Bodyweight Walking 6-10 miles daily

[Lotto]

The body must become adapted to walking in a short space of time. I won't walk much less than 6 miles a day between dog walking and work, often more and I still practice weights. I don't consider myself strong compared to numbers I see on SF site. (I'm Simple Standard). Maybe if I didn't have to walk so much I would get stronger? Guess I'm saying I don't consider my 6 miles as exercise. It is just part of my day that has to be done.

 

[Francisco]

One summer when I was in my early 30's, I used to alternate 6- and 7-mile runs every day then work all day. I was a fan of Entermann's cakes and would an entire cake - box, fork, Steve, no plate required - every night for dessert.


Yeah, me, too.


The whole issue of diminishing returns is an interesting one, IMO, for many things, not just walking. I would suggest your number is at least twice a high as it needs to be. I've done 5k steps today, about 2 miles, and I'm content with that, plus I did a single set of deadlifts with a light-for-me weight, 225 lbs, as touch-n-go but the kind where the plates just barely touch the ground and I think I did perhaps 7 reps. I feel exercised plenty for the day. Granted it's a light/easy day but I still think that can be enough - I think it's also possible and worthy of consideration in this discussion to talk about being an exercise junkie.

-S-

Steve! Huge respect for your work here!

We will have to respectfully agree to disagree on this one though…. 5000 steps is too little.

Depending on the study - and what you consider diminishing returns - this may be 8000, 10.000 or even 14000 steps.
A quick google search will show this.
I attach one graph - of many - here:


Also from an evolutionary point of view we are meant to walk/move. A lot. Just one study here:
Hadza men and women average around 16,000 steps: B. M. Wood et al. (2018). “Step counts from satellites: Methods for integrating accelerometer and GPS data for more accurate measures of pedestrian travel.” J. Meas. Phys. Behav. 3 (1): 58–66.

Following the evolutionary rabbit hole we did not evolve to deadlift. We did evolve to hunter and gather: so lots of walks & carries with the ocasional bout of sprint/ strength work - typically in-between strength, not bilateral repetitive work.

This said I do believe in the benefits of strength work as a means to an end: not getting astray of what our bodies are expecting. And the barbell and kb and calisthenics are great proxies for that. They do not however substitute in any way the other aspect: lots of varied locomotion. Varied means: pace, terrain and load.

 

[the hansenator]

I’ve wondered how the step count thing relates to other types of activity. Like, if one person gets fewer steps but also engages in exercise that doesn’t register as an increased step count, would health benefits be similar or is there something unique about steps that you just don’t get from other forms of exercise?

 

[dobie]

Francisco,
Interesting post- what would so called in between strength look like?
Also just read an article- sorry I can’t attach it, that mentioned mortality benefits when you increase your steps from 5 or 6 k up to 10k per day.

 

[Francisco]

Francisco,
Interesting post- what would so called in between strength look like?
Also just read an article- sorry I can’t attach it, that mentioned mortality benefits when you increase your steps from 5 or 6 k up to 10k per day.

A simple example: the kettlebell mile..

 

[Anna C]

Steve! Huge respect for your work here!

We will have to respectfully agree to disagree on this one though…. 5000 steps is too little.

Depending on the study - and what you consider diminishing returns - this may be 8000, 10.000 or even 14000 steps.
A quick google search will show this.
I attach one graph - of many - here:
View attachment 19978

Also from an evolutionary point of view we are meant to walk/move. A lot. Just one study here:
Hadza men and women average around 16,000 steps: B. M. Wood et al. (2018). “Step counts from satellites: Methods for integrating accelerometer and GPS data for more accurate measures of pedestrian travel.” J. Meas. Phys. Behav. 3 (1): 58–66.

Following the evolutionary rabbit hole we did not evolve to deadlift. We did evolve to hunter and gather: so lots of walks & carries with the ocasional bout of sprint/ strength work - typically in-between strength, not bilateral repetitive work.

This said I do believe in the benefits of strength work as a means to an end: not getting astray of what our bodies are expecting. And the barbell and kb and calisthenics are great proxies for that. They do not however substitute in any way the other aspect: lots of varied locomotion. Varied means: pace, terrain and load.

Great graph and point well made, @Francisco !

Illustrations like this are so much more useful than terms like "diminishing returns." Because obviously, the returns are "diminishing" the whole time -- the amount of benefit for each 2,000 step increase is getting smaller. But I agree with you - the true "diminishing returns" happen > 10,000.

HOWEVER it's also important for people to realize the HUGE benefit one can get from 5,000 steps per day! Mortality rate per 1000 adults reduced from approximately 22 to 11 -- or cut in half.

