
10,000 steps a day: Might there be something better? - sjcsjc
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-42864061
======
Clubber
Any amount of walking is good for you. The steps help certain personality
types get it done, but isn't for everybody. Just park your car the furthest
from your office and you'll feel better.

I walk to lunch and the round trip is about 20 minutes. I feel better after
every one. Sometimes when I need a break at work, I'll just take a 5-10 minute
walk and I come back ready to go.

It's quite amazing.

~~~
croon
> Any amount of walking is good for you. _The steps help certain personality
> types get it done, but isn 't for everybody._

Yes, I think this is where either most recommendations go wrong, or possibly
how people read those recommendations.

You probably strengthen some ligaments and a few muscles from walking, but I
assume most of the benefit comes from slightly raising your V02max.

If the recommendation is walking, that filters out anyone who doesn't like
walking.

If the recommendation is raising your V02max, that applies to anyone who can
learn what that means, and then apply it to anything they can enjoy doing,
whether that is to:

* drop your hat and pick it up from the floor 200 times a day, or

* take the stairs a few times and only use every other step, or

* put on a short playlist of your favorite songs to dance to when no one is watching

* etc

It's a difficult balance between recommending something that focuses at the
heart of the issue, or using extremely lossy compression on your
recommendation to distill it down to "do X Y times a day".

~~~
Cthulhu_
I think most people prefer to use the "do X Y times a day"; I mean take
dieting, it boils down to eat less than you use - cut calories. But figuring
out the how and what is both hard and boring, and not something you can drop
in conversations. Instead, doing keto, primal diet, gluten-free (as a diet
choice), vegetarian/vegan, and a fuckton of branded diet programs both tell
you exactly what to eat (or what to not eat in some cases), instead of telling
you to eat less calories and/or move more.

"Take 10K steps a day" is a lot more actionable than "Move more". It's making
a chore SMART
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SMART_criteria](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SMART_criteria))

~~~
croon
Like I said, I'm torn on it, and I agree with what you're saying.

But as someone who people usually come to for advice on this (as a hobbyist),
I can't understate the amount of people who reads keto as "eating more fat"
(instead of cutting carbs), and gluten-free as "i'll find as much crap food as
i can that says 'gluten free' on it".

If they get a complete meal plan _and_ they're disciplined it works fine, but
I think at some point if you don't understand why something is a recommended
diet, it's probably because your heart isn't really in it to do it, meaning
you won't stick to it either way.

------
spodek
I'm partial to daily burpees
[http://joshuaspodek.com/js_blogseries/burpees](http://joshuaspodek.com/js_blogseries/burpees),
having done them daily for about 7.5 years. No equipment necessary, weather
doesn't matter, no reason not to do them.

~~~
coldtea
So, the "one exercise you should NEVER do"?

[http://www.structurepersonalfitness.com/dont-burpees-
probabl...](http://www.structurepersonalfitness.com/dont-burpees-probably-
shouldnt-either/)

[https://www.wellfitandfed.com/fit/burpees-read-this-and-
you-...](https://www.wellfitandfed.com/fit/burpees-read-this-and-you-will-
never-have-to-do-them-again/)

[http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/burpees-exercise-
fit...](http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/burpees-exercise-fitness-
personal-trainer-why-not-do-muscles-gym-session-patrick-murphy-a8183906.html)

(...) The move, which incorporates jumping, tightening, speed, and fat
burning, is often touted as the one move that incorporates all your muscles -
and can be done by almost anyone.

But according to Murphy, they make more sense in the military - where the
exercise originated, and where the risk of a bullet coming towards you is more
likely.

Murphy told Men's Health: “Burpees aren’t good for the human body. You know
what burpees are good for? They originated in the military as a way of dodging
bullets. They’re good for relocation.”

And although the move does burn fat, Murphy isn’t a fan - especially if your
career is more office focused and less about dodging enemy fire.

He said: “Imagine you’re doing burpees and then going to your sit-down job in
an office all day. It’s not good for the wrist, and the spine is not in the
proper position.”

~~~
PakG1
This didn't explain to me why you shouldn't do burpees. So I clicked on the
article to see if you had missed quoting the meat of the guy's point. Found
out... nope, you got it. So we shouldn't do burpees because it came from the
military as a way to dodge bullets? I don't get how that says we shouldn't do
them. His point that it's not good for the wrist, and the spine is not in the
proper position? The burpees or the sitting in the office? I'm not clear. If
the sitting in the office causes the wrist and spine issues, how is this
relevant to whether or not I should do burpees? If the burpees cause the wrist
and spine issues, how do burpees cause that? There's no explanation in the
article. But there ARE a lot of fitness trainers who claim that burpees are
great. So I'm guessing it's clear why I'm still thinking that burpees are OK.

