Counting Steps FAD
Replies
-
From my personal experience, I can't say that this is true for everyone. I went from doing (estimated, since I didn't have a Fibit before the spring but on rare occasions used a pedometer) about 3500-4000 steps a day last winter, to about 5000 this spring, to 6000-7000 this summer, back down a bit to 5000 late summer/early fall, and then a quick increase to 11000-12000 in October. My cardiovascular endurance improved a bit by early winter, but I think that was more so due to a slight increase in the amount of vigorous exercise that was included in that.rileysowner wrote: »koinflipper wrote: »The components of physical fitness: cardiorespiratory endurance, muscle strength, muscle endurance, flexibility and body composition.
So do your 10k steps per day accomplish this? NOT BY ANY STRETCH OF THE IMAGINATION.
Getting to 10,000 steps is going to increase endurance, and it will affect body composition for people who usually only want 2000-3000, or for that matter even 5000 steps in a day. For a person walking 5000 steps who increases that to 10000, it will double the amount of steps they take. For a person who only does 2000-3000 steps, something quite common today judging by the posts above, that increase is even more. It will result in positive changes.0 -
My 2 cents for what it is worth.
I got my fitbit mid January, mostly for the HR monitor and sleep tracking features. Found that my Resting Heart Rate is actually pretty good (thought it would be in the mid 70s, but turned out it was early to mid 60s) - though it does go into the 80s and 90s with very little physical activity (walking slowly, standing around, etc) and that my sleep patterns are mostly pretty good.
Thus, knowing my heart is doing pretty well, I started to focus more on the step counting part of the tracker. Soon found I wasn't as active as I thought I was (my job keeps me on my feet, but apparently not really walking that much) - I was averaging 7500-10000 steps without additional effort. Now I'm taking a walk in the mornings (approximately 50 minutes) and sometimes in the evenings (to average between 15K and 20K steps per day).
This is from concerted effort to walk at least 30 minutes in one setting (Also had that same type of physiology lesson
) , but believe me, if I haven't reached my 15K goal by 20h00, I will do laps in the house to reach it!
This weekend we have been camping. Usually I would have spent the weekend lazying about, sitting on my ***** for as long as possible - would have been lucky to reach 3000 steps, this weekend I went walking around the camp sites, went into the reserve to hike, etc and have kept my 15K steps going the whole weekend. Without the tracker that would never have happened!
Do I think that I am now the epitome of fitness (hell no! - I'm working on my endurance for running, but so far it is still very poor), but it has definitely helped me to keep moving as much as possible, and has helped me to set a couple of realistic health/fitness goals.0 -
koinflipper wrote: »10,000 steps DOES NOT make somebody physically fit. That is the premise of this thread. All it does is motivate people to be more active. Active does NOT equal PHYSICALLY FIT.
The "illusion" my doctor spoke about is very apparent on this forum. There wouldn't be so much defensive and angry posts if you all understood that.
So it appears to me that you're conflating different issues, and fwiw your initial rant really didn't convey the discussion point that you seemed to want to raise.
I would agree that there are lots of threads on here where people see the tool as some kind of panacea. There are lots of threads along the lines of what's the best fitness tracker or which HRM is best for ....., essentially lots of people buy into the marketing that these things are generically useful.
The tools have to be used in an informed way, they need to be used in a way that's appropriate for their design. The purpose of an HRM is to measure HR, not to measure calories. Most HRM threads are about how to use them to measure calories. Frequently that use is for exercise where an HRM is broadly meaningless.
Pedometers are just overgrown accelerometers with a radio in them, they will have inaccuracies. As an example I got about 1000 false positives last night when I was on my rowing machine. Similarly I'll get false positives when I'm cycling, although generally very few on the turbo trainer. I understand the false positives, and account for that in terms of what I'm doing with the data.
So we get to the question of whether 10k steps per day is useful. In its own right, it's a measure of background activity. It's better than 1000 steps per day. There is a point of diminishing returns. I see people talking about 20k or 30 k steps per day, is that worthwhile? It's activity, but in isolation it's of limited value. If 20k of those 30k have come from a 14 mile run then the value was in the run, not the 20k steps.