AND I would also venture to guess that someone like @Steve Freides, or me for that matter, who walks about 5,000 steps per day AND does resistance training is probably better off than those who are just walking 10,000 steps/day. But that gets into a more complicated scenario, and I don't know for sure that it's true... but I like to think so

 

[dobie]

Pace as important as 10,000 steps for health

Attached is article on steps per day and associated morality and disease burden reduction.
Authors also state that speed of steps gives further benefit.

 

[ali]

Get a dog. Programmed daily walks.

Going for a walk v walking more generally to get to where you want to or need to go. Recreational v practical. In terms of exercise...or movement, exactly the same outcome...you walk more.

A nice relaxing stroll in the woods or on the beach is different from trudging along getting to work or going out to get some food in the cold and wet from a good for the soul perspective, it's still walking.

Just walk more. That's all there is to it. Much ado about nothing. Of course time constraints and we all have different lifestyles.
Here's the thing though...you go out for a walk for 1 hour but get home and drive to the shop 10 minute drive away to buy milk and bread. Just walk to the shops. If your buying a new fridge, maybe not but, you know, same same. 2 birds, one stone.

 

[Steve Freides]

Steve! Huge respect for your work here!

We will have to respectfully agree to disagree on this one though…. 5000 steps is too little.

Depending on the study - and what you consider diminishing returns - this may be 8000, 10.000 or even 14000 steps.
A quick google search will show this.
I attach one graph - of many - here:

@Francisco, thanks for compliment, very much appreciated, sir.

I'd like to know what the number of deaths/thousand is with 0 steps, and 100, and 500, and 1000 as well as 2000.

When you go from 2k to 4k steps, you go from 22 to 14 deaths, a benefit of 8. When you go from 4k to 6k, you go from 14 to 10, a benefit of 4. That means the first additional 2k steps gets you 8 while the next 2k steps gets you half as much: four. The next 2k gets you down to 7, a benefit of three, and so it continues. Diminishing returns doesn't suggest vanishing returns, and the trend continues.

AND I would also venture to guess that someone like @Steve Freides, or me for that matter, who walks about 5,000 steps per day AND does resistance training is probably better off than those who are just walking 10,000 steps/day.

Right. Intelligently organized resistance training is one such thing our ancestors couldn't manage the way we can, and what we can do is to our benefit.

Let's hypothesize: 5k steps takes me an hour. 100 kettlebell swings takes me 10 minutes. Better to walk for two hours or to walk for one hour and do S&S? That's an "all causes mortality" study whose results would be interesting, and I'll bet on the kettlebell swingers as coming out ahead.

And then let's also consider age. Read this Biomarkers and follow it up with the book and/or the first few minutes of the podcast on YouTube with the lead author, and you'll learn that the older you are, the more important strength and not suffering sarcopenia are. So I'd also like to see your study done on various age brackets of people, and include resistance training, and if it does that, then you'll be doing what the BioMarkers people did and their results are pretty conclusive that aerobic fitness, which is what I'm assuming one gets from walking, is definitely less important than strength training.

Mark Twain said it best when he said (although he doesn't claim credit for), "Lies, damned lies, and statistics." I'm not trying to put down what you've said, just trying to look at the issues involved from other angles as well as the one you mention.

-S-

 

[Kenny Croxdale]

At first glance 10 miles a day would be quite time intensive.

Absurd

There isn' t much of return on the investment of walking 10 miles.

Fat loss of the kind that needs even the lower number given is better accomplished with diet,

That's A Fact

Statements that allude for Weight Loss are..

1) The best exercise is pushing back from the table.

2) You can out train a bad diet.

3) Weight Loss is 80% Diet.

Exercise does not burn as many calories most individual believe. It is misinformation that continues to be perpetuated.

Let's examine more this misinformation...

Gaining Muscle Doesn't Increase the Metabolic Rate a Significant Amount
Does Muscle Really Increase Metabolism That Much?

How Many Calories Are Burned Per Day Per Pound of Muscle?

Muscle burns an additional 6 calories per day. ... People don't agree on the exact number, but 6 looks like a good average. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition has it close to 5 and I've seen other studies where it is a bit higher. Bottom line…muscle doesn't increase your metabolism THAT much.

Did You Know that Body Fat Increases Your Metabolic Rate?

Seriously…one pound of fat burns an additional 2 calories per pound per day. So if you gained 10 pounds of fat, you will burn another 20 calories per day. Obviously if fat loss is the goal, you wouldn't want to gain more fat to increase your metabolic rate. I just wanted to throw this out there to let you know that things aren't always as simple as they seem.

