "easy", so I think this is useful as a blanket recommendation.
radu_floricica 5y ago
Funny enough, it's not (just) about the exercise. Walking actually helps pump blood, so you're actually letting your heart rest a bit when you do it. Plus, like sleep, it's one of those activities that were so constant in our lives that a bunch of processes came to depend on it.
- agumonkey 5y ago
  When I was physically frail, walking was the only PE I could bear. It was surprising to see how integrated it is. It helps pump blood very softly. I massages your gut. It's a global exercise, unlike isolated workouts. There's also a mind aspect to wandering.. your imagination walks too, in various directions. ps: to add some context, I used to be a runner, so when health crashed, my first reaction was to jog to maintain things, but it was too demanding, stationary biking was too focused on legs.. both didn't allow blood to flow everywhere nicely. Too a few hikes only to feel warm blood back into toes and fingers for instance. And even lungs opened better. Since lungs are also linked to blood flow, ensuring a holistic proper circulation probably helped that part too.
- Majestic121 5y ago
  > Walking actually helps pump blood, so you're actually letting your heart rest a bit when you do it. That's surprising, because walking increases heart rate significantly compared to sitting/laying. Switching from sitting to a nice walk with my elderly parents makes me go from 50-60 BPM to 90+ What kind of rest are you talking about ?
  - radu_floricica 5y ago
    I'm on the phone and honestly too lazy to look for a good primary source, but a google for "walking pumps blood" finds lots of hits, most on calf muscles pumping venous blood. Also tbh 90+ walking sounds like a warning sign...
    - Jtsummers 5y ago
      90+ while walking is a reasonable heartrate if it's a high pace. For a stroll, then yes it's a sign of poor health.
graeme 5y ago
I used to have a 10,000/day goal. Recently switched to 7,000. I still regularly exceed that goal but realized not falling below 7,000 was important on days I wasn’t able to move as much. Interesting to see the threshold I chose has research backing it. (Though maybe I should be at 8,000-9,000 since I’m younger)
dsmmcken 5y ago
Getting a dog can be a great way of forcing you into it. I easily surpass this everyday now, when previously I could have been described more as an indoor cat. I can't count how many times I've been stuck on a tough problem during the workday, and then a mid-day walk with the dog clears my mind enough to solve it. edit: obviously exercise your best judgement if this is appropriate for you, do appropriate research, adopt don't shop etc.
- avgDev 5y ago
  JUST NO. Don't recommend this. Getting a dog to force yourself to walk is not fair to the dog. Some people will still not walk and the dog will just become a problem. It is the best when people getting a dog understand what they are getting into. Dogs are a lot of work and expensive.
  - pavel_lishin 5y ago
    I think it's something that each person should introspect a bit on. I've been pushing back against getting a dog, because I know I would hate to have to walk it first thing every morning; I don't want to build up resentment towards an animal. But for other people, it works, it's great, and they form a life-long bond.
    - yostrovs 5y ago
      I felt the same anxiety about having to walk our dog when we first got it. But it's totally worth it and doesn't feel as a chore. It's time to yourself, to think about things, to wake up, to give you a perfect routine to start the day. I've felt physically better since getting a dog, and they really do fall in love with you, so that connection makes you feel great about yourself. I only advocate for adoption. There are so many dogs that need a loving home.
  - INTPenis 5y ago
    Yeah getting a dog is a great thing but it's also a living creature that can live for 15 years. People just don't think that far ahead. I am forever grateful to my dog though. She saved my life after a loved one passed away. Thanks to that dog I meet more people, I have no trouble walking 10k steps a day, I get sunshine, fresh air. I'm only 5 years in but so far I love it and I have no problem exercising it. But it has also opened my eyes to how many dog owners there are out there, and how many of them are negligent.