Is my pedometer uesful? It's of interest, the biggest value to me is that it prods me to move around. As a runner I do suffer adverse effects from protracted periods of sitting, which leads to a muscle imbalance in my legs. So prompting me to get up and move around is useful. I can get lost in work and not remember. Equally there are times that I can't move around. I have a 90 minute train journey twice a day, on Friday afternoon I have a 4 hour board meeting. In both those cases the pedomoeter isn't telling me anything useful, but if I'm sitting at my desk it is useful.
I would also observe that tracking history is useful as that provides insights. Tuesdays are my least active day of the week, for example. So I'm now grappling with how to improve that. They're least active for a very good reason, so they may remain that way, but it's a useful prod. Similarly I get my best quality sleep on a Friday night. Considering in conjunction with other data is where it becomes valuable.
Context is important. 10K steps in isolation are of limited general fitness value, but they have a place.
0 -
koinflipper wrote: »I am a big disbeliever in the idea that counting steps taken under any circumstances during the day are actually has any meaning to becoming physically fit. My physiology classes in graduate school taught me that to contribute towards fitness, there must be sustained physical activity for at least 30 minutes at cardio training level.
As you might have learned in your physiology classes, the lymphatic system is stimulated by movement, but since the effects only last a few minutes, frequent movement is essential for proper health. That's where 10,000 steps scattered throughout the day trumps 30 minutes of cardio. "Cardio" is a recent invention intended to counteract the sedentary lifestyle of the industrial age. Prior to that, people kept in shape mostly by doing low-intensity activities like walking.
0 -
koinflipper wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »koinflipper wrote: »OP's doctor thinks we are all delusional. As she pointed out that he/she told her that many people are under the illusion they are getting physically fit based solely on steps and weight loss. Who in the world said that?
I would like to know under what context the actual discussion of 10k steps came up in a doctors office visit and are all doctors now supposed to be advising their patients to go out and buy a fitness tracker? Or just give suggestions on basic health benefits such as improving health by moving more.
/snip/
"I did not say my doctor said you "were all delusional". Go back and read original post. You are misreading what I wrote.
How did this come up with my doctor? I asked him if I should get one. (I really wanted one but couldn't find one that had numbers large enough I could read without constantly putting on and yanking off reading glasses during workout.)
Most of my original post are the things he brought up. That is why I became a disbeliever at least for developing physical fitness with step-counting.
But I see many of those protesting the most are using step counters in combination with dieting to lose weight. This makes a lot of sense to me for that purpose. Losing weight is great way to improve health (not same thing as improving physical fitness.)
I do not agree that computers and smartphones are a FAD (like saying the automobile or air travel is a fad.) They have totally changed how we live our lives. No longer tied to landlines at home or office, we can communicate with ease anytime and from most any place. Computers have opened a world of information and knowledge in unprecedented access and speed. And provided social contact for many people who would otherwise be isolated.
There are still work situations where an employee would be written up by their boss for leaving desk briefly every 45 minutes. 911 operators, for example. I am sure there are many others.
I have yet to find exactly what I need but am making do with HR chest strap and Endomondo app during workouts. Endomondo gives me audio information about progress during workouts so I don't need to read anything.
Cannot justify buying a $120+ device when I cannot read the small numbers on the display. Or a $400 wrist device for runners to get large numbers when I cannot run.
But I did splurge last night on a Xioamo Mi activity band for $20 from Amazon. It won't give me any real time data but useful data at the end of the day to help me with weight loss. But won't take the place of cardio exercise.
Your OP does not convey any of this, nor does it attribute it to your doctor. But whatever.
But yeah, you're 62 according to your profile. Are you "fit"? Will an activity monitor and 10,000 steps improve things? Probably.
10,000 steps DOES NOT make somebody physically fit. That is the premise of this thread. All it does is motivate people to be more active. Active does NOT equal PHYSICALLY FIT.
