Scientists say you don't need 10,000 steps a day. Here's how many to do instead
While many find the latter difficult to achieve, new research indicates "sizeable" health benefits are still possible with fewer daily steps.
Academics from the University of Sydney in Australia led the study, examining data from dozens of global studies, including those in the UK, involving tens of thousands of adults.
Their findings revealed that individuals consistently walking 7,000 steps daily appeared to gain significant protection against various diseases.
This included a 25 per cent lower risk of heart disease, a 14 per cent reduced risk of type 2 diabetes, a 38 per cent decrease in dementia, and a 22 per cent reduction in depression.
Experts noted that even modest step counts of 4,000 steps a day could yield benefits over very low activity levels.
However, they also clarified that "10,000 steps per day will still be better than 7,000 steps," with the higher count leading to even more comprehensive health advantages.
The researchers also found that when people walked 7,000 daily steps, compared to walking 2,000 steps, they were 47 per cent less likely to die during the follow-up periods of the studies analysed.
And while the number of steps walked did not sway whether or not a person got cancer, people who walked more steps were significantly less likely to die from cancer – with 37 per cent lower odds of cancer death compared to people who walked fewer steps.
'Although 10,000 steps per day can still be a viable target for those who are more active, 7,000 steps per day is associated with clinically meaningful improvements in health outcomes and might be a more realistic and achievable target for some,' the authors wrote in the journal Lancet Public Health.
They added: 'Even modest daily step counts were associated with health benefits.
'7,000 steps per day was associated with sizeable risk reductions across most outcomes, compared with the reference of 2,000 steps per day.'
Commenting on the study, Dr Daniel Bailey, Reader – Sedentary Behaviour and Health, Brunel University of London, said: 'The finding that doing 5000-7000 steps per day is an important addition to the literature which helps to debunk the myth that 10,000 steps per day should be the target for optimal health.
'This study suggested that 5000-7000 steps per day can significantly reduce the risk of many health outcomes, but that does not mean you cannot get benefits if you don't meet this target.
'The study also found that health risks were reduced with each 1000 extra steps per day, up to a maximum of 12,000 steps per day. So just adding more steps from your starting point can have important benefits for health.'
Dr Andrew Scott, senior Lecturer in clinical exercise physiology at the University of Portsmouth, added: 'In most cases, the 10,000 steps per day will still be better than 7,000 steps, just by decreasing margins of health benefit return.
'More important than the exact number of steps, it demonstrates that overall, more is always better and people should not focus too much on the numbers, particularly on days where activity is limited.
'The steps per day is useful when people's exercise is weight-bearing, however cycling, swimming and rowing are not well-represented by the steps per day model.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
Parents, beware the devastating consequences of measles
After reading the letters about vaccine misinformation and hesitancy (Measles surge shows why vaccinations are crucial, 20 July), I felt I must write to tell you of one unrecognised cause of the drop in vaccine uptake: when I worked as a community school nursing sister in the 1980s, with 11 state schools and a number of private schools that took up the vaccine service, we had 98% uptake of vaccines in the school setting. This was due to the system of sending letters home to parents requesting their consent and following up by phone, if necessary, by the school office staff. The children came in class batches. Then the local health authority decided that this service should be discontinued and parents were invited to take their child to the local GP surgery for their vaccinations. The uptake plummeted to less than 40% of eligible children due to children not taking the letters home, or parents forgetting or losing the letter – or being unable to take time off to take their child to the surgery. When I asked the GPs at the local health centre what the uptake for the cohort of eligible children was, they looked at their records and were surprised, but reluctant to do anything about it. Health visitors were responsible for, and very successful in, advising new mothers when vaccines were due, where to get them and encouraging uptake. It should be compulsory for all vaccines for preschool children (which includes measles) to be done before a child is admitted to school, as in many other countries. As a midwife, I saw a baby born to a mother who had contact with rubella in early pregnancy. The little girl was born with a body rash, had bilateral cataracts and was totally deaf. She was was very ill. Schools for deaf children may return again for these children if vaccination is not taken up for whatever reason. How StephensLiphook, Hampshire I contracted measles just before the NHS was established. With it came serious ear infections, burst eardrums, etc. There were no vaccines, just ear drops. Over the years the infections and operations continued and now, aged 82, I have no hearing with complications. I beg people to think seriously about vaccination. The consequences of measles can sometimes be devastating. Jean JacksonSeer Green, Buckinghamshire I caught measles aged six in 1953, at a time when parents hoped their children would get it (and chicken pox and mumps) so as to gain immunity. My dad, aged 54, had not had measles as a boy, caught it from me and nearly died. The risk of not vaccinating children is not just to WallLondon