markstos 5y ago
If you are wondering where the original 10,000 steps per day day came from-- it was a nice round number promoted by a pedometer company to sell the devices. https://www.popsci.com/story/health/10000-steps-evidence-study/ https://www.popsci.com/story/health/10000-steps-evidence-stu... As long distance runner who used to track my steps closely, I agree 7,000-8,000 is a good daily goal.
- calvinmorrison 5y ago
  There's a reason "walk till you rollover" was a slogan! My pedometer only went to 9999
- ryan_lane 5y ago
  Even more amazingly, it's likely a marketing thing, using the 万 (man) character, which looks like someone walking and happens to be 10,000.
  - resoluteteeth 5y ago
    Is there an actual source for this or is it just the article author's speculation?
dukeofdoom 5y ago
The glaring problem with the measured benefit here is that walking ability is a great determinant of overall health. Any senior able to walk 3k is already well above the others in health outcomes, and less likely to die than the rest, regardless if they walk 3k everyday or not. It's like claiming driving a Ferrari will make you wealthy, because you observed that Ferrari owners paid off the biggest speeding tickets. Then advising people to buy a Ferrari to be wealthy.
notacoward 5y ago
FWIW, 7000 steps works out very close to 5km (3.11mi) for a typical male stride. About 10% less distance for female. I consider myself pretty active, running at least 6.5km (4mi) five days a week, and I average around 8000 steps/day (including rest days). So yes, 7000 steps per day might do a lot of good, but it's also enough effort that most people will have to spend non-trivial time working up to it.
hyperpape 5y ago
I don’t know how to weigh the two pieces against each other (I have not dug in to the details), but here’s an alternate meta-analysis that suggests reductions in all-cause mortality continue past 10,000 daily steps: https://www.strongerbyscience.com/research-spotlight-walking/ https://www.strongerbyscience.com/research-spotlight-walking.... Btw: the discussion here suggests some reasons to believe there’s a causal connection, and it’s only partially a matter of “health problems might reduce the amount people walk.”
- ls612 5y ago
  At a bare minimum, otherwise healthy old people can fall and break a bone, which will often be the beginning of the end for them. Getting aerobic exercise reduces the chance of that happening since your muscles are more robust.
elmolino89 5y ago
Getting 7k steps while working from home +/- bad weather may not be possible every day. I just got a cheap rowing machine in my home office and I take short, 5mins or less breaks during the day. Rowing is not just more intense but also uses a bunch of muscles getting weaker and weaker in sedentary people. So walk 7k if this works for you. Get some exercise machine if almost 2hrs walking per day seems too demanding.
BXLE_1-1-BitIs1 5y ago
In my teens, the family went to visit our backyard neighbors for a dinner. Normally we kids just hopped over the fence, but for this occasion, we were all bundled in the car. The only adults seen walking in our suburban neighborhood were the maids. A big chunk of global warming comes from the North American suburb.
inglor_cz 5y ago
The correlation vs. causality is, as always in medicine, a huge question, but aside from cardiovascular health improvements, I can see at least two other plausible causal chains. Possibly all three work at the same time: Causal chain 2: fewer falls in older people. Breaking your hip is about as deadly as having progressing cancer in old age. Sedentary older people will lose bone density, muscle mass and sense of balance, thus being more prone to dangerous falls. Causal chain 3: training for the immune system. If you walk so many steps every day, you almost certainly walk outside, too. Which means exposing yourself to heat, cold, frost, sleet, sun, rain, wind etc. all year round. That may be a good training for your immune system.

