Steps Vs Exercise - Which is Better?
Options
HoneyBadger302
Posts: 2,075 Member
Okay, I'm doing some research on my own as well, but would be interested to see if anyone here has some links to actual studies on this or has researched it themselves.
Basically, I'm wondering if you take 2 people, who, all other things being the same (job type, eating habits/calorie deficit, weight, stats, lifestyle, weekend activity, etc), for overall health which person is likely to be better off? In other words, if someone has to choose, which is their better option? Is one person likely to have a higher TDEE than the other, and is that significant enough to warrant mentioning?
Person A) Walks throughout the day, quick (but not power walking) pace, breathing harder on hills, can break a sweat when going up hills, etc. Averages over 10,000 steps/day/5 days a week (not including weekends here as those are the same for both people).
Person B ) Does no special walking, so average steps are around 1500/day/5 days a week. Does a 1 hour workout 5 days a week, combination of ST and some cardio or a full body kind of workout.
Now, obviously, BOTH is best, and strength training is important - I'm a firm believer in all of that. Just curious if a person had to choose between the two, if there are any scientific studies out there that show if there is a benefit to one vs the other.
A search didn't really yield any results, so my apologies if this has been posted before.
Basically, I'm wondering if you take 2 people, who, all other things being the same (job type, eating habits/calorie deficit, weight, stats, lifestyle, weekend activity, etc), for overall health which person is likely to be better off? In other words, if someone has to choose, which is their better option? Is one person likely to have a higher TDEE than the other, and is that significant enough to warrant mentioning?
Person A) Walks throughout the day, quick (but not power walking) pace, breathing harder on hills, can break a sweat when going up hills, etc. Averages over 10,000 steps/day/5 days a week (not including weekends here as those are the same for both people).
Person B ) Does no special walking, so average steps are around 1500/day/5 days a week. Does a 1 hour workout 5 days a week, combination of ST and some cardio or a full body kind of workout.
Now, obviously, BOTH is best, and strength training is important - I'm a firm believer in all of that. Just curious if a person had to choose between the two, if there are any scientific studies out there that show if there is a benefit to one vs the other.
A search didn't really yield any results, so my apologies if this has been posted before.
2
Replies
-
I don't have any formal research to reference, but since you've gotten no other replies so far, here's my n equals one experience.
For me, intentional exercise(cardio) is better than general activity steps. My tdee is higher, my cardiovascular system gets a better workout, and muscles are stressed more with intentional exercise. I can't compare strength training as that's just too hard to quantify.4 -
I have no studies either and don’t know of any-and I think your person A and B might be a lot closer in stats which would blur the lines a little.
But for me, exercise is “better” for health as that’s what allows me to be fit and strong enough to live a full, enjoyable and limitless life.
However, my TDEE is considerably more affected by what I do in the 23 hours a day that I’m not working out. BUT-its important to temper that with the fact that I am extremely sedentary aside from exercise (I work a desk job from home-typically 3-4k steps a day), and I’m not very large so even intense exercise does not burn a great number of calories for me. I’ll burn 8-ish calories per minute on a run, and 3-4 per minute just being considerably more active during my daily life.
So I can increase my TDEE the same amount by being up and about and walking through parking lots/grocery stores, cleaning/doing laundry (up and down stairs), chasing my granddaughter or the dog, etc for a total of 2-3 hours as I would by running for an hour. So on a day when I’m cleaning, running errands and what not-I’m burning more than I would on a normal day when I ran for an hour.
But that’s because my baseline is very low and I don’t burn a whole lot doing exercise.
Exercise is still “better” because I’m not fit or strong because I trekked 72 loads of laundry up and down the stairs. But from a TDEE perspective, I burn more being active vs doing exercise on an otherwise sedentary day.
0 -
Having an accountable objective goal for hitting # steps seems like a more consistent way of measuring activity (TDEE) vs. specific exercise (variable in intensity, type of activity; cardio, even LISS generally burns more kcals vs. anaerobic activity).
I find that people who exercise will be more prone to compensating with less activity for longer stretches of the day (23 hours of the day, minor activity differences do add up significantly).
Combination of meeting a minimum step goal # each day (including some due to exercise) would be a good compromise for accounting for activity (this is my method of monitoring activity vs. counting minutes of exercise - I don't count minutes of exercise).
I think overall, # steps doesn't really matter but hitting a goal TDEE might work for people who are not necessarily into walking (those who like biking, skating, other activities where steps are not captured accurately but are nonetheless a form of cardio).1 -
I am going to assume nobody actually has a credible answer. So let me to venture in here and offer my extremely incisive and informed opinion.
I would guess there are two factors to consider, each one of which points -- probably -- in a different direction.
1) Studies have shown that when you sit lots your metabolism goes haywire. Those studies say that when you sit for half an hour or more without getting up and moving, you start to become insulin resistant, like someone with diabetes. Longer term your cholesterol level goes up, your triglyceride levels rise, and your muscles atrophy.
This is why lots of physiologists now recommend that sedentary workers get a stand-up desk or, at least, stand up and move the body every 20 minutes.
Not to mention, you burn 1 calorie a minute sitting but 3 calories a minute walking.
https://www.bhcmt.com/2015/08/why-standing-up-every-20-minutes-is-so-important-for-your-health/Those considerations might tip the scale toward the walker being better off.
2) A couple of recent studies and research surveys have suggested that weight lifting gives you a bigger bang for your buck than cardio-type activities. One suggested that weight lifting produced longer life, while running did not. This was not to say that running doesn't make you healthier, stronger and, maybe skinnier than a sedentary person -- it does, obviously -- but in this study it did not seem to result in more years.
And, another study, reported this week, showed that weight lifting anywhere from just once a week to three times a week could cut your risk of a heart attack or stroke by 40-70 percent -- and it produced that benefit irrespective of how much, or how little, cardio exercise you do. Even if you do none at all.
There has also been a study that purported to show that lifting weights reduced the risk of having high cholesterol by 32 percent.
I suppose those studies would suggest that weight lifting -- even just a little bit -- trumps aerobic activity, such as lots of walking.
A press release on this latest, heart attack study: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/11/181113115430.htm6 -
I think that quick paced intentional 10,000 steps a day, which is likely to take about 90 minutes will keep someone alive and well conditioned longer than one hour of some combo of strength and unknown cardio, who otherwise sits around all day.3
-
I find it hard to imagine anyone only getting 1500 steps in a day. That would basically mean laying on the couch most of the day. On my rest days I get between 4500 and 6500 just moving around the house.5
-
There have been lots of studies that (taken together) can answer this. Unfortunately none of them were done on identical twins that I know of, but I think we can still get to the bottom of this.
Walking is good in a lot of ways, exercise is great.
Strength training improves your bone density which can prevent osteoporosis. Cardio that's stressful enough improves your VO2max, which is more strongly related to how likely you are to die soon than anything else.
For what is worth, I'm Person B. I have a bike, skis, and a gym membership, so I don't do any special walking. But I got 23,000 steps and 400 flights of stairs on a hike today. Stood on two summits. Maybe that's special walking after all?2 -
GiddyupTim wrote: »I am going to assume nobody actually has a credible answer. So let me to venture in here and offer my extremely incisive and informed opinion.
I would guess there are two factors to consider, each one of which points -- probably -- in a different direction.
1) Studies have shown that when you sit lots your metabolism goes haywire. Those studies say that when you sit for half an hour or more without getting up and moving, you start to become insulin resistant, like someone with diabetes. Longer term your cholesterol level goes up, your triglyceride levels rise, and your muscles atrophy.
This is why lots of physiologists now recommend that sedentary workers get a stand-up desk or, at least, stand up and move the body every 20 minutes.
Not to mention, you burn 1 calorie a minute sitting but 3 calories a minute walking.
https://www.bhcmt.com/2015/08/why-standing-up-every-20-minutes-is-so-important-for-your-health/Those considerations might tip the scale toward the walker being better off.
2) A couple of recent studies and research surveys have suggested that weight lifting gives you a bigger bang for your buck than cardio-type activities. One suggested that weight lifting produced longer life, while running did not. This was not to say that running doesn't make you healthier, stronger and, maybe skinnier than a sedentary person -- it does, obviously -- but in this study it did not seem to result in more years.
And, another study, reported this week, showed that weight lifting anywhere from just once a week to three times a week could cut your risk of a heart attack or stroke by 40-70 percent -- and it produced that benefit irrespective of how much, or how little, cardio exercise you do. Even if you do none at all.
There has also been a study that purported to show that lifting weights reduced the risk of having high cholesterol by 32 percent.
I suppose those studies would suggest that weight lifting -- even just a little bit -- trumps aerobic activity, such as lots of walking.
A press release on this latest, heart attack study: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/11/181113115430.htm
Thanks for bringing this up. Exercise improves insulin sensitivity, too.0 -
HoneyBadger155 wrote: »Okay, I'm doing some research on my own as well, but would be interested to see if anyone here has some links to actual studies on this or has researched it themselves.
Basically, I'm wondering if you take 2 people, who, all other things being the same (job type, eating habits/calorie deficit, weight, stats, lifestyle, weekend activity, etc), for overall health which person is likely to be better off? In other words, if someone has to choose, which is their better option? Is one person likely to have a higher TDEE than the other, and is that significant enough to warrant mentioning?
Person A) Walks throughout the day, quick (but not power walking) pace, breathing harder on hills, can break a sweat when going up hills, etc. Averages over 10,000 steps/day/5 days a week (not including weekends here as those are the same for both people).
Person B ) Does no special walking, so average steps are around 1500/day/5 days a week. Does a 1 hour workout 5 days a week, combination of ST and some cardio or a full body kind of workout.
Now, obviously, BOTH is best, and strength training is important - I'm a firm believer in all of that. Just curious if a person had to choose between the two, if there are any scientific studies out there that show if there is a benefit to one vs the other.
A search didn't really yield any results, so my apologies if this has been posted before.
I wore a pedometer for a month as part of a challenge a couple years ago, and discovered that I did about 10,000 steps a day 5 days a week without much "special walking".
A year later, I did it again as part of another challenge. Same result.
A 1500 step day would be near impossible for me unless I were sick.
So ... there's that.
And then I exercise on top of that so I think it's entirely possible to do a whole variety of exercise. Do your 10,000 steps ... and get some additional exercise as well.1 -
HoneyBadger155 wrote: »Okay, I'm doing some research on my own as well, but would be interested to see if anyone here has some links to actual studies on this or has researched it themselves.
Basically, I'm wondering if you take 2 people, who, all other things being the same (job type, eating habits/calorie deficit, weight, stats, lifestyle, weekend activity, etc), for overall health which person is likely to be better off? In other words, if someone has to choose, which is their better option? Is one person likely to have a higher TDEE than the other, and is that significant enough to warrant mentioning?
Person A) Walks throughout the day, quick (but not power walking) pace, breathing harder on hills, can break a sweat when going up hills, etc. Averages over 10,000 steps/day/5 days a week (not including weekends here as those are the same for both people).
Person B ) Does no special walking, so average steps are around 1500/day/5 days a week. Does a 1 hour workout 5 days a week, combination of ST and some cardio or a full body kind of workout.
Now, obviously, BOTH is best, and strength training is important - I'm a firm believer in all of that. Just curious if a person had to choose between the two, if there are any scientific studies out there that show if there is a benefit to one vs the other.
A search didn't really yield any results, so my apologies if this has been posted before.
I wore a pedometer for a month as part of a challenge a couple years ago, and discovered that I did about 10,000 steps a day 5 days a week without much "special walking".
A year later, I did it again as part of another challenge. Same result.
A 1500 step day would be near impossible for me unless I were sick.
So ... there's that.
And then I exercise on top of that so I think it's entirely possible to do a whole variety of exercise. Do your 10,000 steps ... and get some additional exercise as well.
While I don't typically get in 10,000 steps a day, I do agree with you on the whole. The only days that I get anywhere near 1,500 steps is if I haven't left the house. On those days I'll get less than 2,000. Otherwise, despite being a student, I get anywhere between 5k-8k steps a day on average. That's on top of the purposeful exercise I do (cycling and rowing typically).0 -
FWIW, as a 42-yr old parent with a job, house, etc... on a lazy no-exercise day, I only get about 4k steps.
Also for context...I don't have any formal research to reference, but since you've gotten no other replies so far, here's my n equals one experience.
For me, intentional exercise(cardio) is better than general activity steps. My tdee is higher, my cardiovascular system gets a better workout, and muscles are stressed more with intentional exercise. I can't compare strength training as that's just too hard to quantify.
I say that based on 15k steps with a 5-mile run vs 15k steps of general walking/activity but no intentional exercise. That's the best comparison I've been able to do.
Not mentioned but maybe worth considering are the mental/stress benefits that many people see from exercise.0 -
Thanks for those who've found some links and information on some studies.
So, for me (NOT including workouts), with a desk job, taking public transit, and if I drive/take my scooter to the train station, when I started tracking my steps I was getting less than 2,000 a day, and my phone usually only showed around 1500 - granted, it only tracks them if I'm carrying it with me, but it was worse than I thought it was considering I typically park at the back of lots, take the stairs, etc. Even if I was missing half my steps, it was still pathetic.
I typically do both, and my workouts can be pretty intense especially closer to race season - but in order for me to get 10K steps a day, it is a LOT of purposeful walking. I now walk to the train station from my house, get off one train stop early, reverse that, AND have to take a 1.5 mile walk over lunch/a break.
No, the above does not include workouts (I don't track workout "steps"), but on the days when I just don't have time for both, I've been choosing the walking (more to keep it habit than anything).
I've seen studies that show the benefits of both, and I'm well aware both is what we would all want, but when making recommendations to "new" folks, was just curios which would be of more, overall, health benefit.
I think a LOT of people have FAR less activity than we imagine throughout their day....I didn't feel like I was being especially lazy, but when I started tracking my steps (again, workouts not included), it was really sad!1 -
HoneyBadger155 wrote: »Thanks for those who've found some links and information on some studies.
So, for me (NOT including workouts), with a desk job, taking public transit, and if I drive/take my scooter to the train station, when I started tracking my steps I was getting less than 2,000 a day, and my phone usually only showed around 1500 - granted, it only tracks them if I'm carrying it with me, but it was worse than I thought it was considering I typically park at the back of lots, take the stairs, etc. Even if I was missing half my steps, it was still pathetic.
I typically do both, and my workouts can be pretty intense especially closer to race season - but in order for me to get 10K steps a day, it is a LOT of purposeful walking. I now walk to the train station from my house, get off one train stop early, reverse that, AND have to take a 1.5 mile walk over lunch/a break.
No, the above does not include workouts (I don't track workout "steps"), but on the days when I just don't have time for both, I've been choosing the walking (more to keep it habit than anything).
I've seen studies that show the benefits of both, and I'm well aware both is what we would all want, but when making recommendations to "new" folks, was just curios which would be of more, overall, health benefit.
I think a LOT of people have FAR less activity than we imagine throughout their day....I didn't feel like I was being especially lazy, but when I started tracking my steps (again, workouts not included), it was really sad!
I think you might want to invest in a cheap pedometer or something that is attached to you ALL the time to get a better idea of your true step count.
I work a desk job, from home. My home measures 24ftX36ft (it’s a cape so there’s a half story where my bedroom and office are-still 1100 sq ft total-25 steps from one end of my house to the other). I go many days without leaving my house (except to run).
Outside of purposeful exercise-in my tiny house that I don’t leave, that I’m not going Daily cleaning or chasing children or anything but sitting in front of my computer except to go get more coffee and do basic life activities (like showering and getting dressed and making a bowl of oatmeal, etc.) - I’m generally around 3-4K steps a day.
The day you describe would be double that. But my step counter is attached me to 24/7. I don’t know what my step count would be if it were only the times my phone is attached to me - although my gut says it would be considerably less than my actual.
Also-when considering the general 10k step per day recommendation- that includes all steps - including any you get in a workout. Nothing wrong with wanting 10k not including a workout, but the 10k a day is for any and all steps you take whether they are down the hall and back, or in the gym or intentional exercise.
0 -
Working with a high client population over 45 years old, step are FINE if you want to just stay active, but it doesn't address the upper body strength needed to do things like push up out of chair, open a jar of pickles, or help with lifting heavier objects higher than your waist. And as we age, less attention to upper body muscles results in faster atrophy of them due to less hormonal activity as well. Resistance/strength training definitely helps to offset that.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
3 -
Duck_Puddle wrote: »I think you might want to invest in a cheap pedometer or something that is attached to you ALL the time to get a better idea of your true step count.
I've been looking at some, likely will get one at some point, but honestly as long as it's remotely ball park, I'm fine with it - and more activity than I think I'm doing certainly isn't a bad thing.
It all just got me wondering as I've read some things pointing out that overall activity has some benefits that just a workout doesn't include, and there's the obvious vice versa of that. The findings aren't going to affect what I'm actually doing - just a curiosity thing.
With my sport and my goals in my sport, the workouts are a requirement, and the daily "steps" are a bonus. I've been trying to figure out why I struggled so much more now to lose weight than I did 10 years ago despite just as, if not more intense workouts, and realized my daily activity had plummeted. Used to have horses and dogs, doing barn chores, working outdoors, etc - which is what prompted watching my steps to begin with....and discovered it was worse than I had imagined. I have NO idea what my "steps" where then, but I can promise they were significantly more than my current lifestyle (without the walking I've added).2 -
HoneyBadger155 wrote: »Duck_Puddle wrote: »I think you might want to invest in a cheap pedometer or something that is attached to you ALL the time to get a better idea of your true step count.
I've been looking at some, likely will get one at some point, but honestly as long as it's remotely ball park, I'm fine with it - and more activity than I think I'm doing certainly isn't a bad thing.
It all just got me wondering as I've read some things pointing out that overall activity has some benefits that just a workout doesn't include, and there's the obvious vice versa of that. The findings aren't going to affect what I'm actually doing - just a curiosity thing.
With my sport and my goals in my sport, the workouts are a requirement, and the daily "steps" are a bonus. I've been trying to figure out why I struggled so much more now to lose weight than I did 10 years ago despite just as, if not more intense workouts, and realized my daily activity had plummeted. Used to have horses and dogs, doing barn chores, working outdoors, etc - which is what prompted watching my steps to begin with....and discovered it was worse than I had imagined. I have NO idea what my "steps" where then, but I can promise they were significantly more than my current lifestyle (without the walking I've added).
Indeed. Level of daily activity is the biggest player in my TDEE and the easiest thing to not notice (that’s not exactly the right word-but I know a ton of people that have gone from working desk jobs at an office to desk jobs at home and all gained weight because they lost the “activity” of walking to/from a parking lot, coworkers desks, meeting rooms, etc-which isn’t even a lot of “activity” but makes a difference and they all say “nothing changed” because none of that stuff “feels” like activity - and that’s nothing compared to barn/farm activity).
If you’re measuring consistently from one day to the next, I don’t think it makes a big difference which method you use. I just think your 1500 is quite a bit lower than the number actually is. That’s only important if you’re comparing it to say the 10k number, if comparing from day to day to try to make sure you’re being “active” at some level, then I think it really only matters that you’re using the same methods every day.
Just from your description-your day sounds like a lot more than 1500 steps and I think you might not be as low on that scale as you think. But again-more activity isn’t bad and whatever is working for your particular goals (and budget and lifestyle and all that) is the way to go.
2 -
HoneyBadger155 wrote: »Okay, I'm doing some research on my own as well, but would be interested to see if anyone here has some links to actual studies on this or has researched it themselves.
Basically, I'm wondering if you take 2 people, who, all other things being the same (job type, eating habits/calorie deficit, weight, stats, lifestyle, weekend activity, etc), for overall health which person is likely to be better off? In other words, if someone has to choose, which is their better option? Is one person likely to have a higher TDEE than the other, and is that significant enough to warrant mentioning?
Person A) Walks throughout the day, quick (but not power walking) pace, breathing harder on hills, can break a sweat when going up hills, etc. Averages over 10,000 steps/day/5 days a week (not including weekends here as those are the same for both people).
Person B ) Does no special walking, so average steps are around 1500/day/5 days a week. Does a 1 hour workout 5 days a week, combination of ST and some cardio or a full body kind of workout.
Now, obviously, BOTH is best, and strength training is important - I'm a firm believer in all of that. Just curious if a person had to choose between the two, if there are any scientific studies out there that show if there is a benefit to one vs the other.
A search didn't really yield any results, so my apologies if this has been posted before.
I don't have links to studies.
I think it depends on what your goals are and what you will do consistantly which is better. Both choices are good. I think many people do some combination. Walking more might lead to more workouts or regular workouts might lead to walking more too.
I have chosen to have a daily step goal to remain active. It is easier for me to consistantly get 8,000-10,000 steps a day than to do a 1 hour workout most days. So option A leads to a healthier me because I won't realistically do option B 5 days a week.
When I first got a pedometer I discovered that if I was not making a special effort to increase my activity I was getting less than 3,000 steps and getting only 1,500 steps was possible some days. An hour workout may not have made up enough for that level of being sedentary.3 -
If you have a smallish house and work at the computer all day, it is very possible to get less than 1000 steps. It's 5 steps from my computer to the living room, 5 steps in the other direction to the kitchen and about 10 steps to the bathroom. If I walk the full length of my (short) hall and through the kitchen or living room to other end of the house, I might get 20 steps. That's why I need a lot of purposeful walks and workouts.4
-
Working with a high client population over 45 years old, step are FINE if you want to just stay active, but it doesn't address the upper body strength needed to do things like push up out of chair, open a jar of pickles, or help with lifting heavier objects higher than your waist. And as we age, less attention to upper body muscles results in faster atrophy of them due to less hormonal activity as well. Resistance/strength training definitely helps to offset that.]
As an aside, I think it's probably functionally important for people to be able to get out of a typical chair without the use of their arms. As someone who has dealt with expected but intense muscle atrophy in my glutes, quads, hamstrings, and calves after 4 major knee surgeries (think bone being moved sort of surgeries - TTO if anyone is interested), it's fairly marked when I'm able to finally get out of a chair (or off the toilet) without using my arms to help me.5 -
So for fun I decided to look at my day today. It's a little after 4pm right now and I've gotten 6,687 steps - this is on top of my 60+ min indoor rowing this morning (which was very purposeful). What have I done today?
Woke up and got dressed
Drove to the boathouse, erg'd for a little over an hour, and took a shower
Drove to school then took the streetcar to my favorite bagel place - that involved walking about 8-10 blocks in total?
Walked another block to the coffee shop and then eventually walked 5ish blocks to the streetcar and another 4 blocks to my class (give or take)
Walked another maybe 10 blocks to and from buildings
Made a 5 minute trip to the store (to get herbs and lemon to brine the turkey breast I'm roasting)
Drove to my friends' house where I'm staying so I can house sit their dog.
So that's at most 25 blocks of walking and I would call myself sedentary outside of the purposeful exercise I do. In MFP I chose sedentary and then eat back most of my exercise calories (I log loosely so I don't eat back the calories from walking).0 -
Duck_Puddle wrote: »HoneyBadger155 wrote: »Thanks for those who've found some links and information on some studies.
So, for me (NOT including workouts), with a desk job, taking public transit, and if I drive/take my scooter to the train station, when I started tracking my steps I was getting less than 2,000 a day, and my phone usually only showed around 1500 - granted, it only tracks them if I'm carrying it with me, but it was worse than I thought it was considering I typically park at the back of lots, take the stairs, etc. Even if I was missing half my steps, it was still pathetic.
I typically do both, and my workouts can be pretty intense especially closer to race season - but in order for me to get 10K steps a day, it is a LOT of purposeful walking. I now walk to the train station from my house, get off one train stop early, reverse that, AND have to take a 1.5 mile walk over lunch/a break.
No, the above does not include workouts (I don't track workout "steps"), but on the days when I just don't have time for both, I've been choosing the walking (more to keep it habit than anything).
I've seen studies that show the benefits of both, and I'm well aware both is what we would all want, but when making recommendations to "new" folks, was just curios which would be of more, overall, health benefit.
I think a LOT of people have FAR less activity than we imagine throughout their day....I didn't feel like I was being especially lazy, but when I started tracking my steps (again, workouts not included), it was really sad!
I think you might want to invest in a cheap pedometer or something that is attached to you ALL the time to get a better idea of your true step count.
I work a desk job, from home. My home measures 24ftX36ft (it’s a cape so there’s a half story where my bedroom and office are-still 1100 sq ft total-25 steps from one end of my house to the other). I go many days without leaving my house (except to run).
Outside of purposeful exercise-in my tiny house that I don’t leave, that I’m not going Daily cleaning or chasing children or anything but sitting in front of my computer except to go get more coffee and do basic life activities (like showering and getting dressed and making a bowl of oatmeal, etc.) - I’m generally around 3-4K steps a day.
The day you describe would be double that. But my step counter is attached me to 24/7. I don’t know what my step count would be if it were only the times my phone is attached to me - although my gut says it would be considerably less than my actual.
Also-when considering the general 10k step per day recommendation- that includes all steps - including any you get in a workout. Nothing wrong with wanting 10k not including a workout, but the 10k a day is for any and all steps you take whether they are down the hall and back, or in the gym or intentional exercise.
I agree.
I also work a desk job and take public transportation to work.
I do walk to the bus, but it isn't that far, and yet by the time I get to work in the morning, I've got nearly 2000 steps.
Then it's 200 steps from my office to the toilet and back. If I do that 5 times a day, I've got 1000 steps without even trying. When I take a break and climb to the top of the building and back, that's 800 steps. I usually go to the photocopier and back a couple times ... several more hundred steps. And to the kitchen to get a coffee and back ... several more hundred steps.
I walk to run errands at lunch ...
Another 2000 steps on the way home ...
Getting up and doing housework during commercials in the evening ... maybe a stroll down to the beach ...
It all adds up!
2 -
Dang, I get more than 1500 steps a day just going back and forth to the bathroom. That's not a lot of movement. Just puttering around my house doing not much of anything - mostly playing on my computer on a lazy day off - I still get a few thousand steps at least. Can't see how fit you can be getting only 1500 steps every day, all week long, compared to someone consistently walking multiple miles each day, all week long. The body is designed to move.
I'd say the person who is actually moving around all day (the big stepper) is probably better off, unless the "sedentary" person is doing specific exercises where they are going to be stationary, but still working hard. I guess it depends on the exercise? (My fitness tracker actually estimates a step count for me when I'm mountain biking, so I don't need to be actually taking steps to get my fitness in. I always hit my step goal on days that I bike, even if I barely walk around that day.)
ETA: To answer the main question, in my opinion, being generally active throughout the day (aka "steps") combined with intermittent, specific, purposeful exercise that focuses on cardio health, strength and flexibility is best for general health and fitness. I can't think of an actual scenario in my life where I would need to choose between those things, aside from injury/disability, so I'm not going to choose. I'm just gonna do both while I'm able.
0 -
Working with a high client population over 45 years old, step are FINE if you want to just stay active, but it doesn't address the upper body strength needed to do things like push up out of chair, open a jar of pickles, or help with lifting heavier objects higher than your waist. And as we age, less attention to upper body muscles results in faster atrophy of them due to less hormonal activity as well. Resistance/strength training definitely helps to offset that.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
@ninerbuff also, are steps alone enough to help keep an older population able to perform movements such as sitting down and getting back up unassisted?0 -
If you have a smallish house and work at the computer all day, it is very possible to get less than 1000 steps. It's 5 steps from my computer to the living room, 5 steps in the other direction to the kitchen and about 10 steps to the bathroom. If I walk the full length of my (short) hall and through the kitchen or living room to other end of the house, I might get 20 steps. That's why I need a lot of purposeful walks and workouts.
Yes, this is my situation - smallish house, work from home. When I am debilitated by my period I can get less than 1000 steps. But I think 1500 steps is too small a number to use for the average number of steps for a normal person.0 -
In addition to strength training twice a week as well as intentional walking and other cardiovascular activity, I also move around a lot during the day due to this:
Sitting Kills, Moving Heals: How Everyday Movement Will Prevent Pain, Illness, and Early Death -- and Exercise Alone Won't
This groundbreaking new medical work demonstrates how modern sedentary lifestyles contribute to poor health, obesity, and diabetes, and how health can be dramatically improved by continuous, low-intensity, movement that challenges the force of gravity. Citing her original NASA research on how weightlessness weakens astronauts' muscles, bones, and overall health, the author presents a simple and effective plan for maintaining good health throughout life by developing new lifestyle habits of frequent gravity-challenging movement. Written for everyone who spends most of their lives sitting in chairs, at desks, and in cars, this practical, easy-to-follow action plan outlines simple gravity-challenging activities such as standing up frequently, stretching, walking, and dancing that are more healthful and effective than conventional diet and exercise regimens.4
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 396.6K Introduce Yourself
- 44.2K Getting Started
- 260.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 176.3K Food and Nutrition
- 47.6K Recipes
- 232.8K Fitness and Exercise
- 449 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.7K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153.3K Motivation and Support
- 8.3K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.5K Chit-Chat
- 2.6K Fun and Games
- 4.5K MyFitnessPal Information
- 16 News and Announcements
- 18 MyFitnessPal Academy
- 1.4K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions