Commentary

The number of steps needed for health benefits keep changing. Now, another study says it’s how long we walk that counts, says the Financial Times’ Jo Ellison of the step-count conundrum.

Many aim to take 10,000 steps a day as a way to stay healthy. (Photo: iStock/AsiaVision)

03 Nov 2025 05:59AM

LONDON: How many steps do you walk each day? In 2017, I wrote a column about the discovery that, on average, I covered 3,000 steps a day. I had assumed that the simple act of life in the metropolis of London fried the calories away.

Sadly, this proved not to be so. Thanks to Apple Health, I discovered my activity levels were bordering on zero, and I was on the road to atrophy.

Inspired by the Japanese, who are enthusiastic walkers, I decided to join the league who aim to make 10,000 steps a day. Yes, I know the number was invented as a marketing ploy to sell an early prototype health tracker in the run-up to the 1964 Olympics. But the Japanese are generally considered lithe and healthy, and its ministry of health still advises citizens to take between 8,000 to 10,000 steps a day.

As an extremely goal-oriented person, I like this kind of challenge: an uncomplicated number, and a test that I could either pass or fail.

Research studies suggest different numbers of steps needed for one to enjoy an appreciable health benefit. (Photo: iStock/VTT Studio)

Reader, nearly eight years later, you’ll be thrilled to know I smashed it. My current stats inform me that I’ve walked an average of 10,518 daily steps in the past year.

This should help ward off the onset of type 2 diabetes and dementia, according to numerous studies in the field. The only substantial differences I’ve noticed, however, are that I’m now a walking A-Z of London, have largely stopped driving, and almost never wear a heel.

HOW MANY STEPS OR HOW LONG WE WALK?

The number of steps one needs to take to enjoy an appreciable health benefit has wavered much since. In July, The Lancet published a study that suggested 7,000 were sufficient. After that, it said, the benefits could plateau.

Still, it was good news on the dementia front: The research found a nearly 40 per cent lower risk for those people who walked 7,000 compared with those who take 2,000 steps a day. Something to do with neurological inflammation, apparently, although I could walk for days and still not remember anybody’s name.

Last week, another study in the British Journal of Sports Medicine said older women could get away with 4,000 steps once or twice a week and still reduce their risk of dying early by 26 per cent. Then, on Oct 28, a bombshell study, published in Annals of Internal Medicine, announced that it’s not just getting the steps in – it’s how long you walk that really counts.

The study examined ​​33,560 people (average age 62) engaging in 8,000 daily steps or fewer. The big takeaway? Cumulative all-cause mortality decreased with “bout length”, with those walking in bursts of less than five minutes being at greater risk of death than those who walked for 15 minutes or more. Over a 10-year period, those who regularly walked for 15 minutes or longer were 80 per cent less likely to die from any cause.

Have I been so preoccupied by step count, as suggested by the study’s co-lead researcher, that I’ve neglected “how” the walk is done?

My journey to the station takes 12 minutes. Maybe a quick detour would get me to the magic 15-minute mark? Should I scrap all the mini journeys, and just go long on fewer days? And is it even worth those extra errands to “get the steps in” if the benefits are nil?

Naturally, the study emphasises that its subjects were already “suboptimally active”, though I’m intrigued to discover that 8,000 steps still counts as being so. I’m also fascinated to know how far anyone was getting in five minutes: Even the Louvre robbers needed about seven to get their jewel heist done.

JUST WHEN YOU THINK YOU’RE DOING THE RIGHT THINGS

This is why applying metrics to one’s lifestyle is folly: you’re always going to fall foul of someone else’s stats. Just when you think you’re doing the right things, more research comes along to tell you you’re getting the how all wrong.

Exercise – how much, what sort and for how long – has become the subject of fetishistic study with the advent of the health tracker.

In addition to my steps, I now observe my sleep quality and readiness, but was recently told by various longevity experts that the most important metric I should be watching is my HRV (heart rate variability, a stat I still don’t fully understand). One expert says we can conquer ageing if we take the stairs more frequently. The hormone vigilantes are obsessed with bone density and lifting weights.

The nice thing about the 10k step count is that it doesn’t demand much thought: Running (while acknowledged to be more effective) is sweaty, messy and requires you to divest of all the other stuff you need.

Walking is pleasant: You can walk and talk, and walk and look at things. I had a delightful perambulation last Wednesday, taking in the views from Hong Kong’s famous peak. (Incidentally, I’d like to get the health metrics for Hong Kong residents who dwell on that insanely steep incline: Their HRV levels must be optimal with all the climbing they have to do.)

So, in light of the new information: I’ve decided to stick to the OG plan. I’ll take my 10,000 steps however I can get them. The rest can take a hike.

Source: Financial Times/ch