~~~
coldtea
> _So we shouldn 't do burpees because it came from the military as a way to
> dodge bullets?_

Was the part where it says: “Burpees aren’t good for the human body" or "It’s
not good for the wrist, and the spine is not in the proper position.” missing?

~~~
PakG1
Per my above comment, should I accept what anyone has to say about random
things without asking themselves to explain themselves, including allegations
about why it's not good for the wrist, and how it puts the spine in an
improper position?

~~~
coldtea
> _should I accept what anyone has to say about random things without asking
> themselves to explain themselves, including allegations about why it 's not
> good for the wrist, and how it puts the spine in an improper position?_

No, but a trainer's advice is better to accept than random internet
suggestions.

If you want to question those, by all means, go to the medical literature and
papers and see if those give more exact reasons or even disagree with said
advice. Do you ask for those from your trainer or doctor too though, or
usually just follow their advice?

~~~
PakG1
I'm not sure why you keep ignoring what I wrote, and I'm not sure why I keep
replying at this point. A lot of trainers recommend burpees. They're not
random Internet suggestions. They also recommend burpees because there are
scientific explanations for how it stresses the body well. Perhaps it's not
for people whose bodies aren't ready for it, but that goes for any exercise.

[https://www.menshealth.com/fitness/burpees-best-exercise-
for...](https://www.menshealth.com/fitness/burpees-best-exercise-for-burning-
calories)

 _Burpees make everything burn: Your muscles, your lungs, and most
importantly, a ton of calories. The exercise—which entails going from pushup
position to a jump and back to a pushup position again—is so tough that
performing about 10 fast-paced reps is just as effective at revving your
metabolism as a 30-second all-out sprint, according to a recent study
published by the American College of Sports Medicine.

In the study, researchers enlisted ROTC cadets for something called the
Wingate Anaerobic Power Test: a 30-second sprint with 4 minutes of rest in
between for 4 rounds. Some cadets performed 30 seconds of sprinting on a
stationary bike while the others did 30 seconds of burpees as quickly as
possible. The result: Both high-intensity exercises resulted in serious
metabolic and cardiovascular spikes.

But here’s the difference: "Pedaling on a stationary bike is a relatively
simple motor pattern, whereas the burpee involves some degree of agility,
balance, coordination, and total body strength” thanks to the exercise’s
multiple steps, says lead researcher Nicholas H. Gist, Ph.D., deputy director
of the Department of Physical Education at the U.S. Military Academy._

[http://metro.co.uk/2018/01/31/burpees-really-one-exercise-
ne...](http://metro.co.uk/2018/01/31/burpees-really-one-exercise-never-
attempt-7275306/)

 _Laurence Hannah runs Metabolic London – a functional group training gym –
that certainly loves handing out burpees, just when you think the pain is
over.

‘I think if it’s done incorrectly – like anything – it can be bad for you…but
isn’t that what coaching is all about?’ he tells Metro.co.uk.

‘If we as coaches show you the correct method, and then forget to stretch you
off before you go and sit at the desk, then what’s the problem. If you squat
heavy and sit at a desk, if you spin and sit at a desk, if you box and sit at
a desk without stretching afterwards then you’d have tightness.

‘As long as you perform the move correctly, have the right flexibility and
strength AND look after yourself when the training is done, THEN I think it’s
a powerful move.’_

One could say that the above has so many caveats. Well, no, the above caveats
exist for all exercises, whether lifting weights, running, playing basketball,
everything. That doesn't mean that all exercises should be ignored, and it
certainly doesn't mean that burpees should be ignored. Patrick Murphy is
making the claim that burpees are bad in the face of explanations of how
burpees are good. The burden of proof is on him to explain why they're bad, as
well as anyone on who cites him.

------
blunte
The 10k steps approach takes an activity that people already do out of
necessity and turns it into a goal. There may be better ways to get fit, but
this one doesn't require a big behavior change. That approach will be more
successful for more people than a specific exercise routine since it's just
"do a little bit more of what you're already doing".

~~~
criddell
And I always thought the point wasn't necessarily 10k steps (you can set your
goal to any number), but rather the tracking. Being aware that you aren't as
active as you used to be might be all it takes to reverse the trend.

So if the journalist wants to ask if there's something better, I'd have to ask
what the constraints are. You might be able to be active for even less time if
you are willing to buy a ROM machine. Is that better?

IMHO, it's hard to beat counting steps because it's a pretty decent proxy for
activity level for lots of people. The counters are cheap and walking is easy
and fun, especially if you have a dog.

------
gagabity
There is a Michael Mosley BBC documentary "BBC Horizon: The Truth About
Exercise" in which they find you can get most of the health benefits of
aerobic exercise in about 3-10 minutes of HIIT exercise, high intensity here
being going completely flat out (absolutely maximum effort!) for three 20
second burst with rest to catch your breath in between. The summary is here
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iEc7QFc5vIQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iEc7QFc5vIQ)
I cant locate the full Doc online right now.