106 points by cwwc 5y ago

lom 5y ago

I’m very doubtful of these numbers. Everyone is different, there’s no doubt that walking is beneficial for your health and you should try to walk a bit every day. But I wouldn’t try to hit a daily goal, or certain amount of minutes. Just walk for how long you feel like

ajsnigrutin 5y ago
Hitting a daily goal means more walking for many. "walk for however long you feel like" means nothing... having 3k steps on the pedometer, while the goal is eg. 10k steps (or 7k i guess now) means many people will go for a walk, which is good for them. I know it's just gamification of exercise, but if it works, I'm all for it.
- kwhitefoot 5y ago
  I have a pedometer app on my mobile. When I go for a walk I try to walk further than the weekly and monthly averages. I turn it into a silly sort of a game. So instead of trying to beat some externally imposed limit I just try to be a little better than myself. So far it's working and I generally do more than 6 ksteps per day.
ioslipstream 5y ago
You should try to walk a lot every day, not just what you "feel like". 7k steps is on the low side.
- notacoward 5y ago
  Only if your step counts are drastically inflated. I've seen Fitbit users get hundreds of "steps" per hour sitting at their desks. Seven thousand real steps a day is about 5km, which is more than even smug twenty-somethings typically manage.
  - noarchy 5y ago
    Fitness trackers are often quite terrible at counting both steps and heart rate. This means two very important metrics for tracking fitness can't be trusted completely. That said, they can at least give you a rough estimate as to where things stand, so they aren't completely useless.
phil21 5y ago
Advice like this isn't for instrinctly motivated people that would walk as much as they feel like anyways. This is for the vast majority of America where a 6 block trip to the corner store is considered driving distance. If I didn't make it a 100% conscious "chore" to do every day when I lived in the suburbs, it was quite easy to go an entire week without walking more than a few hundred outdoor feet in total. In the city it's far more likely I'll be walking to get something done anyways, so it's easy to take the long way home for some extra steps if I've been in front of a screen too long lately.
newaccount2021 5y ago
recuter 5y ago
No, this isn't like thirst. Walking is the easiest most consistent weight loss method. The do Physical Activity Thing X times and metrics like BMI are aggregates for the population meant as generic advice (some doctors can't do math without a calculator sadly). The gist of the advice is always to figure out your base metabolic rate and roughly how many calories you lose per steps/hours of walking. You can derive this experimentally for yourself by doing and eating the exact same thing for a few days in a row. You just need a good enough scale and a spreadsheet. This drifts over time with your age and weight, so repeat the experiment occasionally. 5000-10,000 is the target range, maybe that's how they got 7k. It doesn't matter if you hit your number daily or average it out weekly, as long as you get your steps in the calorie deficit occurs.
- onpensionsterm 5y ago
  It takes a phenomenal amount of exercise to be equal to reducing food intake. Reducing cardio to a weight loss method means that people who are unfit but not overweight or strong but relatively sedentary think that they don't need to do it for their health. Then they die of heart disease.
  - recuter 5y ago
    I don't disagree? Exercise is best used to build muscle mass and is not very effective if the goal is a caloric deficit. You could run, some people love doing that, but most aren't able to do this consistently enough - and the more overweight the more injury prone. Walking works just as well as high intensity cardio it just takes proportionally longer. You're paying for your extra weight and lethargy with time. However, everybody (who can exercise at least) can do it, and it works. Going from sedentary straight to beast mode rarely works. And most people are in fact overweight. Walk for a month or two to shed weight, improve mood, and form good habits - then progress onwards from there. Maybe throw in pushup sets every mile or get down to the park with the bars, 'etc.

kerblang 5y ago

How far is 7k steps for an adult, roughly? 2km? Edit: From what I'm reading, about 4-6km, or 2.5-3.75 miles. That's a pretty decent walk. Guess I gotta do more.

JamesAdir 5y ago
I think it's much more than that - around 5-6km. But take into consideration all the steps you do at home or office just walking around. You don't just need to walk on purpose.
dylanowen 5y ago
For me (5'9") it'd be about 5.5km. 2k steps is about a mile
darrenf 5y ago
I'm 5'9"/175cm and I generally hit 10k steps at around the 7.5km mark, so for me 7k steps would be just over 5km.
- hombre_fatal 5y ago
  I’m 6’1 and my iPhone pedometer says I get about 1000 steps per kilometer.
Moru 5y ago
It's not about the steps. If you take 7k steps waking to and from your desk all day it's not really that helpful. If you take a 5-10 min fast walk back home it's already better. Don't overthink it, any movement is good, if your heart rate goes up it's better. If you don't manage more than 5 minutes per day it's still enormously helpful for your body.
- maybeOneDay 5y ago
  Do you have a source on your claim that 7k of sporadic and slow walking is categorically worse than a 5 minute walk that is fast? I think that is a rather counter intuitive claim, 7k steps is about 5-6km whereas a 5 minute walk even at blistering pace is an order of magnitude less.

