7,000 Steps Can Save Your Life (axios.com) 68
Mortality risk was reduced by 50% for older adults who increased their daily steps from around 3,000 to around 7,000, according to new medical research. Axios reports: 7,000 is the new 10,000, in terms of steps you should shoot for, The Lancet medical journal reports. This is all it takes for those 60 and older to dramatically increase their lifespans. Even for younger adults, the benefits of daily walking actually level off around 9,000 steps per day, not 10,000, the researchers found. The risk reduction plateaued beyond that number.
"Walking benefits nearly every cell in the body," says Amanda Paluch, a kinesiologist and public health expert at UMass Amherst and the lead author of the study. It's wildly effective. Walking strengthens your heart, improves bone density, relaxes your mind, and helps with muscle-building and pain management. Almost everyone can do it anywhere: your house, the office, outside. Start with 30 minutes and work your way up."It's not an all or nothing situation," says Paluch. Even just boosting daily step count to 5,000 -- for 60 and older -- and 7,000 -- for younger folks -- slashed mortality risk by 40%.
"Walking benefits nearly every cell in the body," says Amanda Paluch, a kinesiologist and public health expert at UMass Amherst and the lead author of the study. It's wildly effective. Walking strengthens your heart, improves bone density, relaxes your mind, and helps with muscle-building and pain management. Almost everyone can do it anywhere: your house, the office, outside. Start with 30 minutes and work your way up."It's not an all or nothing situation," says Paluch. Even just boosting daily step count to 5,000 -- for 60 and older -- and 7,000 -- for younger folks -- slashed mortality risk by 40%.
That's not much. (Score:2)
Here I do about 14k steps per day, sometimes 20k.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, for me, 7,000 steps is about 3 miles of walking. That is my average it seems unless I deliberately "go for a walk".
Re:That's not much. (Score:4, Funny)
"Oh, won't you Gimme three steps, gimme three steps, mister
Gimme three steps toward the door?
Gimme three steps, gimme three steps, mister
And you'll never see me no more"
Re: (Score:2)
Re:That's not much. (Score:4, Funny)
You really are an idiot. You should be on your chair!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Over the winter time, I end up reducing my steps to barely over 10k a day since it is harder to gear up and deal with unplowed sidewalks, slush, ice, wind, etc.
In the summer months, I easily get 15k during the week and sometimes as much as 30k on the weekends
Nevertheless, I continue to maintain my weight and energy level year round despite keeping, more or less, the same diet (I actually tend to eat a little worse in the winter) and the reduced walking distance during the winter.
It does seem like even 10k i
Yep, Ten Thousand (Score:3)
7,000 steps per day rounds to 10K, so looks like the quoted number is about right!
(And I'm dubious that the data is precise enought to really distinguish 7K from 10K. The actual paper is here, if you want to check it: https://www.thelancet.com/jour... [thelancet.com] )
Re:Yep, Ten Thousand (Score:5, Insightful)
This was a meta-study, so it amalgamated a bunch of individual studies (15, in fact). They amalgamated the data by quartiles, with quartile 3 having a median of 7842 steps, and quartile 4 having a median of 10,901 steps (essentially, 7K and 10K respectively.) The 7K quartile had 55% of the mortality of the lowest quartile, and the 10K quartile had 47%. The error bars for the last two overlap, but nevertheless 10K steps showed 15% lower mortality than the 7K quartile. So, the headline is misleading; looks like 7K is good, but 10K is better.
My problem, though, is the usual one: correlation? or causation? It seems plausible that the causation is the opposite direction: people who are in poor health can't walk 10K steps per day. Good health causes more steps, and not more steps causes good health
Re: (Score:3)
>"My problem, though, is the usual one: correlation? or causation?"
Bingo.
I have no doubt at all that walking regularly is very beneficial to health and probably does extend lifespan and quality of life. Even so, claims of "dramatically increase their lifespans" and "slashed mortality risk by 40%" are causal statements. And those cannot really be made with just studies like these. Of course, with this type of subject, I am not sure controlled experiments would be possible, much less ethical.
Re:Yep, Ten Thousand (Score:5, Informative)
Really I think uni-directional causality is practically impossible among factors that interact over long periods of time like this. Almost certainly walking and health form a cycle.
Re: (Score:2)
Really I think uni-directional causality is practically impossible among factors that interact over long periods of time like this. Almost certainly walking and health form a cycle.
Ohhhh, that's a Bingo. Is that the way you say it?
Re: (Score:2)
You need to view the study in context, not in isolation. We already know exercise improves your health. That was proven long ago. We have decades of studies establishing causation, such as controlled studies that got people to increase how much they walked and compared their outcomes to people who didn't change their exercise habits. This study didn't need to establish causation. It just refined the estimate of optimal dose.
If all you knew about was this one study, you'd be right in saying we couldn't
Re: (Score:1)
people who are in poor health can't walk 10K steps per day.