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
If we're serious about protecting pregnancies, we need to stop spraying pesticides
As a biochemist trained in environmental health, I was relieved to see coverage of pesticide exposure and pregnancy risk (Exposure to a mix of pesticides raises risk of pregnancy complications, study suggests, 19 July). But one key detail is missing: food is not the main route of exposure for most women, especially in urban environments. While dietary pesticide levels are regulated, many studies – including urine biomonitoring – have shown less difference in pesticide load between children eating organic and conventional diets in cities than we would expect. Why? Because exposure is happening elsewhere. Pesticides are being sprayed by building managers, neighbours, city governments and businesses – on sidewalks, in apartment hallways, in parks, and even indoors. Many women are exposed without ever handling these chemicals themselves. In fact, a 2020 study found that urban women who used pesticides at home had the same increased risk of birth defects as women exposed to farm drift: a threefold increase in holoprosencephaly, one of the most common birth defects in the US. We must shift the conversation beyond food. These chemicals are in the air women breathe and the homes they live in – often without their knowledge or consent. If we're serious about protecting pregnancies, we need to stop the ShaveOlympia, Washington, US
Times
an hour ago
- Times
Nurses set to reject pay offer as further strike action looms
Nurses will this week overwhelmingly reject their pay deal, raising the prospect that they will join junior doctors on strike. The Royal College of Nursing (RCN) will warn ministers that they must come back to the table over the summer to avoid a formal strike ballot in the autumn and additional unrest that will further set back NHS recovery. However, public support for doctors' strikes appears to be waning, as ministers accuse them of holding the country to ransom and hospitals report fewer staff joining picket lines. Resident doctors, formerly known junior doctors, are in a five-day walkout after rejecting a 5.4 per cent pay rise, which came after a 22 per cent increase last year. Polling for The Times found that 55 per cent of voters oppose the strike, up from 49 per cent earlier this month, while 32 per cent support it, down four points from the second week of July before the walkouts began. Tom Dolphin, the head of the British Medical Association (BMA), insisted that doctors 'don't want to be on strike', but said the walkouts were necessary because doctors were 'undervalued' and were 'leaving the NHS in large numbers'. He said that pay had to be 'enough to recruit and retain the best doctors'. Ministers have refused to reopen pay talks and negotiations on working conditions collapsed in acrimony last week as ministers accused the BMA of acting in bad faith, while the union said the government had failed to make any concrete offers. • NHS patients told to brace for strikes until Christmas and beyond The BMA is holding out for a full return to 2008 levels of pay and Dolphin said salaries 'reflect the responsibility of these doctors' who were making 'life and death decisions'. He said: 'Even nurses who've had a pretty bad time [are] not as badly off as doctors in terms of lost pay.' Nurses, however, are furious that their 3.6 per cent pay rise this year was lower than doctors' increases for the second year in a row. The RCN is holding an indicative vote on the pay award, which closed on Sunday. The vote is understood to show 'overwhelming' rejection of a deal, with turnout likely to be well over the 50 per cent threshold that would be needed for industrial action. The union is due to announce final results later this week with a call for ministers to return to the table. While the BMA is adamant that headline pay must rise, nurses are thought to be more open to talks on wider pay structures. The RCN has repeatedly complained that nurses can remain on the lowest rung of the NHS pay scale for decades and is expected to press ministers for reforms that would allow them to move up the scale as they gain experience. If no progress is made, a formal strike ballot is likely to be launched in the autumn. A spokesman for the union said: 'The results will be announced to our members later this week. As the largest part of the NHS workforce, nursing staff do not feel valued and the government must urgently begin to turn that around.' It came after ambulance and other hospital staff in the GMB Union voted to reject the 3.6 per cent offer last week, with strike action now being considered. The BMA consultants' committee is also holding an indicative vote over a 4 per cent pay deal it described an 'insult' to senior doctors. Dolphin said the vote was 'a testing of the waters to see where people are', but warned: 'We're certainly very aware already, even before we've done this ballot, the consultants are also very much down on their pay [compared with 2008].' He told Sky News he did not recognise reports that doctors were being paid £6,000 a shift to cover for strikes, but said overtime rates were 'whatever they can manage to negotiate with their employer'.