throwaway22032 5y ago

Why not just like, exercise properly? Walking is the absolute bare minimum, if you don't walk every day you're not going to just be a bit unfit, you're going to be hilariously unhealthy. Stats like 65% of Americans being overweight make so much sense in this context. Develop a relationship with your body, it's not hard and you'll reap the rewards throughout life. Better _everything_. Walking to and from the platform of my nearest tube station is about 2.5k steps....

Bancakes 5y ago
Yeah I'm appalled the studies are fuel for excuses to exercise less. Maybe in 20 years, pop sci will figure out you can even do pushups and pullups - once a week if you feel like it.
- ericmay 5y ago
  Walking is very underrated. Most of the world is not overweight precisely because they have to walk place to place instead of being cooped up in their suburban home or skyscraper apartment where delivery just works better. Those 300-700 extra calories from daily walking activities and carrying things around add up very quickly. In terms of staying fit, walking is much more beneficial than push-ups or pull-ups. Not that you shouldn't do the latter, but many people have to make exercising a habit, and if our goal is weight loss they're more likely to do that with dedicated walking than with pull-ups or push-ups. It's just too hard to do consistently even with 100-push up programs. Obesity is yet another problem either created by, or exacerbated by our absolutely abhorrent urban planning and architecture practices.
  - lupire 5y ago
    Skyscraper apartments are extremely low portion of units, and anyway don't prevent walking. They enable the density that makes walking efficient.
    - ericmay 5y ago
      They don't prevent walking any more than living in the suburbs do. But there's a slight barrier waiting for an elevator, or walking down stairs, etc. There's a reason that grocery delivery services sprang up in places like NYC first and most prominently instead of, say, Pittsburgh. While they enable density, certainly better than the suburbs do, they're not a great solution. For large cities you want to look at a city like Paris (Ignoring the central business district which is set aside like an upset child that needs to think about what they've done) for even better and more appropriate density. I think often times people assume more skyscrapers == more density therefore good. But I think that level of density isn't healthy either, it's just more healthy in comparison to the abysmal and wasteful suburbs. Also your statement is a bit contradictory. If the skyscraper apartments are an extremely low portion of units, how do they enable density if there are so few?

Koshkin 5y ago

I find it interesting that from a historical perspective exercise for the sole purpose to stay healthy is a relatively recent phenomenon. Traditionally, exercise was considered part of training - whether that of a soldier, an athlete, etc.

tough 5y ago
Usually you worked until you were exhausted. or else, No?
- notreallyserio 5y ago
  Or you worked until you were told you were done for the day, and no sooner.
- Koshkin 5y ago
  Yes, hard physical work was the main form of "exercise" for most people.
graeme 5y ago
In the past most people would have exceeded 7,000 just living
lupire 5y ago
In pre modern times, being unhealthy was likely to kill you or starve you.
ch4s3 5y ago
It isn't that recent. The ancient greeks lifted weights and ran for general health. We know the Olmecs played ball games and one imagines they observed the health effects of staying active. Boxing is at least 5k years old. There are 15k year old cave paintings of wrestling. The Maasai have intentionally practiced high jumping for ? centuries. One can imagine that early persistence hunters probably ran competitively, as their modern counterparts do. A lot of these activities had non-health purposes but it isn't a stretch to think people in the distant past associated activity with health. It's being sedentary that's quite recent.

