Science Officially Confirmed That The 10,000 Steps Rule Is Outdated. Here's The New Number To Target.
The new findings suggest that you can actually reap the major health benefits well before you hit 10,000 steps.
Here's what experts say about the 10k number and how this applies to your life.
The idea that you need to log 10,000 steps a day for good health has been health gospel for ages. But as Women's Health previously reported this year, the 10,000-a-day steps goal (which roughly equates to five miles) isn't really based in science. In fact, it's more marketing than anything. But it's a nice, round number, and it's built into most fitness trackers.
Now, a new scientific analysis in The Lancet Public Health officially confirms that this lofty steps count goal isn't actually necessary—and the potential health benefits start to level off well before you reach that point.
If you've been happily clocking 10,000 steps a day and feel like it's working for you, there's no reason to stop. But if that number is intimidating and feels impossible to reach with everything else you've got going on in your life, this study probably has some findings you can use. Here's what the scientific review discovered, plus where experts and trainers recommend you try to land with your new step count goal.
Meet the experts: Albert Matheny, RD, CSCS, co-founder of SoHo Strength Lab; Dani Singer, CPT, founder of Fit2Go Personal Training
What did the new meta review find?
For the review, researchers analyzed data from 88 different studies, looking at how step counts were linked with the risk of developing a slew of health conditions. Overall, the researchers discovered that the risk of developing serious health conditions like cardiovascular disease, dementia, cancer, type 2 diabetes, and depression was lower in people who logged 7,000 steps a day compared to those who only did 2,000 daily steps.
But they also discovered that the health perks beyond 7,000 steps were actually pretty minimal.
"Although 10,000 steps per day, an unofficial target for decades without a clear evidence base, was associated with substantially lower risks for all-cause mortality, cardiovascular disease incidence, cancer mortality, dementia, and depressive symptoms than 7,000 steps per day, the incremental improvement beyond 7,000 steps per day was small, and there was no statistical difference between 7,000 steps per day and a higher step count for all the other outcomes," the investigators wrote. "Therefore, 7,000 steps per day might be a more realistic and achievable recommendation for some, but 10,000 steps per day can still be a viable target for those who are more active.'
Where did the 10,000 number come from?
The famous steps goal number has a long history behind it (you can do a deep dive here). But here's a quick recap: This number was formulated by a Tokyo doctor named Iwao Ohya who created a fitness tracker called Manpo-Kei (in Japanese, that means "10,000 step meter) with engineer Jiro Kato.
It's been suggested that 10,000 steps was chosen because the Japanese character for 10,000 looks like a man running or walking, but it's not really clear if that's truly one of the reasons behind the number. (Both inventors have since died.)
The number 10,000 eventually got picked up by researchers and fitness tracker developers, and its popularity spread. These days, almost everyone knows the number. Still, "no clinical data backed it then, and none was added later," says Dani Singer, CPT, founder of Fit2Go Personal Training.
Why is it not accurate?
While hitting 10,000 steps isn't bad for you (and means you're moving a lot throughout the day) the exact number is pretty much made up. "It was a marketing campaign,' says Albert Matheny, RD, CSCS, co-founder of SoHo Strength Lab. 'There wasn't a scientific basis for it.'
Matheny stresses that the 10,000 steps a day goal isn't necessarily inaccurate from a health POV—but many people can get serious health perks between 5,000 to 7,000 steps a day. "The data show health gains level off well before 10,000," Singer says. "Mortality and cardiovascular risk improvements start at just 2,000. It's important to understand this so that you avoid an all-or-nothing mindset—especially one that isn't based on any actual data."
If that's the number you like, and you hit it consistently, stick with it! But just remember: '10,000 steps per day is not the magic number," per Matheny.
So, how many steps should I take per day?
Based on the scientific review's findings, aiming for 5,000 to 7,000 steps a day is a good goal to reach for. That's roughly two to 3.5 miles per day, depending on your stride. 'There's nothing wrong with 10,000 steps, but it isn't based in science,' Matheny says.
If you want to still aim for 10,000 steps, Matheny says you should go for it. 'If you don't get there, maybe you still get to 7,000,' he points out. But any amount of walking is helpful. 'A thousand steps is way better than zero,' Matheny says.
