If you’re monitoring your daily step count, you may be overlooking another important aspect of fitness: your pace. Taking fewer steps at a faster pace may be associated with a similar reduction in the risk of early death as getting in more steps at a slower pace, according to a study published Tuesday in the British Journal of Sports Medicine, reports BritPanorama.
The often-cited goal of 10,000 steps a day did not stem from any specific scientific findings, said study coauthor Emmanuel Stamatakis, a professor of physical activity, lifestyle and population health at Monash University in Melbourne. He explained that the target originated from a 1960s Japanese pedometer campaign.
For some individuals, 10,000 steps can seem daunting, potentially discouraging them from beginning an exercise routine. Stamatakis noted that for “a 65-year-old managing a knee, a carer with fragmented time, or a shift worker, that number can feel less like a goal and more like a reason to give up.” He emphasized the value of purpose in walking, stating, “Someone walking 4,000 steps a day who walks them with more purpose is doing something worthwhile, and someone who cannot walk quickly can still gain a great deal by accumulating more steps at a slower pace.”
10,000 steps isn’t the only goal
To assess the relationship between the number of steps and pace, researchers analyzed movement data from over 100,000 middle-aged adults enrolled in the UK Biobank, a longitudinal study involving participants from England, Scotland, and Wales. Participants wore activity trackers for seven consecutive days from 2013 to 2015, enabling researchers to evaluate both daily step counts and walking pace.
The authors found that both walking more and walking faster correlated with a lower risk of death. This suggests that the benefits of walking may be less about achieving a specific target and more about identifying a blend of steps and pace that suits individual capabilities.
Step count versus pace
In the study, scientists categorized daily step counts into four groups: fewer than 5,000 steps, 5,000 to 7,500 steps, 7,500 to 10,000 steps, and more than 10,000 steps. They also calculated each participant’s “peak-30 cadence,” which represents the fastest sustained stepping rate during their most active 30 minutes of the day.
Participants were monitored for approximately eight years, during which deaths from any cause and from cardiovascular disease were tracked. A notable finding was that among those taking fewer than 5,000 steps daily, individuals achieving a peak cadence of at least 80 steps per minute demonstrated a significantly lower risk of death, akin to those taking 5,000 to 7,500 steps daily at a slower cadence of about 60 steps per minute.
Despite the findings, the lowest risk of early death was linked to taking 7,500 to 10,000 steps daily, irrespective of walking pace. However, for those taking fewer than 7,500 steps a day, maintaining a brisk pace for at least 30 minutes daily was associated with a progressively lower risk of death from any cause. This implies that for sedentary adults, walking at a brisk intensity for 30 minutes might optimize reductions in early death risk, according to the study.
“There is no single pace that suits everyone, because intensity is always relative to a person’s fitness, age, height and body weight,” Stamatakis noted. He emphasized the importance of tailoring targets to one’s own lifestyle: “There is more than one way to lower your risk, and the target should fit the lifestyle you actually have.”
For those attempting to determine the most suitable pace, Stamatakis suggests focusing more on how the body responds than on specific numbers. At a brisk pace, heavy breathing and a warmer feeling should occur, while still retaining the ability to speak in short sentences.
For those who prefer a quantitative approach, counting steps for 15 seconds and multiplying by four can provide an estimate of cadence, with about 100 steps per minute serving as a general benchmark for moderate-intensity walking in the average adult. “If time is the constraint, picking up the pace is the more time-efficient of the two levers, and that is probably the most useful practical finding in the paper,” he concluded.
Phil Chilibeck, a professor at the University of Saskatchewan, recommended gradually increasing walking time at a faster pace. He noted that increasing walking pace for shorter distances can yield similar benefits to longer distances at a more leisurely pace. He suggested adding up to three additional minutes of brisk walking each day, advising adjustment based on perceived difficulty.
According to Lieberman, consistency remains paramount: “What counts is what you do on most days over months and years, not a motivated fortnight in January.” Anyone with cardiovascular risk factors or lengthy inactivity should gradually build up their pace and consult with a doctor before escalating intensity.
As research continues to explore the optimal ways to stay active and healthy, the emphasis remains on regular physical activity being beneficial, irrespective of duration or intensity—underscoring that any effort is better than none.