neogodless 5y ago

The gist of this article is that you don't need to absolutely walk 10,000 steps every single day to be healthier. You can get almost all of the benefits of that 10K steps by aiming to walk at least 7k steps. If that difference in goal-setting is enough to flip the switch for someone who is thinking "ugh I just can't consistently get 10k steps", and they end up frustrated and giving up... to now being like "ok I'll just try to at least get 5-7k steps a day" then that person is likely ending up much healthier than someone who gave up. If you already walk 10k / day, or have a comprehensive exercise program, you know this (very brief) article is not for you. Let it go.

neves 5y ago
10.000 is very hard to attain every day. I walk a lot and just get this value in very active days.
- albrewer 5y ago
  Anecdata: I recently visited Amsterdam with my wife. On the less active days, just leaving our room 3x a day for food and weed put us way over 10k steps every day. We were hitting 30k on our really touristy days. Now I'm back at my house in an American suburb and struggling to get 5k naturally. From my point of view, the problem is most of the built environment caters toward cars and not enough toward outdoor living space.
  - brimble 5y ago
    The damn 'burbs. Nothing to walk to, everything's been spread way too far apart. Maybe a park or neighborhood pool if you're lucky. Too much non-place taking up space between places is killer. Literally, given heart disease.
    - JeremyStinson 5y ago
      You don't need a destination when the walk is the goal.

magpi3 5y ago

I find that car-driven, suburban culture makes this difficult to achieve. I have lived in many different environments: cities, villages, suburbs, even farms. Only in the suburbs was walking actually disincentivized. A comfortable house with a big TV and urban sprawl that made it impossible to walk anywhere useful just leads to a lot of sitting either on the couch or in the car. The ability to walk places whether it be your job or the supermarket makes such a huge, huge difference for a person's health.

lupire 5y ago
You can walk around your block with your dog, from the back of the parking lot to the shop, and around your big house. TV doesn't make walking impossible.
- 1270018080 5y ago
  Obviously not. But needed/not needing to walk are different. It's a lot easier to get 7000 steps in when you need to.
- markstos 5y ago
  The mention of TV doesn't matter here, it's that you are forced to drive to accomplish basic tasks. Yes, you can walk in the neighborhood when you get home, although a lack of sidewalks may discourage even that in some places. But you have less time due to driving your errands and exercise is not built into your day as it would be walking or biking was the transportation. Parking at the back of parking lot is a good idea if your best option is driving to the store.
- runevault 5y ago
  and if you still need entertainment just listen to a podcast or audiobook while you walk.
- ShakataGaNai 5y ago
  They didn't say walking was "impossible" just "disincentivized" which I'd have to agree with. A majority of the housing developments I've seen go up in the Bay Area put you several miles, at least, from any shopping. Your friends probably live way farther away than that. So you've got nowhere to "walk to", for a purpose. Sure it's probably walkable in so far as their are slow streets and sidewalks - but you have to walk for the sake of walking vs walking for destination hence "disincentivized". I go for a 30mn walk everyday in my neighborhood in the 'Burbs. It totally can be done, but just in the modern "go go go" society. Most people want walking to at least be a means to an end. And yes, I mean a directly "right here, right now" end, not "being health".

ChrisMarshallNY 5y ago

I start every day with a 2-mile walk. That’s about 5K steps. Been doing that for years. Been thinking of extending it, maybe by a mile. That would do it.

arghwhat 5y ago

False advertising, it's apparently 7k steps per day. There goes my chance for salvation. opens another bag of chips

dan1234 5y ago

I've never understood the fascination with counting 'steps' - a smaller person will cover 10,000 steps before a taller person, due to stride length. Why not just tell people get 30mins (or whatever today's recommendation is) of brisk walking in? They wouldn't even need to buy a pedometer/smart watch!

