Do we really need 10,000 steps a day?
It is a useful target but consider too how fast you walk.
Sign up now: Get ST's newsletters delivered to your inbox
Rather than focusing on the number of steps, you might want to consider how hard you walk.
ST PHOTO: LIM YAOHUI
Hunter Bennett
You’ve probably heard that hitting 10,000 steps a day is the key to health and longevity.
This magic number feels like a medical rule, handed down by doctors across the globe.
But where did it come from? And is it even true?
Believe it or not, the infamous “10,000 steps a day” recommendation didn’t come from a research laboratory.
In fact, it is not scientific at all.
It came from a Japanese pedometer called the manpo-kei, which translates to “10,000-step meter”.
This pedometer went on sale just after the 1964 Tokyo Olympics, at a time when there was a growing worry people in Japan weren’t moving enough.
The number was mainly chosen because it was catchy and easy to remember. The Japanese kanji character for 10,000 – 万 – even looks a little like a walking person, which may have played a role in deciding on the number.
So 10,000 was a slogan to sell a step-counter, not an evidence-based recommendation.
What the research shows
Getting 10,000 steps a day can be a useful goal, and it will have a positive impact on your health. But you can reap health benefits from even less.
A recently published systemic review combined the results of 57 studies and more than 160,000 adults to examine the relationship between daily steps and health. Interestingly, they found 7,000 steps a day was where health benefits were maximised.
Reaching 7,000 steps a day was linked to a 47 per cent lower risk of dying early, a 25 per cent lower risk of cardiovascular disease (heart disease and stroke), a 14 per cent lower risk of type 2 diabetes, a 38 per cent lower risk of dementia, a 22 per cent lower risk of depression and a 28 per cent lower risk of falls.
Some health benefits started well before 7,000 steps.
The researchers found going from about 2,000 to 4,000 steps a day makes a real difference. These health benefits then increase again slightly from 4,000 to 7,000 steps a day, after which the benefits start to plateau.
These results align closely with other research looking at all types of physical activity, where going from being inactive to moderately active yields the largest health improvements. Moving from a moderate to high level of activity does provide additional benefits, but these are much smaller in magnitude.
Why walking is good for you
Walking is a form of aerobic exercise. It raises your heart rate and places stress on your respiratory, muscular and cardiovascular systems.
If you do it regularly, it can improve your heart and metabolic health, and reduce your body weight.
Walking can also reduce stress and improve mental health, possibly due to improvements in feelings of self-esteem and self-efficacy that come with regular movement.
Steps versus minutes
There is some additional nuance that needs to be considered when discussing how far you walk each day: how hard you walk.
Most people choose a walking pace that pushes them into the realm of “moderate intensity’’ exercise. However, the health benefits of exercise scale up with exercise intensity: You get more bang for your buck from more intense exercise.
So, if you pick up the pace and move towards a vigorous exercise intensity (where it’s hard to maintain a conversation), you will get larger health benefits in less time. This is why official exercise guidelines treat 75 minutes of vigorous activity as roughly equal to 150 minutes of moderate activity.
With this in mind, rather than focusing on steps, you might be better off focusing on the number of minutes you accumulate each week.
Recent research even suggests short bursts of high-intensity exercise spread across the day can have surprising health benefits.
So, if you’re short on time, walking faster is one of the simplest ways to get more out of that same walk.
Hunter Bennett is a lecturer in exercise science with Adelaide University. This article was first published in The Conversation.