------
rambossa
Has anyone been "successful" at step counting? I've been in athletic shape
since high school (7+ years) and have maintained a healthy lifestyle since--
but keeping track of anything like steps or calories seems like it would be a
burden, could become compulsive, and/or possibly lead to long-term failure.

I'm also pretty young and have time to run&lift 5-7 times a week, so maybe I'm
biased.

~~~
EvanKelly
Anecdotally it's a bit of an interesting statistic for me where after a
particularly active day (or a day as a tourist) it's interesting to see how
many steps were registered. I'm not doing it for fitness. It's no burden since
it comes for free with just wearing my watch. I probably wouldn't do it if I
didn't have a smart watch for other reasons.

On the other hand, my mother is a bit compulsive about her fitbit, though I
see some real benefit. On days where she sees she's below her target, she opts
to walk when she otherwise wouldn't or goes outside for a walk to make sure
she meets the target. It's definitely causing her to be healthier than she
otherwise would be.

~~~
megaman22
It's kind of amazing how much more active you can be on vacation, and not even
notice it. I've racked up over 25000 steps wandering leisurely around Paris in
one day. By comparison, if I don't go out of my way to get some extra walking
in on a regular work day, I struggle to crack 2500. Which is just kind of sad,
but I sit at a desk all day, walking a few dozen feet to the water cooler or
the conference room at a time.

------
jjp
Think some of the comments don't have some context. This is a piece of news
from the BBC about a BBC TV programme that is part of a wider education
campaign to deal with an inactive population. This link [1] has more details
about the reason that the UK population is being 'nudged' into being more
active. \- 6 million adults aged 40-60 do not achieve 10 minutes of brisk
activity in a month; \- population is 20% less active than in the 1960's \-
the campaign is aimed at the low active (not the fit)

For more about the campaign by Public Health England [1]
[https://www.gov.uk/government/news/6-million-adults-do-
not-d...](https://www.gov.uk/government/news/6-million-adults-do-not-do-a-
monthly-brisk-10-minute-walk)

------
cube00
Thankfully the second part of the headline wasn't "...you actually need 20,000
steps."

~~~
yitchelle
plus a healthy diet, plus a good dose of sleep, plus ...

Really need a balanced lifestyle to have a good life. No single item will have
significant effect.

------
ppod
The amount of exertion that a brisk walk gives you will vary hugely from
person to person. This is a very important point in the article:

>The Active 10 group were also told that their aim was not to amble but to get
their pace up so that they would be working their heart and lungs. Prof
Copeland told them: "You are aiming to walk fast enough so that you can still
talk but not sing."

I think for a lot of people walking won't be enough to get to this state. In
my experience you get a much bigger effect (especially on mood) if you make
sure that you are getting to a point that you are almost gasping for air at
least once or twice a day. Burpees, sprints, biking uphill hard, and rowing
machine are good for this.

------
yoz-y
This is one of the areas where I wished there were some collusion and
journalists and scientists always published stories that recommend more
movement than is actually necessary.

I get the point of the article, but to me it seems that every time there is
some new research on "how to achieve okay results with less movement and/or
time" people will move less.

Not that I do that much of physical activity myself, but I am not complacent
about it.

~~~
prepend
Evidence is important. The goal is to have improved health, not 10k steps. If
you want more adherence to interventions you want to constantly review better
evidence.

Collusion would require that the answer be known already.

~~~
yoz-y
Well we do know part of the answer. The 3x Active 10 is better than 10k. I do
not have a problem with the results, but with the fact that search for "how
little can one move and still remain somewhat healthy" is a thing.

------
bsmithers
So did they compare the _total_ number of steps in the 2 groups? Although the
3x 10 minutes only counted for 3,000 steps, the participants in that group
could easily have walked 7,000 steps outside of that 30 minute window.

Also, do people really think walking 10k (or indeed n-k) steps is a substitute
for intense exercise?

~~~
coldtea
> _So did they compare the total number of steps in the 2 groups?_

Considering that between mobile phones, smartwatches and dedicated devices, it
is less than trivial to do that, I doubt that is something they overlooked.

------
dev360
10k steps worked really well for me but I would plateau a lot and not lose
anymore. It was also hard to find the time to put in the 10k, it would
typically mean walking somewhere for lunch and coffee and almost all the time
I had to run 2-3 miles in the evening.

The thing thats worked better for me and actually led to noticeable changes in
body composition has been olympic lifts and intermittent fasting. I try to at
the very minimum do 3x5 of any of the big lifts at high intensity, and barbell
complexes 3-4x10 for volume about 4-5 times per week. It helps having all the
equipment in the garage.