Moru 5y ago
Some people needs to be gamed to do something. I find turfgame.com to be my carrot to get out more but that one is best in Sweden and as long as you live in a halfway big town. You take zones, your neighbour blocks you and takes them back. Others are happy when they can compare number of steps to their co-workers I guess.
- TecoAndJix 5y ago
  I love this concept! Sadly, no one plays it near me
  - Moru 5y ago
    It's an old game so might need some fresh blood. You could do some flyers, there are some on the forum to download and print :-) I usually stop and talk to people when they look at me funnily. You do look funny when you come on the bicycle - stopping in the middle of nowhere, stand still for 15 seconds and then run off again. They are all curios what you are doing and how it works, especially older people and some even start turfing after a while.
- dan1234 5y ago
  I did play a game similar to that called Ingress (I think it was by Google, and they were presumably collecting GPS data to improve their pedestrian mapping). I'll check out turfgame when I get a chance!
  - maicro 5y ago
    Respectfully - Ingress is by Niantic, the same company behind Pokemon Go (and maybe that Harry Potter version?). They share data between the two games - points of interest tagged in Ingress still usually map to Pokemon Go Stops and Gyms; energy (can't remember the name for it - the golden energy you collect by walking near) usually maps to individual Pokemon spawn locations. They get their raw map data from OpenStreetMap; I'm not sure if anyone knows where they get their specific data on user/internet use density which informs some of their map features, but Google GPS analytics is probably a fair guess. I used to play a lot of Pokemon Go, but plenty of things made me drift away; as for motivating me to walk, it kinda helped, but really just ended up with a lot of "walk 300 ft. (~100m), stop and stare/tap at your phone for several minutes", vs. the more enjoyable and directly beneficial (towards distance/time/step goals) uninterrupted pattern.

dwpdwpdwpdwpdwp 5y ago

Measuring time is more convenient than counting steps or calculating distance, in my experience. A normal pace for me is about 100 steps per minute. It’s a convenient way to estimate steps taken.

macintux 5y ago
Presumably depends on whether you have a device to do it for you. Since I wear a watch anyway, it’s dramatically simpler to let it count steps for me.
brimble 5y ago
Steps are more convenient if you own a smartwatch or health-monitoring watch. Most people don't ("but I never see anyone without one!" yes, you live in a tech-hub bubble), so yeah, time would be easier.

legalcorrection 5y ago

I hate this "steps" bullshit. Imagine writing this whole article and not once saying what that means in terms of miles or kilometers.

hans1729 5y ago
It’s not about distance, it’s about movement repetitions. Imagine having such strong opinions on matters outside of your expertise.
pentae 5y ago
Well, every person with a cell phone can open it right now during the article and see how many steps they've taken on average in the last week, month, etc. So it's not like it's absolutely meaningless
jabbany 5y ago
Steps seems like a reasonable measure though? It seems reasonable that each step results in similar exertion for any person. Distance, OTOH, would be affected by the length of your stride (-> your height), so it might be a worse measure.

russellbeattie 5y ago

So, at 100 steps per minute at a brisk pace, 7,000 steps is only an hour and 10 minutes of walking, minimum, per day. This is the recommendation? That we all spend two hours a day walking? Such practical health advice for today's modern world.

timbit42 5y ago
For millions of years, we didn't have cars. If you didn't have your car, you'd easily take that many steps every day. We're lazy.

jabbany 5y ago

Kind of curious about this (and this is something mentioned in the study itself). It seems that the observations about step count are just correlational and not causal. I wonder if the step count thing correlates with some other factors that are more causal? Like in the case of older adults, maybe those who walked more didn't have other physical conditions correlated with earlier mortality that prevented them from doing so? Also the meta-analysis linked to doesn't seem to say that mortality risk is _reduced_ by _increasing_ step count (implying an intervention) as the article implies. Rather just that people with the higher step counts had lower mortality rates.

