Many of us have heard the claim that walking 10,000 steps daily is essential for good cardiovascular health. However, a significant number of people also believe this notion to be a myth. Despite this skepticism, many continue to strive for this target, viewing it as a personal challenge or competition.
Recent research by an international team of scientists has revealed that the total number of steps taken may be less important than how those steps are distributed throughout the day. To hit the 10,000-step goal, many individuals rely on smartwatches and fitness trackers, which count all the steps from moving around their homes or workplaces. Unfortunately, this approach may not effectively contribute to cardiovascular and metabolic health, according to the findings of the study.
Instead, the research suggests that engaging in several walking sessions lasting at least 10 to 15 minutes each day may be more beneficial. This indicates that walking 6,000 steps during longer walks could be more advantageous than reaching 15,000 steps through numerous short strolls or office movements.
The study, while having some limitations, presents compelling evidence for further exploration in this area. The popular belief in achieving 10,000 steps a day stems from a marketing strategy rather than scientific research. In 1965, a Japanese company introduced a pedometer named Manpo-kei, which translates to “10,000 steps meter.” The name was chosen because the kanji character for 10,000 resembles a person walking, not based on any health recommendations.
Numerous studies have explored the validity of the 10,000-step guideline and found that it is not a definitive target, as various factors contribute to health. For instance, walking uphill or climbing stairs requires significantly fewer steps for the same health benefit. A recent study analyzing data from over 33,000 individuals aged 40 to 79, who were relatively sedentary and did not have pre-existing health conditions, demonstrated that participants who accumulated most of their daily steps in 10 to 15-minute intervals had about a 4% lower risk of experiencing a cardiovascular event in the following decade.
Conversely, those who obtained the majority of their steps in less than 5-minute intervals experienced a risk approximately 9% higher for future cardiovascular incidents. Although these figures may seem minor, they are notably significant, especially among less active participants. For individuals walking fewer than 5,000 steps daily, longer walking sessions were linked to an 85% lower mortality rate compared to shorter walks.
Nevertheless, this study has limitations, including its observational nature and the relatively short duration of physical activity measurement. The authors acknowledge these limitations and advise cautious interpretation of the results while still considering them relevant for further investigation. Other experts concur, suggesting that the sample size warrants clinical trials to eliminate these limitations. Hypotheses regarding causation include the possibility that longer walks enhance blood flow, potentially improving insulin sensitivity.
Additional studies support the notion that walk duration is crucial. They generally align with the findings of this research, emphasizing that longer walks are more beneficial than merely achieving 10,000 steps. Some studies argue that shorter, brisk walks may be more advantageous than longer, slower ones, possibly due to the increased heart rate associated with higher walking speeds. Regardless of the approach, it is clear that reaching the 10,000-step benchmark is not necessary; it is a catchy marketing term without substantial scientific backing.