The "illusion" my doctor spoke about is very apparent on this forum. There wouldn't be so much defensive and angry posts if you all understood that.
See how I juxtaposed my two sentences. Now read them again as written.0 -
koinflipper wrote: »The components of physical fitness: cardiorespiratory endurance, muscle strength, muscle endurance, flexibility and body composition.
So do your 10k steps per day accomplish this? NOT BY ANY STRETCH OF THE IMAGINATION.
Mine are certainly part of my fitness. And about 8k of them are RUNS 3 times a week.
My 10,000-15,000 daily steps are also part of the bigger picture of my physical activity. Do they accomplish it all themselves? No. Am I a damn sight better off by walking/running 10k-15k steps a day along with all the other things I do? Yup.0 -
i think anything that helps people who are otherwise very sedentary get up and move is a good thing. condescending 'professionals' are the reason why so many people get discouraged and give up. watch your attitude.
do i think it should (steps in general) be counted as purposeful exercise. no, unless it IS purposeful exercise. but it can be a good indication of how much, or little, you move on average.
i have the fitbit charge hr. i dont worry about steps, or do challenges, or really pay much attention to it at all. but HAS made me more mindful of my overall activity level. i do 45-60 minutes of cardio 5-6 days week in the gym, and jog daily, when the weather cooperates. because i work at home (and a very small home at that), i dont get much movement in if i DONT do those things.
i lost 80 pounds before i got the fitbit. right now im using it to (roughly) calculate exercise calories instead of mfp to see if it makes a difference. since i dont eat back many exercise cals anyways (i primarily go by tdee), i doubt it will, but the numbers may be interesting.0 -
Cherimoose wrote: »koinflipper wrote: »I am a big disbeliever in the idea that counting steps taken under any circumstances during the day are actually has any meaning to becoming physically fit. My physiology classes in graduate school taught me that to contribute towards fitness, there must be sustained physical activity for at least 30 minutes at cardio training level.
As you might have learned in your physiology classes, the lymphatic system is stimulated by movement, but since the effects only last a few minutes, frequent movement is essential for proper health. That's where 10,000 steps scattered throughout the day trumps 30 minutes of cardio. "Cardio" is a recent invention intended to counteract the sedentary lifestyle of the industrial age. Prior to that, people kept in shape mostly by doing low-intensity activities like walking.
I was going to bring this up. Isn't a lot of the new thinking that sitting for extended periods of time is harmful to our health? My Garmin, which has a step counter included, gives me inactivity warnings for sitting too long. It actually encourages me to get up and walk for this reason.
0 -
koinflipper wrote: »My physiology classes in graduate school taught me that to contribute towards fitness, there must be sustained physical activity for at least 30 minutes at cardio training level.
You're confusing a general idea of fitness with a more specific and higher standard of cardiovascular fitness. It doesn't take a physiology class to understand that moving more is better. And for people not moving much at all, moving 10k steps is much better than 2k steps.0 -
I bought mine for the HR monitor. The benefit of the fitbit that helps people with motivation is the social aspect that allows you to challenge your friends. If you have the personality that you want to have more activity than your friends and it causes you to walk/run and extra 5000 steps (2 miles) to be in first...it's worth doing.0
-
I've had a Fitbit of one type or another for 2 years now. It's been incredibly helpful for me to see how little I actually move. I'm a grad student who spends a lot of time sitting in class, in meetings, working on my thesis, etc. Most of the time the only walking I do in a day is to/from my car & around campus, but even then I'll often take the shuttle so I'm not sweaty & gross in my next meeting. Most days I don't even reach 5,000 steps, and because of that my calorie intake for the day is decreased substantially, when before I would just eat 1500 calories everyday whether I walked 10,000 steps or 100 steps. It might seem inconsequential, but I've found it to be very accurate and have lost 1lb a week consistently when eating the calories my Fitbit (through MFP) gives or takes from me.
