I was just reading an article from the Australian trash news service that I use because it is free, with the headline saying the 10,000 steps a day "rule" was debunked, and that there was "no benefit". Of course, this is just clickbait titling, but I clicked, as I am interested.
Now, I don't care much about my steps per se, but they are tracked (pretty accurately) through the Oura Ring I have and I tend to go over the 10,000 most days. However, my "goal" is flexible and the ring decides with some days the goal being under depending on my signs and sleep etc, and sometimes over, when I am seemingly in better condition for the day.
In the article though, they didn't actually say there was "no benefit" in walking more, they said that the benefits increased at a declining rate. This is quite different.
Researchers found that walking at least 7000 steps a day was linked to improvement in eight major health outcomes, including heart disease, dementia and depressive symptoms.
And, so is this.
Notice something missing there? Sure, the eight different outcomes improved, and while there is no links to the study itself it seems, weight isn't mentioned.
In particular, the researchers found that walking 7000 steps a day reduced the risk of death by 47 per cent, almost exactly the same as 10000 steps.
Death might be reduced, but I would also like to know what the increase in quality life is when checked against the amount of steps. And in this case "steps" should be taken with a grain of salt, because walking has a lot of variation in it, depending on many factors. However, a typical 72 kilo person (160 lb) could burn around 30-40 calories per 1000 steps. This means that there is between 90 and 120 calories difference between walking 7000, or walking 10,000.
7000 steps is easy.
7000 steps is a normal day, walking around, going shopping, doing random things in the home. It doesn't take anything overly special - it is incidental exercise. Incidental exercise is great!
But is it enough?
Lately I have read a few bits and pieces about how some studies are showing that intentional exercise has more effect than incidental exercise. And this is something that fits in with my own experience, which is why I don't usually listen to music when I am exercising. There is something about the focus on the exercise that makes it more challenging to complete and, I also feel I get a better workout when I am paying attention. It makes sense to me.
However, when it comes to those incidental 7000 steps that most people should easily accomplish each day anyway, that extra 3000 are more likely to require intention. It means that people will have to actively make some different decisions in their day to get a few more steps in, and perhaps take an intentional short walk after the daily grind. This means that not only are they burning an extra 100 calories or so, but they are also getting the reward of making a decision to do something that is performed to improve their health.
Intention matters.
So does attention. When we do something with intention, it means that we also have to pay attention to what we are doing. We aren't just doing it on the side, we are doing it with purpose. We are making decisions, and that means taking responsibility. I suspect that the reduction in depressive symptoms would be further enhanced with the increase in intentional exercise - or just paying attention to what is done, and how it is done instead of being passive.
When we make decisions to act, we are empowering ourselves.
There is of course a law of diminishing returns on exercise, but I think it is dangerous to keep lowering the bar by cherry-picking the bits of information that make people feel better about being less active. As they said, any exercise is better than no exercise, but I think that intentional exercise has greater benefits because it is an active decision, and requires a host of other improvement factors that help build an all-round healthier individual.
As for me, while I don't count the steps, I do look at my "inactive time" which is all the time spent sitting around - including typing. Writing is by far the biggest contributor to my inactivity during the day, because I don't spend much time sitting at screens passively consuming. But still, my inactive time is between 5-8 hours a day, sometimes lower, and rarely higher. But even my physical inactivity is intentional activity of my mind, and brings a different kind of exercise, with a changed set of benefits.
As far as I understand and have experienced personally and through observation, intentional living is far more valuable than living on defaults. Perhaps we wouldn't do things differently if we paid attention to what we do daily, but I suspect, most would. We would likely eat better, move more, and treat people more humanely. I believe that if we acted with intention, we would better align what we do, with what we value, because we would firstly have what we value in mind, and then act to meet our values.
Not our steps.
People shouldn't value meeting the metrics, they should value improving outcomes. Doing more might have a diminishing rate of return, but doing less can have an *increasing rate of return. The problem is, it is increasing more of what we don't want. We shouldn't aim to do the bare minimum, we should look to meet our potential, and explore what are our maximums. That doesn't mean we have to maximise our steps though, because there are many ways to increase our activity.
Which activity should you increase to improve your wellbeing?
What do you intend to do about it?
Taraz
[ Gen1: Hive ]
Be part of the Hive discussion.
And you may be rewarded.