generalenvelope 5y ago
I don't think there's anything uniquely beneficial about walking in comparison to other types of aerobic activity (running, biking, playing a sport) - though it may be more accessible/enjoyable which is important when considering adherence. It makes sense that mortality risk would be reduced by increasing step count, as that means increasing aerobic activity. See the 2019 Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans: https://health.gov/sites/default/files/2019-09/Physical_Activity_Guidelines_2nd_edition.pdf https://health.gov/sites/default/files/2019-09/Physical_Acti... Page 35 specifically outlines their justification for the recommendation of 150-300 minutes of moderate physical activity per week for adults. I will add that something like 80-90% of Americans don't meet the physical activity guidelines (150-300min moderate intensity aerobics + 2 days of muscle strengthening activities for major muscle groups, per week) - walking is one of the most accessible activities and is fairly "easy", so I think this is useful as a blanket recommendation.

radu_floricica 5y ago

Funny enough, it's not (just) about the exercise. Walking actually helps pump blood, so you're actually letting your heart rest a bit when you do it. Plus, like sleep, it's one of those activities that were so constant in our lives that a bunch of processes came to depend on it.

agumonkey 5y ago
When I was physically frail, walking was the only PE I could bear. It was surprising to see how integrated it is. It helps pump blood very softly. I massages your gut. It's a global exercise, unlike isolated workouts. There's also a mind aspect to wandering.. your imagination walks too, in various directions. ps: to add some context, I used to be a runner, so when health crashed, my first reaction was to jog to maintain things, but it was too demanding, stationary biking was too focused on legs.. both didn't allow blood to flow everywhere nicely. Too a few hikes only to feel warm blood back into toes and fingers for instance. And even lungs opened better. Since lungs are also linked to blood flow, ensuring a holistic proper circulation probably helped that part too.
Majestic121 5y ago
> Walking actually helps pump blood, so you're actually letting your heart rest a bit when you do it. That's surprising, because walking increases heart rate significantly compared to sitting/laying. Switching from sitting to a nice walk with my elderly parents makes me go from 50-60 BPM to 90+ What kind of rest are you talking about ?
- radu_floricica 5y ago
  I'm on the phone and honestly too lazy to look for a good primary source, but a google for "walking pumps blood" finds lots of hits, most on calf muscles pumping venous blood. Also tbh 90+ walking sounds like a warning sign...
  - Jtsummers 5y ago
    90+ while walking is a reasonable heartrate if it's a high pace. For a stroll, then yes it's a sign of poor health.

graeme 5y ago

I used to have a 10,000/day goal. Recently switched to 7,000. I still regularly exceed that goal but realized not falling below 7,000 was important on days I wasn’t able to move as much. Interesting to see the threshold I chose has research backing it. (Though maybe I should be at 8,000-9,000 since I’m younger)

dsmmcken 5y ago

Getting a dog can be a great way of forcing you into it. I easily surpass this everyday now, when previously I could have been described more as an indoor cat. I can't count how many times I've been stuck on a tough problem during the workday, and then a mid-day walk with the dog clears my mind enough to solve it. edit: obviously exercise your best judgement if this is appropriate for you, do appropriate research, adopt don't shop etc.

avgDev 5y ago
JUST NO. Don't recommend this. Getting a dog to force yourself to walk is not fair to the dog. Some people will still not walk and the dog will just become a problem. It is the best when people getting a dog understand what they are getting into. Dogs are a lot of work and expensive.
- pavel_lishin 5y ago
  I think it's something that each person should introspect a bit on. I've been pushing back against getting a dog, because I know I would hate to have to walk it first thing every morning; I don't want to build up resentment towards an animal. But for other people, it works, it's great, and they form a life-long bond.
  - yostrovs 5y ago
    I felt the same anxiety about having to walk our dog when we first got it. But it's totally worth it and doesn't feel as a chore. It's time to yourself, to think about things, to wake up, to give you a perfect routine to start the day. I've felt physically better since getting a dog, and they really do fall in love with you, so that connection makes you feel great about yourself. I only advocate for adoption. There are so many dogs that need a loving home.
- INTPenis 5y ago
  Yeah getting a dog is a great thing but it's also a living creature that can live for 15 years. People just don't think that far ahead. I am forever grateful to my dog though. She saved my life after a loved one passed away. Thanks to that dog I meet more people, I have no trouble walking 10k steps a day, I get sunshine, fresh air. I'm only 5 years in but so far I love it and I have no problem exercising it. But it has also opened my eyes to how many dog owners there are out there, and how many of them are negligent.