In short, I'm not using it for fitness, obviously. I'm using it to help keep myself honest so I can track calories-in & calories-out for weight loss.0 -
Depending how sedentary we are. For me it works, even 7K because I had two injuries that made me very sedentary in the past year... I try to have a fitness walk, but even if I do 7K running errands seems to have the same effect... Now, we are car people here in America... but for example if you are an European who walks a lot then maybe it's not that significant counting steps for doing errands. But Euros don't do fitness walk as much as we do, and they maintain themselves slimmer in general, must be... that day to day activity....0
-
OP,
If you don't think FitBits or any other step counter are beneficial to people, then who cares? You workout the way you want to workout.. and we will workout the way we want to workout. Sounds like whatever you're doing without a step counter is working for ya. Everyone is different. Everyone in the fitness industry has different opinions. If you don't like step counters, then okay. I happen to LOVE my fitbit, but that has zero affect on you. Just like you not like a step counter has zero affect on me.
The problem with this world is that too many people get caught up in other people's business. Everyone is allowed to have a difference of opinions. People's personal preferences have zero affect on other.. that's why it's a PERSONAL preference.0 -
Cherimoose wrote: »koinflipper wrote: »I am a big disbeliever in the idea that counting steps taken under any circumstances during the day are actually has any meaning to becoming physically fit. My physiology classes in graduate school taught me that to contribute towards fitness, there must be sustained physical activity for at least 30 minutes at cardio training level.
As you might have learned in your physiology classes, the lymphatic system is stimulated by movement, but since the effects only last a few minutes, frequent movement is essential for proper health. That's where 10,000 steps scattered throughout the day trumps 30 minutes of cardio. "Cardio" is a recent invention intended to counteract the sedentary lifestyle of the industrial age. Prior to that, people kept in shape mostly by doing low-intensity activities like walking.
Actually, they would keep in shape mostly by doing physical labour, both at work and at home, and participating in sports depending on age and circumstances. Prior to the 80's people tended to get their exercise in sports like tennis, running, hockey, football etc and not necessarily in an organized league or club. People didn't watch much TV until the 80's so they actually did activities to occupy their time otherwise and now they tend to sit around a lot more.
0 -
"Researchers at the Stanford University School of Medicine found the use of a pedometer leads to great increases in physical activity and weight loss and helps lower blood pressure. Although two-thirds of U.S. adults are overweight or obese, according to the CDC, only 45 percent of Americans get enough physical activity. However, with the use of smart pedometers, they were shown to increase physical activity by just over 2,000 steps, or about one mile of walking per day." https://www.humana.com/learning-center/health-and-wellbeing/healthy-living/walking-for-health0
-
I've had my fitbit for a week now, and I've been enjoying it. 10,000 steps is pretty easy for me, so I've made that my goal for "rest" days, with 15,000 steps my goal for weekdays and 20,000 for the weekends. I'm having fun with it!0
-
Wheelhouse15 wrote: »Cherimoose wrote: »koinflipper wrote: »I am a big disbeliever in the idea that counting steps taken under any circumstances during the day are actually has any meaning to becoming physically fit. My physiology classes in graduate school taught me that to contribute towards fitness, there must be sustained physical activity for at least 30 minutes at cardio training level.
As you might have learned in your physiology classes, the lymphatic system is stimulated by movement, but since the effects only last a few minutes, frequent movement is essential for proper health. That's where 10,000 steps scattered throughout the day trumps 30 minutes of cardio. "Cardio" is a recent invention intended to counteract the sedentary lifestyle of the industrial age. Prior to that, people kept in shape mostly by doing low-intensity activities like walking.
Actually, they would keep in shape mostly by doing physical labour, both at work and at home, and participating in sports depending on age and circumstances. Prior to the 80's people tended to get their exercise in sports like tennis, running, hockey, football etc and not necessarily in an organized league or club. People didn't watch much TV until the 80's so they actually did activities to occupy their time otherwise and now they tend to sit around a lot more.