------
thedangler
If you access to a stationary bike. Go as hard as you can for 30 seconds every
other minute for 5 minutes. You might not see results but your insides will
love you for it.

------
gtirloni
Looks like they are proposing a mild form of High-intensity interval training
(HIIT). It seems there's extensive research on this topic.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-
intensity_interval_traini...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-
intensity_interval_training)

~~~
learnstats2
Yes: the article's author, Michael Mosley, has written a book on HIIT and is
constantly advocating for HIIT (and similarly the 5:2 diet) via his employment
at the BBC.

------
JepZ
So how about doing 20 push-ups and 30 sit-ups daily. Wouldn't that take even
less time (just 2 minutes) and have an even higher effect?

But sure, it would take a lot more discipline and will power as those aren't
normal every day activities. So in the end its just a trade about time for
will power.

You better have at least one of them.

~~~
piva00
Sit-ups are not a good exercise, they put too much pressure on the spine and
can result in injuries such as herniated discs, there are much better core
exercises.

You can check my source here: [https://uwaterloo.ca/applied-health-
sciences/hes-got-our-bac...](https://uwaterloo.ca/applied-health-sciences/hes-
got-our-backs)

------
baxtr
TL;DR doing 3x 10min brisk walks every day is (a) easier and (b) healthier
than aiming for 10k steps each day

 _Rob then split them into two groups. One was asked to hit the 10,000-step
target - around five miles - in a day, while the other group was asked to do
three sessions of "Active 10" \- which adds up to around 1.5 miles - more like
3,000 steps. [..]

The Active 10 group actually did 30% more 'moderate to vigorous physical
activity' than the 10,000-step group, even though they moved for less time_

~~~
lucozade
The editorialised TL;DR

An experiment was set up for a TV show using a very small sample to achieve a
particular outcome. Sure enough, said outcome was achieved.

I appreciate it's not intended to be science, it's a TV show. And I'm sure
that there are likely to be actual studies that do actually show that the
effect is real. I understand all that (though a link would have been nice, it
is the internet after all).

But for some reason I find it bloody irritating. Don't know why. Maybe I'm not
getting enough exercise.

------
fortythirteen
I have never met a person who obsessed over 10k steps per day, who didn't also
eat like total shit.

~~~
zafka
Hello. Now you have :)

~~~
fortythirteen
Color me skeptical, but I'm not inclined to believe an anonymous person on the
internet, who brings no evidence to the table. What's your TDEE and macro
ratio?

10k steps a day is a marketing gimmick designed to sell fancy pedometers,
rebranded as "fitness trackers". Literally everyone I have ever met who talks
about this as a real world metric is terribly out of shape.

~~~
toss1
Here's another counterpoint for you.

Former US Ski Team member, XC running, Cycling, Mtn Bike, and auto racing
compeititor, still do some competitions.

Used Fitbit extensively for several years until it died and I felt like I'd
learned enough from it to not get another one (although I was more interested
in its stairs/altitude gain tracking than the steps).

Very big on high intensity training as well as overall activity level (really
non-stationary level), intermittent fasting, etc.

And no, I don't find TDEE and "macro ratio" very useful at all.

Yes, there's some examples of what you cite, and yes 10K/day was originally a
mktg gimmick, but your generalizations are crap. Also, unnecessarily
uncharitable against people who are at lower levels. Better that a couch
potato starts to count steps and get out a bit more, and so discover they can
do more than they thought, and grow into better fitness, than be ridiculed for
not doing enough.

I could just as well criticize you for being some kind of idle geek for
focusing on numbers I find only marginally relevant compared to HR-Max (186
these days), HR Recovery rate, Jump Height, etc., but I'll go with the hope
that what you are doing works for you.

~~~
fortythirteen
You may not find TDEE and macro ratio very useful, but the scientists and
nutritionists that work with high end human performance do, very much. Also,
why track the metric of your steps, but not the fuel that powers them?

I bought and extensively used the top level Fitbit, with GPS, when it first
launched. It can be used to effectively track activity, but only by people who
already have an understanding of the metrics.

The point I was making is that "10k steps" is a Dr. Oz style fitness metric,
mainly for people to feel good without actually solving their problem. The
problem that 99.9% of people who "get their steps in" have is a complete lack
of understanding of diet and fitness.

I also have a lot of empathy for people at the beginner level. My statements
might seem harsh, but they are about the snake-oil salesmanship that exists in
the fitness industry, which I spend an large amount of time in, being a gym
rat. Marketing these false, "simple solutions" without educating people on
their health is reckless.

And yes, every single person I have ever met who got a Fitbit and talked about
"getting their steps in", didn't change a single long term thing about their
diet. Half the time they jumped on some no-carb fad, and acted like the ground
beef, egg and cheese casserole they ate 2k calories of was healthy.