markstos 5y ago

If you are wondering where the original 10,000 steps per day day came from-- it was a nice round number promoted by a pedometer company to sell the devices. https://www.popsci.com/story/health/10000-steps-evidence-study/ https://www.popsci.com/story/health/10000-steps-evidence-stu... As long distance runner who used to track my steps closely, I agree 7,000-8,000 is a good daily goal.

calvinmorrison 5y ago
There's a reason "walk till you rollover" was a slogan! My pedometer only went to 9999
ryan_lane 5y ago
Even more amazingly, it's likely a marketing thing, using the 万 (man) character, which looks like someone walking and happens to be 10,000.
- resoluteteeth 5y ago
  Is there an actual source for this or is it just the article author's speculation?

dukeofdoom 5y ago

The glaring problem with the measured benefit here is that walking ability is a great determinant of overall health. Any senior able to walk 3k is already well above the others in health outcomes, and less likely to die than the rest, regardless if they walk 3k everyday or not. It's like claiming driving a Ferrari will make you wealthy, because you observed that Ferrari owners paid off the biggest speeding tickets. Then advising people to buy a Ferrari to be wealthy.

notacoward 5y ago

FWIW, 7000 steps works out very close to 5km (3.11mi) for a typical male stride. About 10% less distance for female. I consider myself pretty active, running at least 6.5km (4mi) five days a week, and I average around 8000 steps/day (including rest days). So yes, 7000 steps per day might do a lot of good, but it's also enough effort that most people will have to spend non-trivial time working up to it.

hyperpape 5y ago

I don’t know how to weigh the two pieces against each other (I have not dug in to the details), but here’s an alternate meta-analysis that suggests reductions in all-cause mortality continue past 10,000 daily steps: https://www.strongerbyscience.com/research-spotlight-walking/ https://www.strongerbyscience.com/research-spotlight-walking.... Btw: the discussion here suggests some reasons to believe there’s a causal connection, and it’s only partially a matter of “health problems might reduce the amount people walk.”

ls612 5y ago
At a bare minimum, otherwise healthy old people can fall and break a bone, which will often be the beginning of the end for them. Getting aerobic exercise reduces the chance of that happening since your muscles are more robust.

elmolino89 5y ago

Getting 7k steps while working from home +/- bad weather may not be possible every day. I just got a cheap rowing machine in my home office and I take short, 5mins or less breaks during the day. Rowing is not just more intense but also uses a bunch of muscles getting weaker and weaker in sedentary people. So walk 7k if this works for you. Get some exercise machine if almost 2hrs walking per day seems too demanding.

BXLE_1-1-BitIs1 5y ago

In my teens, the family went to visit our backyard neighbors for a dinner. Normally we kids just hopped over the fence, but for this occasion, we were all bundled in the car. The only adults seen walking in our suburban neighborhood were the maids. A big chunk of global warming comes from the North American suburb.

inglor_cz 5y ago

The correlation vs. causality is, as always in medicine, a huge question, but aside from cardiovascular health improvements, I can see at least two other plausible causal chains. Possibly all three work at the same time: Causal chain 2: fewer falls in older people. Breaking your hip is about as deadly as having progressing cancer in old age. Sedentary older people will lose bone density, muscle mass and sense of balance, thus being more prone to dangerous falls. Causal chain 3: training for the immune system. If you walk so many steps every day, you almost certainly walk outside, too. Which means exposing yourself to heat, cold, frost, sleet, sun, rain, wind etc. all year round. That may be a good training for your immune system.