You Might Also Like
Jennifer Garner Swears By This Retinol Eye Cream
These New Kicks Will Help You Smash Your Cross-Training Goals
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Yahoo
Forget the gym — this 10-minute mobility routine boosts your flexibility and improves your posture without equipment
When you buy through links on our articles, Future and its syndication partners may earn a commission. Everyone can benefit from doing more mobility work, and it doesn't have to take a lot of time to achieve the results you want. This 10-minute mobility routine from fitness trainer Fraser Wilson doesn't require any equipment, so it's easy to fit into your routine, and if you do it two or three times a week, it will quickly help to improve your posture and flexibility. If you want to roll out one of the best yoga mats to make floor exercises more comfortable, then go ahead, but otherwise, you don't need anything for this stretching session aside from a bit of space. Watch Fraser Wilson's 10-minute mobility routine There are 14 stretches in the routine and Wilson performs the whole thing in the video, so you can follow along to make sure you're getting into the right position and holding each pose for the correct length of time. The routine stretches the whole body and while that makes it a very time-efficient session to add to your weekly schedule, if you do have areas of the body that need more attention, then it might be worth also doing some more specific stretches for them — if it's your hips in particular that are tight, try these five moves to help unlock them. This mobility routine will benefit everyone, and is especially good for those doing regular workouts at the gym and taxing their muscles. Doing it after a training session will speed up your recovery from the workout and hopefully reduce the risk of experiencing any delayed-onset muscle soreness (DOMS). It's also a great way to relax the body after a tough workout, with the slow stretches helping to ease you off after your training, while also benefiting the muscles. For improving your mobility, it'll take some time for that benefit to appear — years of tightness don't disappear overnight after just one session. However, if you stick to doing this routine (or ones like it) several times a week, you will begin to notice improvements in your mobility. Consistency really is key. Stay consistent, and the benefits will shine through during your training, where you'll have more range and flexibility during strength workouts, and in general life, where you'll have more functional fitness thanks to increased mobility. If you're experienced with yoga, you'll be familiar with some of the moves in Wilson's video, and if you'd prefer to do a full yoga routine, try this 15-minute mobility session from a personal trainer to bulletproof your body. More from Tom's Guide Study says this is the real reason you're not seeing workout results — and it's not 10,000 steps I followed the Japanese walking method for 30 days — here's what happened to my back pain and energy levels watchOS 26 hands-on: 5 cool new features to try on your Apple Watch right now
The Hill
5 hours ago
- The Hill
RFK made a massive mistake by ending global vaccine funding
Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has pulled the plug on funding for GAVI, the global vaccine alliance. Every government needs to choose how to spend its own taxpayer money, of course, and the U.S. is far from the only country cutting back on aid. But childhood immunization is actually one of the best ways to make the world stronger and more stable. Kennedy announced his decision in a confrontational video addressed to GAVI's Brussels summit in June, citing baseless claims about vaccine safety. Kennedy is wrong. Childhood vaccines have been a triumph for human welfare. A retrospective Lancet study last year found they have likely saved 154 million lives globally over the past 50 years, with 94 million saved from measles vaccinations alone. For most of humanity's time on this planet, nearly half of our children have not survived to adulthood. Just two centuries ago, infectious diseases accounted for nearly half of all deaths in rich nations like the U.S. and Britain. Vaccines first managed and later eradicated smallpox — a disease that killed between 300 and 500 million people in the 20th century alone. Vaccines ended the scourge of polio — which, even in 1950, killed or paralyzed over half a million people every year. And vaccines eliminated measles in the U.S. by the year 2000, when just a century before American children suffered hundreds of thousands of infections and nearly 10,000 deaths each year. By preventing killer diseases, vaccines have transformed lives in America. They have saved untold heartbreak, and reduced the strain on health systems, freeing resources to tackle chronic conditions such as heart disease and cancer. Naturally, we should all want children in the rest of the world to have the same chances of surviving against easily preventable diseases. Unfortunately, poor countries have extremely limited budgets, with less than $90 per person per year available for all public spending. Even a minimal baseline health care system would consume the entire budget, and governments also have to spend on education, infrastructure, social protection, defense, public order and debt service. Here, kindness from rich countries like America is crucial to preventing deaths and thereby fostering growth and stability. Before Kennedy's decision, the U.S. was paying 13 percent of GAVI's costs. Other significant funders include Norway, Germany and the Gates Foundation. Altogether, more than 40 sovereign and philanthropic donors are taking their share of the responsibility to help the world's poorest. The U.S. contribution of $400 million per year can help a lot, vaccinating 75 million additional children and preventing more than 1.2 million deaths in the next five years. Since 2000, the global health partnership has vaccinated 1 billion children across 78 countries, saving 19 million lives. GAVI's work has been pivotal in halving child mortality in supported regions since 2000 through vaccines like DTPw, which protects against diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis. Between 2026 and 2030, GAVI aims to immunize at least 500 million more children, potentially preventing an additional 8 to 9 million deaths. This will not only save heartache for parents and families, but it will boost economic security. Illness and death from infectious disease can wreak economic devastation that families struggle to recover from. Research from my think tank, Copenhagen Consensus, quantifies the extraordinary value of vaccine investments. Maintaining current global spending will save 3.8 million lives annually from preventable diseases by 2030, delivering an almost unimaginable $286 in social benefits for every dollar spent. This is an incredible opportunity to help share the moral responsibility for humanity and do good in the world. But we should not stop there. Scaling up vaccination coverage, though costlier at $1.5 billion annually plus $200 million in indirect costs (like time spent by families accessing clinics), would save an additional 4.1 million lives yearly. This translates to $101 in social benefits per dollar spent, still an unparalleled return on investment. Kennedy bases his attack on GAVI on vaccine safety. This is unfounded scaremongering. There is more than a century of evidence of vaccine effectiveness, with billions of people vaccinated. Vaccines have been monitored for safety since their introduction in the U.S., with formal regulatory structures established in the early 20th century. The latest public U.S. study from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, of over 300 studies in 500 publications, found no evidence of major safety concerns connected to the childhood immunization schedule. While nothing is ever totally safe, and rare adverse effects are possible, such a tiny downside completely pales next to the upside of protecting the lives of almost 4 million children that the vaccines now save every year. Instead, Kennedy's attack contributes to vaccine hesitancy in rich countries, where vaccination rates were already dropping. This has real consequences — American measles cases are now at a 33-year high. It is easy to make parents scared, but giving them the full picture would highlight the enormous overall upside of well-tested childhood vaccines. Vaccines have become a new battleground of the culture wars. They shouldn't be. Yes, we should always be clear about safety, but we should also always keep in mind the much greater benefits. America has always been a generous country. It has been a beacon of common sense. Kennedy's approach is wrong. Reversing this decision would avoid squandering decades of U.S. soft power. Congress should undo this. The lives of millions of children worldwide hang in the balance. Best Things First.'
Fox News
8 hours ago
- Fox News
Russia and China tick Doomsday Clock toward midnight as Hiroshima bombing hits 80 years
Wednesday marks the 80th anniversary of when the U.S. employed the first ever nuclear bomb over the Japanese city of Hiroshima, followed by the bombing of Nagasaki three days later on Aug. 9. But despite nearly a century of lessons learned, nuclear warfare still remains a significant threat. "This is the first time that the United States is facing down two nuclear peer adversaries – Russia and China," Rebeccah Heinrichs, nuclear expert and senior fellow at the Hudson Institute, told Fox News Digital. Heinrichs explained that not only are Moscow and Beijing continuing to develop new nuclear capabilities and delivery systems, but they are increasingly collaborating with one another in direct opposition to the West, and more pointedly, the U.S. "It's a much more complex nuclear threat environment than what the United States even had to contend with during the Cold War, where we just had one nuclear peer adversary in the Soviet Union," she said. "In that regard, it's a serious problem, especially when both China and Russia are investing in nuclear capabilities and at the same time have revanchist goals." Despite the known immense devastation that would accompany an atomic war between two nuclear nations, concern has been growing that the threat of nuclear war is on the rise. The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki – which collectively killed some 200,000 people, not including the dozens of thousands who later died from radiation poisoning and cancer – have been attributed with bringing an end to World War II. But the bombs did more than end the deadliest war in human history – they forever changed military doctrine, sparked a nuclear arms race and cemented the concept of deterrence through the theory of mutually assured destruction. Earlier this year the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists moved forward the "Doomsday Clock" by one second – pushing it closer to "midnight," or atomic meltdown, than ever before. In January, the board of scientists and security officials in charge of the 78-year-old clock, which is used to measure the threat level of nuclear warfare, said that moving the clock to 89 seconds to midnight "signals that the world is on a course of unprecedented risk, and that continuing on the current path is a form of madness." Despite the escalated nuclear threats coming out of North Korea, and international concern over the Iranian nuclear program, the threat level largely came down to the three biggest players in the nuclear arena: Russia, the U.S. and China. The increased threat level was attributed to Russia's refusal to comply with international nuclear treaties amid its continuously escalating war in Ukraine and its hostile opposition to NATO nations, as well as China's insistence on expanding its nuclear arsenal. But the Bulletin, which was founded by scientists on the Manhattan Project in 1945 to inform the public of the dangers of atomic warfare, also said the U.S. has a role in the increased nuclear threat level. "The U.S. has abdicated its role as a voice of caution. It seems inclined to expand its nuclear arsenal and adopt a posture that reinforces the belief that 'limited' use of nuclear weapons can be managed," the Bulletin said. "Such misplaced confidence could have us stumble into a nuclear war." But Heinrichs countered the "alarmist" message and argued that deterrence remains a very real protectant against nuclear warfare, even as Russia increasingly threatens Western nations with atomic use. "I do think that it's a serious threat. I don't think it's inevitable that we're sort of staring down nuclear Armageddon," she said. Heinrichs argued the chief threat is not the number of nuclear warheads a nation possesses, but in how they threaten to employ their capabilities. "I think that whenever there is a threat of nuclear use, it's because adversaries, authoritarian countries, in particular Russia, is threatening to use nuclear weapons to invade another country. And that's where the greatest risk of deterrence failure is," she said. "It's not because of the sheer number of nuclear weapons." Heinrichs said Russia is lowering the nuclear threshold by routinely threatening to employ nuclear weapons in a move to coerce Western nations to capitulate to their demands, as in the case of capturing territory in Ukraine and attempting to deny it NATO access. Instead, she argued that the U.S. and its allies need to improve their deterrence by not only staying on top of their capabilities but expanding their nuclear reach in regions like the Indo-Pacific. "The answer is not to be so afraid of it or alarmed that you capitulate, because you're only going to beget more nuclear coercion if you do that," she said. "The answer is to prudently, carefully communicate to the Russians they are not going to succeed through nuclear coercion, that the United States also has credible response options. "We also have nuclear weapons, and we have credible and proportional responses, and so they shouldn't go down that path," Heinrichs said. "That's how we maintain the nuclear peace. That's how we deter conflict. And that's how we ensure that a nuclear weapon is not used."