I once knew a very fat horribly unfit coworker. The kind we had to wait for at the top of the steps. You're right, he can't walk 10k steps a day. That doesn't mean the causation is invalid because it's very much certain that health and movement are not linked. That is pretty much settled science at this point.
Anyway why the past tense? Because that fat bastard recognised his problem, got some movement. Slowly over the course of the year became fitter, thinner, got his blood sugar under control, and 3 years
Nice anecdote [Re:Yep, Ten Thousand] (Score:2)
Nice anecdote.
There is a saying in the sciences: "the plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'."
But, yes, it's quite reasonable that the causation goes both directions.
Re: (Score:2)
or are you lying for some other agenda?
You busted him! He is definitely making up this story to drum up membership to his unnamed workplace jogging club.
Re: (Score:3)
And no allowances for seniors with polio, knee injuries and other abuses of life and circumstances. And like so many other medical pronouncements that the trade uses to browbeat patients -- there is no mechanism, so it may as well be a religious stricture.
Re: (Score:2)
One doesn't need to walk on the street - one can walk in say, a swimming pool. Seniors often have exercise classes done in a swimming pool for that reason - it lessens the impact on joints, the warm water helps with joints, etc.
Anyhow, the real point I've
Confusing correlation and causation might be good. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That is very likely true, but "very likely true" is not the same as "confirmed by science".
The data given does not show that increasing your walking will increase your health. I personally believe it will, but "I personally believe this" is also not the same as "confirmed by science".
Skip the smartphone app (Score:5, Interesting)
That's about 3.5 miles.
Re: (Score:3)
That's about 3.5 miles.
Roman, English, statute, nautical, Italian, or what mile?
Nevermind, just give it to me in furlongs.
Re: (Score:2)
That would be 28 furlongs.
Depends on stride length (Score:2)
1 mile for me is about 3000 steps
Re: (Score:2)
Can you translate that into something people understand? Like metric system or something physical like how many steps it takes to walk?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So I have to walk further if I live in a place with the metric system? That's BS!!!!
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, gas is unaffordable there.
Re: (Score:2)
That's 3310 smoots to those attending MIT.
So can quitting smoking. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why not switch to vaping?
Re: (Score:2)
Vaping: the new vaporware.
Deurbanization/WFH will make the problem worse... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I've never walked as much as I did in NYC. Well, except on backpacking trips.
However, the air quality was a lot better backpacking.
Re: (Score:3)
However, the air quality was a lot better backpacking.
EVs will fix that.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Your reference says that tires produce dust at a rate of 5.8 grams/kilometer.
So for a 1000 km (600 mile) trip, that would be 5.8 kilograms or about 12 pounds.
Since a typical tire weighs about 30 pounds, that is clearly nonsense.
Re: Deurbanization/WFH will make the problem worse (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe not all the dust comes from the tyre. .6mm for wear is 2400 cm3. Take half that to take in account the grooves and you get over a liter. Times density. I don't know the density. 2? That would make 2kg.
Anyway a quick estimate does suggest that a tyre loses several kgs as it wears down: a relatively small R16/55/205 tyre has a circumference of 2m and is 20cm wide so 400cm2. times
Re: (Score:2)
The majority of particles are from the road. The rubber is resilient and will produce very little, comparatively. Also, more is produced when accelerating and braking, so much more is produced in cities, where it also has much worse effect.
Re: (Score:2)
You still have the problem of tire dust.
Re: (Score:2)
What magnitude of problem is tire dust compared to tailpipe emissions?
Re: (Score:3)
Person who fled the city has more space to run around in and better air in which to do it. And grow some good food while at it.
Re: (Score:2)
Statistically, obesity is more a rural thing than an urban one.
In the city, especially if you don't own a car, you have to walk to do anything. Both city and country life have upsides and downsides. It's certainly nicer exercising in the country but exercise is harder to avoid in the city.
I definitely put on weight during the pandemic when I went out less. I was probably getting my 10,000 steps (I never counted) just on the daily commute, every single day almost without fail.
Re: (Score:2)
In the city, you're often forced to do some level of exercise by necessity. In the countryside, it's a leisure activity or something you intentionally do for health reasons. If you want to walk in the country, get a dog and take it for a walk every day through some open fields.
Re: (Score:2)
Except for the very largest cities in the U.S., you need a car if you want to be mobile. Walking, biking, and public transportation options elsewhere are quite limited compared to these, or to comparably sized cities in most of the rest of the world.
Example: in Northeast Ohio (Cleveland area) public transit is only usable, barely, if you are commuting to or from the city or inner suburbs, and during peak hours. Coverage and frequency elsewhere is such that no one would use it if they didn't have to.
Where
Re: Deurbanization/WFH will make the problem worse (Score:2)
A million times this. An added "advantage" of small town living is it's further to get places. If you aren't so far from everything, or so lazy, or entitled to your car then you do walk more.