I think you're right on the money with this post...and I blame Full House and the Cosby show....before that, no one binge watched tv....0 -
JustMissTracy wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »Cherimoose wrote: »koinflipper wrote: »I am a big disbeliever in the idea that counting steps taken under any circumstances during the day are actually has any meaning to becoming physically fit. My physiology classes in graduate school taught me that to contribute towards fitness, there must be sustained physical activity for at least 30 minutes at cardio training level.
As you might have learned in your physiology classes, the lymphatic system is stimulated by movement, but since the effects only last a few minutes, frequent movement is essential for proper health. That's where 10,000 steps scattered throughout the day trumps 30 minutes of cardio. "Cardio" is a recent invention intended to counteract the sedentary lifestyle of the industrial age. Prior to that, people kept in shape mostly by doing low-intensity activities like walking.
Actually, they would keep in shape mostly by doing physical labour, both at work and at home, and participating in sports depending on age and circumstances. Prior to the 80's people tended to get their exercise in sports like tennis, running, hockey, football etc and not necessarily in an organized league or club. People didn't watch much TV until the 80's so they actually did activities to occupy their time otherwise and now they tend to sit around a lot more.
I think you're right on the money with this post...and I blame Full House and the Cosby show....before that, no one binge watched tv....
Cosby was great but I couldn't stand Full House, does that make me a bad person? As for the 70's, M*A*S*H* was the best show ever, but I only had 13 cable channels but 1 was UHF, so it was out; 13 was community TV and was mostly just text bulletins, 9 and 10 where the same since 10 was the local an it washed out the cable, and 5 was French. Yeah, we didn't want to watch that much TV because there wasn't much good on. Oh wait there still isn't! 
0 -
Wheelhouse15 wrote: »Cherimoose wrote: »Actually, they would keep in shape mostly by doing physical labour, both at work and at home, and participating in sports depending on age and circumstances. Prior to the 80's people tended to get their exercise in sports like tennis, running, hockey, football etc and not necessarily in an organized league or club. People didn't watch much TV until the 80's so they actually did activities to occupy their time otherwise and now they tend to sit around a lot more.
I think mostly people kept in better shape by eating appropriate amounts of food before the "low fat" fad came about. Women in particular stayed in better shape even without sports and physical labour.0 -
sault_girl wrote: »I think mostly people kept in better shape by eating appropriate amounts of food before the "low fat" fad came about. Women in particular stayed in better shape even without sports and physical labour.
They would not be in better physical shape without exercise and activity but many were thinner because they ate less, yes. However, they also tended to do more physical activity just doing more housework.0 -
It does help someone to be accountable. I know prior to my Fitbit I would veg out most days. My steps were as low as 2-3k. Now if I am sitting around I have that little band on my wrist holding me accountable. If I haven't met my goal I know I have to get off the couch and go for a walk or do something active. To each their own0
-
All I will add is that this past week I did no purposeful cardio, I lifted weights, did some stretching, but participated in step challenges averaging ~18k steps a day. I ate back all of my calories from steps [which was a large enough for a nice dinner for most people trying to lose] and ended up losing a pound (in maintenance). Then I ran my fastest just because half-marathon time yesterday. Did walking/step counting make me fit? I cant point specifically to that. However, it does play a role in my overall maintenance and fitness levels. I have goals to hit and people to challenge. I am digging this fad.0
-
So what I'm taking from this 7 pages is that no one who has responded appears to be under the delusion that counting steps has made them epically fit, but the OP is alleging that the responses bear out her doctors inference that people are deluded by their step counters, rather than admitting her OP was condescending and ill informed.
Miss anything?0 -
So, I should sit on my butt and play sims all day ?
I should sit on my floor and vlog all day ?
No.0 -
Alatariel75 wrote: »So what I'm taking from this 7 pages is that no one who has responded appears to be under the delusion that counting steps has made them epically fit, but the OP is alleging that the responses bear out her doctors inference that people are deluded by their step counters, rather than admitting her OP was condescending and ill informed.