The Myth about Muscle and Your Metabolic Rate

How Many Calories Does a Pound of Muscle Burn... Really?

How many calories does a pound of muscle burn? 50? 100? In fact, the resting metabolic rate of muscle is a lot lower than most people think.

muscleevo.net

So, what is the "true" metabolic rate of muscle?

In her book Ultimate Fitness: The Quest for Truth about Exercise and Health, science writer for The New York Times Gina Kolata talked to Professor Claude Bouchard, a respected researcher in the field of genetics and obesity.

Bouchard points out that muscle actually has a very low metabolic rate when it is at rest, which is most of the time. And the metabolic rate of muscle pales in comparison to other parts of the body.

​

Organ or tissue​	Daily metabolic rate​
Adipose (fat)​	2 calories per pound​
Muscle​	6 calories per pound​
Liver​	91 calories per pound​
Brain​	109 calories per pound​
Heart​	200 calories per pound​
Kidneys​	200 calories per pound​

Writing in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Robert Wolfe, Ph.D., Chief of Metabolism and Professor of Biochemistry at the University of Texas Medical Branch, points out that, "every 10-kilogram difference in lean mass translates to a difference in energy expenditure of 100 calories per day, assuming a constant rate of protein turnover."

That's 10 calories for one kilogram of muscle, or a little less than 5 calories per pound — not too far away from the previous estimate of 6 calories per pound.

And there are studies to show that the more muscle you have, the more calories you'll burn after an intense workout [6].

What does all of this mean for you?

Well, if you were to lose two pounds of fat and replace it with two pounds of muscle, your resting metabolic rate will increase by less than 10 calories per day. It would take a vast amount of muscle to substantially increase your metabolic rate — far more than most people are going to build in the gym.

Walking For Weight Loss

Very few individaual literally "Walk their ASSSS' Off"

1) That primarily due to the fact that Low Intensity Activities burn very few caloires.

This approach amount to taking a slow boat to China, with most not making it there.

2) Low Intensity Activies burn calories during the activity but not afterward.

In other words, Low intensity Activites, like walking, do not increase Post Workout Metabolic Rate.

EPOC, Excessive Post Oxygen Consumption

High Intensity Activies such as High Intensity Interval Training and Resistance Training produces EPOC; an increase in Metabolic Rate rate that burns calories and body fat for hours after training.

"...Studies to show that the more muscle you have, the more calories you'll burn after an intense workout [6]."

",,,It takes time and energy for muscle cells to return to resting levels," says Chris Scott, Ph.D., exercise physiologist at the University of Southern Maine Human Performance Laboratory. "Recovery can also be expensive: Depleted glucose and fat stores need to be refilled, accumulated cell products need to be removed and protein levels need to be built back up. All this requires energy."

'And the more rebuilding to be done, the greater the rate of EPOC, which in turn means that more calories (mainly from fat) are being burned after your workout.'

'So, while the resting metabolic rate of muscle isn't as high as previously thought, it is going to help you burn a few more calories after a workout is finished." Souce: The Myth about Muscle and Your Metabolic Rate

Forget The Fat Birning Zone

Forget the Fat-Burn Zone

(Metabolism (1994) Volume 43, pp.814-818)

:,,,The total energy cost of the ET (Endurance Training) program was substantially greater than the HIIT program. The researchers calculated that the ET group burned more than twice as many calories while exercising than the HIIT program. But (surprise, surprise) skinfold measurements showed that the HIIT group lost more subcutaneous fat. "Moreover," reported the researchers, "when the difference in the total energy cost of the program was taken into account..., the subcutaneous fat loss was ninefold greater in the HIIT program than in the ET program." In short, the HIIT group got 9 times more fat-loss benefit for every calorie burned exercising.

Overcharging Your "Metabolic Credit Card

Metaphorially speaking...

High Intensity Training overcharges your "Metabolic Credit Card; you spend more than you have.

As with a credit card that your overchage, your overcharged "Metabolic Credit Card" pays it back with interest. That meaning your "Metabolic Rate" remain elevate for hour after training.

As per, Chris Scott, Ph.D., exercise physiologist at the University of Southern Maine Human Performance Laboratory. "Recovery can also be expensive: Depleted glucose and fat stores need to be refilled, accumulated cell products need to be removed and protein levels need to be built back up. All this requires energy."

 

[the hansenator]

This was kind of interesting.

A Daily Walk Can Reduce the Power of Weight-Gaining Genes | TIME.com

…walking for about an hour a day can reduce the weight-promoting effect of certain genes by 50%. What’s more, the scientists say, sedentary activities like watching TV can trigger the weight-gaining effect of the same genes.

 

[John K]

Pace as important as 10,000 steps for health

Attached is article on steps per day and associated morality and disease burden reduction.
Authors also state that speed of steps gives further benefit.

My question with a lot of these steps-for-health studies is that I wonder if steps are like grip strength - indicative of something without causing it. Is it the steps (or grip strength) that is reducing mortality, or is it that steps (and grip strength) are indicative of an individual that is leading an active and likely more health-conscious lifestyle?

 

[Steve Freides]

I would like to weigh in on the subject of walking speed. For me, nothing ruins a walk more than trying to make myself walk faster. Long, slow, easy distance can and, IMO, should be restorative. If you're running, you should be able to carry on a conversation. And I don't know about anyone else, but the stronger I get and the more walking miles I have under my belt, the faster I walk - but without trying to walk faster, it just happens. I don't think about RPE, but I do think about relaxing and looking for tension and relaxing what I find, and allowing my mind to wander and/or to enjoy the scenery, and all that. So I would pointedly advise people _not_ to try to walk faster unless and until they can do so relaxedly and without any undue tension.

-S-

 

[ali]

or is it that steps (and grip strength) are indicative of an individual that is leading an active and likely more health-conscious lifestyle

There is that...one of many variables. It's like that red meat eating thing causes cancer and lowers mortality gained from a questionnaire that suggested excess sausages and bacon were a single cause when the group that reported eating said red meat didn't exercise, smoked and were, er, overweight and had never heard of fruit and vegetables.

The daily step activity 'number' does correlate to blue zone studies where low level activity is part of this 'longevity' puzzle. But, you know, in isolation though? Diet, stress, community and vitamin D from sunlight hours are all part of it too.

So how to arrive at a number? A cynic might argue that a number is a selling point in our data driven world and 10k steps is a nice middle of the road target for most people to enable some tech merchandise share price increase.

Having said that, most people could benefit from walking more than they do now which let's face it consists of sitting, walking to fridge and walking to get in the car. So sticking a number on it isn't a bad thing in itself as a strategy to get people to walk more. But health is many moving parts, so it comes as part of a package.

 

[wespom9]

Depending on the study - and what you consider diminishing returns - this may be 8000, 10.000 or even 14000 steps.
A quick google search will show this.

link to study? Helpful graphic, I want to compare to what I use at work currently

 

[BCman]

The times in my life, when I walked between 30 and 90 minutes daily, at a brisk pace,
I had no problem keeping my weight down or losing it.
Having dogs helps. But I'm on my feet 8 hours a day for work.
My whole life, I've enjoyed walking or biking for peace of mind,
and energizing the body.
For me it's all about how I feel?
I tried a fitbit, and a heart rate monitor, and they were only a distraction from my joy!
I'm 56 and my resting heart rate is 52 BPM. I don't run, I walk, do KBs, Karate and Calisthenics.
Just like my Diet! If I don't enjoy it, I won't do it!

Al

 

[Francisco]

@Francisco, thanks for compliment, very much appreciated, sir.

I'd like to know what the number of deaths/thousand is with 0 steps, and 100, and 500, and 1000 as well as 2000.

When you go from 2k to 4k steps, you go from 22 to 14 deaths, a benefit of 8. When you go from 4k to 6k, you go from 14 to 10, a benefit of 4. That means the first additional 2k steps gets you 8 while the next 2k steps gets you half as much: four. The next 2k gets you down to 7, a benefit of three, and so it continues. Diminishing returns doesn't suggest vanishing returns, and the trend continues.


Right. Intelligently organized resistance training is one such thing our ancestors couldn't manage the way we can, and what we can do is to our benefit.

Let's hypothesize: 5k steps takes me an hour. 100 kettlebell swings takes me 10 minutes. Better to walk for two hours or to walk for one hour and do S&S? That's an "all causes mortality" study whose results would be interesting, and I'll bet on the kettlebell swingers as coming out ahead.

And then let's also consider age. Read this Biomarkers and follow it up with the book and/or the first few minutes of the podcast on YouTube with the lead author, and you'll learn that the older you are, the more important strength and not suffering sarcopenia are. So I'd also like to see your study done on various age brackets of people, and include resistance training, and if it does that, then you'll be doing what the BioMarkers people did and their results are pretty conclusive that aerobic fitness, which is what I'm assuming one gets from walking, is definitely less important than strength training.

Mark Twain said it best when he said (although he doesn't claim credit for), "Lies, damned lies, and statistics." I'm not trying to put down what you've said, just trying to look at the issues involved from other angles as well as the one you mention.

-S-

Interesting thoughts Steve and Anna!

I get what you and Anna are saying: what is the most efficient use of time to impact in health? However, both of you seem to be thinking about this as an OR option. Meaning: do strength OR endurance and that there must be some compensation from one to the other. My point is both are necessary. This seems to be widely supported by the way we evolved until yesterday (roughly industrial revolution).

Also I know both of you have done endurance in the past - Steve you have mentioned that you were a runner and Anna you do long bike rides many weekends. Meaning both of you have endurance experience and an avg of 10.000-15.000 steps is not that much. This community is OFC tilted towards strength, which is normal, considering S1 is a/the school of strength, but averaging 10.000 steps per day is very doable and not a ”feat”. I do consider what you have both achieved more of an achievement such as a DL record, or becoming Sinister. Easy locomotion is just that, and the numbers we are talking here are absolutely nothing out of the ordinary.

Disclaimer: I live in a small town in the north of Spain, very similar to what other member was saying about Italy, so I get to walk on all of my daily errands and it is very easy to get to a base of 10.000 steps per day walking. Add two - three weekly easy runs and my avg goes up to around 15000 steps…

BTW: The Biomarkers book is a good read with excellent points. I recall you recommended some time ago elsewhere in the forum. Picked it up and Lots of excellent points.

And yes @Steve Freides as you get older you need less steps. Have been looking around and a nice number may be 7500 steps… Still I am a big advocate of walking, easy locomotion (rucking, jogging), specially in nature, not only for the body but the mind.

 

[Francisco]

link to study? Helpful graphic, I want to compare to what I use at work currently

There

 

[Anna C]

Interesting thoughts Steve and Anna!

I get what you and Anna are saying: what is the most efficient use of time to impact in health? However, both of you seem to be thinking about this as an OR option. Meaning: do strength OR endurance and that there must be some compensation from one to the other. My point is both are necessary. This seems to be widely supported by the way we evolved until yesterday (roughly industrial revolution).

Also I know both of you have done endurance in the past - Steve you have mentioned that you were a runner and Anna you do long bike rides many weekends. Meaning both of you have endurance experience and an avg of 10.000-15.000 steps is not that much. This community is OFC tilted towards strength, which is normal, considering S1 is a/the school of strength, but averaging 10.000 steps per day is very doable and not a ”feat”. I do consider what you have both achieved more of an achievement such as a DL record, or becoming Sinister. Easy locomotion is just that, and the numbers we are talking here are absolutely nothing out of the ordinary.

I believe that low intensity steady state (LISS) cardio is GREAT for health. There is a dose-dependent relationship (more is better). There is good data to support "at least 150 minutes (2 hours and 30 minutes) to 300 minutes (5 hours) a week of moderate-intensity, or 75 minutes (1 hour and 15 minutes) to 150 minutes (2 hours and 30 minutes) a week of vigorous-intensity aerobic physical activity, or an equivalent combination of moderate- and vigorous-intensity aerobic activity". Further benefits are available from more.

I don't believe there's anything magic about walking, specifically, for overall health benefits. So for myself, I walk several times a week, but I don't try to hit any step or mile goals. I do feel that walking is a nice, natural activity for humans to do. So along those lines, the more the better, but perhaps not at the expense of other things if time is limited.

 

[Francisco]

I believe that low intensity steady state (LISS) cardio is GREAT for health. There is a dose-dependent relationship (more is better). There is good data to support "at least 150 minutes (2 hours and 30 minutes) to 300 minutes (5 hours) a week of moderate-intensity, or 75 minutes (1 hour and 15 minutes) to 150 minutes (2 hours and 30 minutes) a week of vigorous-intensity aerobic physical activity, or an equivalent combination of moderate- and vigorous-intensity aerobic activity". Further benefits are available from more.

I don't believe there's anything magic about walking, specifically, for overall health benefits. So for myself, I walk several times a week, but I don't try to hit any step or mile goals. I do feel that walking is a nice, natural activity for humans to do. So along those lines, the more the better, but perhaps not at the expense of other things if time is limited.

Fully agree on the first paragraph.
Disagree on the second. Let me explain.
There is an ongoing over simplification on cardio and walking seems to be disregarded (meaning as long as your HR goes up everything works).
Walking, is IMHO, and in my n=1 experiment the foundation upon which LISS/LED builds. Carrying, and jogging/running build on top of it. Other forms of cardio such as swimming, biking, skiing, rowing, are ok but if there are no medical conditions nothing substitutes the natural - contra lateral, odd balance keeping gait this “clever“ monkey evolved to do a few million years ago…
And yes, when time is limited LISS is the first to go. And it is a shame. I get what you are saying, it is a shame nonetheless. And not only for the body.