When I'm in the city I barely need to go 2 blocks to find what I want. I walked 3km (2miles give or take) just to eat lunch out today. That's basically half my daily exercise requirement just strolling for a feed.
"Country" (small town) living definitely has its upsides. Fresh air, plenty of space, greatly reduced stress
Re: (Score:2)
Person who fled the city has more space to run around in and better air in which to do it. And grow some good food while at it.
But there are fewer reasons to run around anywhere. When I lived downtown I would walk everywhere, whether it was a store across the street or the cinema like 30 minutes away. I'm not a bit on the outskirts and there's no reason to go outside. The supermarket is 15 minutes away so it's better to stop there one a week when I have the car out. My parents live in a rural-ish suburb don't walk further than the car in their driveway or the bus stop.
Re: (Score:2)
I'll bet they're lucky to get 2,000 steps a day of unintentional exercise.
Funny. During work from home I decided the 1.5hours a day I used to spend in traffic could be better spent as a walk in the park, a bike ride, or a jog. I got far more steps in than I ever did walking from the parking lot to my desk and back and forth to the coffee machine during the day.
If you're relying on unintentional exercise you're doing it wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
7000 steps is about 2 miles, give or take. Either you must have a treadmill, do a lot of pacing around, or have an absolutely huge house.
I try to get out and walk everyday, but those rare few days where I don't leave the house because of something like a raging blizzard, I probably don't do more than a few hundred feet of walking, if even that.
26km a week (Score:2)
Mortality risk was reduced by 50%? (Score:2)
You mean half of them never died?
Re:Mortality risk was reduced by 50%? (Score:4, Insightful)
You mean half of them never died?
"Mortality" in a scientific context means the death rate per unit of time.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
If this program gives me a 50% shot at immortality, I'm definitely signing up.
More numerology (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nothing in real life is a nice round number.
The Kanji script symbol for 10,000 looks a bit like a running man (well, if you squint a bit), so when the pedometer was being commercialised in Japan they, unsurprisingly, chose that number as the target.
The rest, as they say, is history.
About 40 minutes a day, then (Score:5, Informative)
7000 steps is probably about an hour a day, so for a typical sedentary person, probably need to do an additional 5,000 steps, something like that. A brisk 40 minute walk daily should be about right.
There is evidence that a high intensity component is desirable, and as you age, there is muscle loss, which is a very good predictor of failing health as we age, so a resistance component about twice a week is also desirable to counter that.
I've come across the following advice, from a well informed personal trainer, specifically for older people but it should work at any age.
Use weights twice a week, for about 45 minutes.
Set up the routine so that the same exercise is never done at consecutive sessions - eg if you do squats on Monday, do deadlifts Thursday. Have a short rest interval between sets, and do supersets to speed up recovery. For instance, alternate squats and pullovers, biceps curls and triceps extension, overhead press and chinning the bar. Work out at your ten rep max, but only do 5 reps, and do as many sets as you can manage in 15 minutes. It will mostly be less than 10, and it may be necessary to lower the weight on the later sets. The interval between sets should be about 10 seconds.
After one 15 minute session like this, take a brief rest and move on the the next pair. With rest and a good warmup before starting this will take 40-45 minutes. If you are very fit and young, do three pairs, but mostly two pairs will be plenty.
Eg Monday
set one: squats and pullover (ten second rest between sets, do as many sets as possible in 15 minutes)
rest five minutes
set two: dumbbell bench and rowing
Thurs
set one: deadlift and biceps curl
set two: pullown or chin and overhead press
Then do some form of aerobics on four of the remaining five days, in a form which will allow an HIT component on two of those days. For instance, rowing for about a half hour, and on two of the days do HIT intervals. You only do HIT on two widely separated days, to make sure there is time for recovery.
This leaves one rest day.
I tried the weight routine, and it doesn't sound much, but it was the hardest workout I have done.
A new Bond movie? (Score:2)
Instructions too complicated (Score:4, Funny)
Health is really simple in the USA (Score:2)
1. Move more often
2. Avoid tasty food
Step or Pace? (Score:2)
In looking over several dozen sits about "steps" for health, and a similar number of comments, there appears to me a confusion in terminology that makes a huge difference in these recommendations. Are they really talking about steps (moving one foot forward) or paces (where you take a second step to bring the original forward foot back to that position).
I assume all the health researchers are using the dictionary definition of one foot movement, but it seems to me that a lot of people are taking it to mean
Re: (Score:2)
Here is a good example of this confusion in action, on a site that purports how to measure step length. [palmshadow.com]
Step Length is the distance measured from the heel print of one foot to the heel print of the other foot.
OK, they are using the correct definition of a step, the movement of one foot. So far so good.
For walking the average is 2.2 feet for a woman and 2.5 feet for a man.
Say what? I am 71" tall, and if I place on foot on the ground and step forward so that the heel print of the other foot is 30" in front, I am not taking "an average" step, I am taking a giant step. I can physically do it, but it is close to the my physical maximum (about 38") and it would be impossible to walk v