Miss anything?
No! I think you have summed it up pretty well. For that matter, unlike the OP's claim that people are being defensive, I have not seen that either.0 -
Alatariel75 wrote: »So what I'm taking from this 7 pages is that no one who has responded appears to be under the delusion that counting steps has made them epically fit, but the OP is alleging that the responses bear out her doctors inference that people are deluded by their step counters, rather than admitting her OP was condescending and ill informed.
Miss anything?
Nope. Don't think you missed anything.0 -
Alatariel75 wrote: »So what I'm taking from this 7 pages is that no one who has responded appears to be under the delusion that counting steps has made them epically fit
Not epically fit, but epically more fit than before.
0 -
Reading a lot of these replies made me decide I need to start counting steps. Not to replace the 45+ minute workouts I do in the evening after work, but to keep myself from just sitting at my desk for 9 hours every week day
0 -
Alatariel75 wrote: »So what I'm taking from this 7 pages is that no one who has responded appears to be under the delusion that counting steps has made them epically fit, but the OP is alleging that the responses bear out her doctors inference that people are deluded by their step counters, rather than admitting her OP was condescending and ill informed.
Miss anything?
I've seen instances that would compare fairly well to the OP's first post, and I really don't think it's all that rare. IMO step counting without differentiating when a persons HR is up to at least a low level of cardio workout is great for NEAT and really not much else. For people that really haven't worked out at all, sure it can be a great basic activity gauge. But to imply fitness from steps alone, spread through a day, and without any other measure, essentially just means the person has moved from couch potato mode. That in itself is a great thing for those it applies to, but really in terms of fitness it's only an indication that they don't have total disregard for it.
Now for users that set goals higher, and either use devices that track the actual exercise type activity or can somehow detect it, they might be making some progress on fitness. I think many of the newer devices are capable, depending on software interface. With GPS, speed of cadence, or HR monitoring, a tracker could easily set similar goals as steps, but encourage users to hit a certain speed or HR during exercise time. It seems that quite a few users like the electronic reminders, so it might work. If people use a higher goal and incorporate cardio type stuff themselves, sure a benefit exists. But the benefit of steps alone gives no power measure to speak of, nor a time length measure.
I think they could also readily incorporate some type of self testing methods similar to the way the higher end devices do, to show trends in improvement. But over time as all of them get more complex, the lower end will probably have more features.
0 -
robertw486 wrote: »Alatariel75 wrote: »So what I'm taking from this 7 pages is that no one who has responded appears to be under the delusion that counting steps has made them epically fit, but the OP is alleging that the responses bear out her doctors inference that people are deluded by their step counters, rather than admitting her OP was condescending and ill informed.
Miss anything?
I've seen instances that would compare fairly well to the OP's first post, and I really don't think it's all that rare. IMO step counting without differentiating when a persons HR is up to at least a low level of cardio workout is great for NEAT and really not much else. For people that really haven't worked out at all, sure it can be a great basic activity gauge. But to imply fitness from steps alone, spread through a day, and without any other measure, essentially just means the person has moved from couch potato mode. That in itself is a great thing for those it applies to, but really in terms of fitness it's only an indication that they don't have total disregard for it.
Now for users that set goals higher, and either use devices that track the actual exercise type activity or can somehow detect it, they might be making some progress on fitness. I think many of the newer devices are capable, depending on software interface. With GPS, speed of cadence, or HR monitoring, a tracker could easily set similar goals as steps, but encourage users to hit a certain speed or HR during exercise time. It seems that quite a few users like the electronic reminders, so it might work. If people use a higher goal and incorporate cardio type stuff themselves, sure a benefit exists. But the benefit of steps alone gives no power measure to speak of, nor a time length measure.
I think they could also readily incorporate some type of self testing methods similar to the way the higher end devices do, to show trends in improvement. But over time as all of them get more complex, the lower end will probably have more features.
Say what now?
These devices are for motivating people to move more; the gateway drug to better fitness. Let it flow.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions