10,000 steps a day: Might there be something better?(bbc.co.uk)
bbc.co.uk
10,000 steps a day: Might there be something better?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-42864061
69 comments
I agree, i even get off two subway stops early every day for a forced 10-15 minute walk. Rain, snow, forgot my umbrella, I still do it.
I leave my house when its dark, and get home when its dark again. My walk to and from the subway and going out for lunches are pretty necessary with this schedule. Necessary in this case for peace of mind.
I do however think that the surfaces we walk on do make a difference in how 'good' walking is for us. Spending long times stqnding on hard surfaces tends to make my joints ache far sooner than a more padded surface like grass.
I leave my house when its dark, and get home when its dark again. My walk to and from the subway and going out for lunches are pretty necessary with this schedule. Necessary in this case for peace of mind.
I do however think that the surfaces we walk on do make a difference in how 'good' walking is for us. Spending long times stqnding on hard surfaces tends to make my joints ache far sooner than a more padded surface like grass.
I do the same, my commute from home to the office is very short, I take one station of a commuter train and two subway stations, most days I have enough time to kill that I forgo the subway trip and walk from and to the train station.
Takes me about 15 minutes and now during winter the morning walk is one of the few times on weekdays that I'm outside with sunlight. It's that walk and then my walk to/from the gym during lunch, 35 minutes total that I have sunlight for 5 days/week...
Takes me about 15 minutes and now during winter the morning walk is one of the few times on weekdays that I'm outside with sunlight. It's that walk and then my walk to/from the gym during lunch, 35 minutes total that I have sunlight for 5 days/week...
> Any amount of walking is good for you. The steps help certain personality types get it done, but isn't for everybody.
Yes, I think this is where either most recommendations go wrong, or possibly how people read those recommendations.
You probably strengthen some ligaments and a few muscles from walking, but I assume most of the benefit comes from slightly raising your V02max.
If the recommendation is walking, that filters out anyone who doesn't like walking.
If the recommendation is raising your V02max, that applies to anyone who can learn what that means, and then apply it to anything they can enjoy doing, whether that is to:
* drop your hat and pick it up from the floor 200 times a day, or
* take the stairs a few times and only use every other step, or
* put on a short playlist of your favorite songs to dance to when no one is watching
* etc
It's a difficult balance between recommending something that focuses at the heart of the issue, or using extremely lossy compression on your recommendation to distill it down to "do X Y times a day".
Yes, I think this is where either most recommendations go wrong, or possibly how people read those recommendations.
You probably strengthen some ligaments and a few muscles from walking, but I assume most of the benefit comes from slightly raising your V02max.
If the recommendation is walking, that filters out anyone who doesn't like walking.
If the recommendation is raising your V02max, that applies to anyone who can learn what that means, and then apply it to anything they can enjoy doing, whether that is to:
* drop your hat and pick it up from the floor 200 times a day, or
* take the stairs a few times and only use every other step, or
* put on a short playlist of your favorite songs to dance to when no one is watching
* etc
It's a difficult balance between recommending something that focuses at the heart of the issue, or using extremely lossy compression on your recommendation to distill it down to "do X Y times a day".
I think most people prefer to use the "do X Y times a day"; I mean take dieting, it boils down to eat less than you use - cut calories. But figuring out the how and what is both hard and boring, and not something you can drop in conversations. Instead, doing keto, primal diet, gluten-free (as a diet choice), vegetarian/vegan, and a fuckton of branded diet programs both tell you exactly what to eat (or what to not eat in some cases), instead of telling you to eat less calories and/or move more.
"Take 10K steps a day" is a lot more actionable than "Move more". It's making a chore SMART (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SMART_criteria)
"Take 10K steps a day" is a lot more actionable than "Move more". It's making a chore SMART (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SMART_criteria)
Like I said, I'm torn on it, and I agree with what you're saying.
But as someone who people usually come to for advice on this (as a hobbyist), I can't understate the amount of people who reads keto as "eating more fat" (instead of cutting carbs), and gluten-free as "i'll find as much crap food as i can that says 'gluten free' on it".
If they get a complete meal plan and they're disciplined it works fine, but I think at some point if you don't understand why something is a recommended diet, it's probably because your heart isn't really in it to do it, meaning you won't stick to it either way.
But as someone who people usually come to for advice on this (as a hobbyist), I can't understate the amount of people who reads keto as "eating more fat" (instead of cutting carbs), and gluten-free as "i'll find as much crap food as i can that says 'gluten free' on it".
If they get a complete meal plan and they're disciplined it works fine, but I think at some point if you don't understand why something is a recommended diet, it's probably because your heart isn't really in it to do it, meaning you won't stick to it either way.
Yes, I agree that most people respond to a planned out regimented routine. The danger of that, at least for me, is if you miss one or two, it's super easy to feel defeated and get out of the habit. For me, just extending walks I normally take (car to the the store, car to the office) makes it brainless.
Agreed. I personally like walking because it's something I have to do anyway, I just make the walk a little longer. For me that's super easy to fit in my day without having to carve out time out to go to the gym or something.
Way back in the dinosaur era, my football coach told us to do pushups or sit ups during commercials when we watched tv. I never really got into that habit, but it's a good tip if you find yourself in the rare situation where you have to watch a commercial now a days.
Way back in the dinosaur era, my football coach told us to do pushups or sit ups during commercials when we watched tv. I never really got into that habit, but it's a good tip if you find yourself in the rare situation where you have to watch a commercial now a days.
I'm partial to daily burpees http://joshuaspodek.com/js_blogseries/burpees, having done them daily for about 7.5 years. No equipment necessary, weather doesn't matter, no reason not to do them.
So, the "one exercise you should NEVER do"?
http://www.structurepersonalfitness.com/dont-burpees-probabl...
https://www.wellfitandfed.com/fit/burpees-read-this-and-you-...
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/burpees-exercise-fit...
(...) The move, which incorporates jumping, tightening, speed, and fat burning, is often touted as the one move that incorporates all your muscles - and can be done by almost anyone.
But according to Murphy, they make more sense in the military - where the exercise originated, and where the risk of a bullet coming towards you is more likely.
Murphy told Men's Health: “Burpees aren’t good for the human body. You know what burpees are good for? They originated in the military as a way of dodging bullets. They’re good for relocation.”
And although the move does burn fat, Murphy isn’t a fan - especially if your career is more office focused and less about dodging enemy fire.
He said: “Imagine you’re doing burpees and then going to your sit-down job in an office all day. It’s not good for the wrist, and the spine is not in the proper position.”
http://www.structurepersonalfitness.com/dont-burpees-probabl...
https://www.wellfitandfed.com/fit/burpees-read-this-and-you-...
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/burpees-exercise-fit...
(...) The move, which incorporates jumping, tightening, speed, and fat burning, is often touted as the one move that incorporates all your muscles - and can be done by almost anyone.
But according to Murphy, they make more sense in the military - where the exercise originated, and where the risk of a bullet coming towards you is more likely.
Murphy told Men's Health: “Burpees aren’t good for the human body. You know what burpees are good for? They originated in the military as a way of dodging bullets. They’re good for relocation.”
And although the move does burn fat, Murphy isn’t a fan - especially if your career is more office focused and less about dodging enemy fire.
He said: “Imagine you’re doing burpees and then going to your sit-down job in an office all day. It’s not good for the wrist, and the spine is not in the proper position.”
This didn't explain to me why you shouldn't do burpees. So I clicked on the article to see if you had missed quoting the meat of the guy's point. Found out... nope, you got it. So we shouldn't do burpees because it came from the military as a way to dodge bullets? I don't get how that says we shouldn't do them. His point that it's not good for the wrist, and the spine is not in the proper position? The burpees or the sitting in the office? I'm not clear. If the sitting in the office causes the wrist and spine issues, how is this relevant to whether or not I should do burpees? If the burpees cause the wrist and spine issues, how do burpees cause that? There's no explanation in the article. But there ARE a lot of fitness trainers who claim that burpees are great. So I'm guessing it's clear why I'm still thinking that burpees are OK.
>So we shouldn't do burpees because it came from the military as a way to dodge bullets?
Was the part where it says: “Burpees aren’t good for the human body" or "It’s not good for the wrist, and the spine is not in the proper position.” missing?
Was the part where it says: “Burpees aren’t good for the human body" or "It’s not good for the wrist, and the spine is not in the proper position.” missing?
Per my above comment, should I accept what anyone has to say about random things without asking themselves to explain themselves, including allegations about why it's not good for the wrist, and how it puts the spine in an improper position?
>should I accept what anyone has to say about random things without asking themselves to explain themselves, including allegations about why it's not good for the wrist, and how it puts the spine in an improper position?
No, but a trainer's advice is better to accept than random internet suggestions.
If you want to question those, by all means, go to the medical literature and papers and see if those give more exact reasons or even disagree with said advice. Do you ask for those from your trainer or doctor too though, or usually just follow their advice?
No, but a trainer's advice is better to accept than random internet suggestions.
If you want to question those, by all means, go to the medical literature and papers and see if those give more exact reasons or even disagree with said advice. Do you ask for those from your trainer or doctor too though, or usually just follow their advice?
I'm not sure why you keep ignoring what I wrote, and I'm not sure why I keep replying at this point. A lot of trainers recommend burpees. They're not random Internet suggestions. They also recommend burpees because there are scientific explanations for how it stresses the body well. Perhaps it's not for people whose bodies aren't ready for it, but that goes for any exercise.
https://www.menshealth.com/fitness/burpees-best-exercise-for...
Burpees make everything burn: Your muscles, your lungs, and most importantly, a ton of calories. The exercise—which entails going from pushup position to a jump and back to a pushup position again—is so tough that performing about 10 fast-paced reps is just as effective at revving your metabolism as a 30-second all-out sprint, according to a recent study published by the American College of Sports Medicine.
In the study, researchers enlisted ROTC cadets for something called the Wingate Anaerobic Power Test: a 30-second sprint with 4 minutes of rest in between for 4 rounds. Some cadets performed 30 seconds of sprinting on a stationary bike while the others did 30 seconds of burpees as quickly as possible. The result: Both high-intensity exercises resulted in serious metabolic and cardiovascular spikes.
But here’s the difference: "Pedaling on a stationary bike is a relatively simple motor pattern, whereas the burpee involves some degree of agility, balance, coordination, and total body strength” thanks to the exercise’s multiple steps, says lead researcher Nicholas H. Gist, Ph.D., deputy director of the Department of Physical Education at the U.S. Military Academy.
http://metro.co.uk/2018/01/31/burpees-really-one-exercise-ne...
Laurence Hannah runs Metabolic London – a functional group training gym – that certainly loves handing out burpees, just when you think the pain is over.
‘I think if it’s done incorrectly – like anything – it can be bad for you…but isn’t that what coaching is all about?’ he tells Metro.co.uk.
‘If we as coaches show you the correct method, and then forget to stretch you off before you go and sit at the desk, then what’s the problem. If you squat heavy and sit at a desk, if you spin and sit at a desk, if you box and sit at a desk without stretching afterwards then you’d have tightness.
‘As long as you perform the move correctly, have the right flexibility and strength AND look after yourself when the training is done, THEN I think it’s a powerful move.’
One could say that the above has so many caveats. Well, no, the above caveats exist for all exercises, whether lifting weights, running, playing basketball, everything. That doesn't mean that all exercises should be ignored, and it certainly doesn't mean that burpees should be ignored. Patrick Murphy is making the claim that burpees are bad in the face of explanations of how burpees are good. The burden of proof is on him to explain why they're bad, as well as anyone on who cites him.
https://www.menshealth.com/fitness/burpees-best-exercise-for...
Burpees make everything burn: Your muscles, your lungs, and most importantly, a ton of calories. The exercise—which entails going from pushup position to a jump and back to a pushup position again—is so tough that performing about 10 fast-paced reps is just as effective at revving your metabolism as a 30-second all-out sprint, according to a recent study published by the American College of Sports Medicine.
In the study, researchers enlisted ROTC cadets for something called the Wingate Anaerobic Power Test: a 30-second sprint with 4 minutes of rest in between for 4 rounds. Some cadets performed 30 seconds of sprinting on a stationary bike while the others did 30 seconds of burpees as quickly as possible. The result: Both high-intensity exercises resulted in serious metabolic and cardiovascular spikes.
But here’s the difference: "Pedaling on a stationary bike is a relatively simple motor pattern, whereas the burpee involves some degree of agility, balance, coordination, and total body strength” thanks to the exercise’s multiple steps, says lead researcher Nicholas H. Gist, Ph.D., deputy director of the Department of Physical Education at the U.S. Military Academy.
http://metro.co.uk/2018/01/31/burpees-really-one-exercise-ne...
Laurence Hannah runs Metabolic London – a functional group training gym – that certainly loves handing out burpees, just when you think the pain is over.
‘I think if it’s done incorrectly – like anything – it can be bad for you…but isn’t that what coaching is all about?’ he tells Metro.co.uk.
‘If we as coaches show you the correct method, and then forget to stretch you off before you go and sit at the desk, then what’s the problem. If you squat heavy and sit at a desk, if you spin and sit at a desk, if you box and sit at a desk without stretching afterwards then you’d have tightness.
‘As long as you perform the move correctly, have the right flexibility and strength AND look after yourself when the training is done, THEN I think it’s a powerful move.’
One could say that the above has so many caveats. Well, no, the above caveats exist for all exercises, whether lifting weights, running, playing basketball, everything. That doesn't mean that all exercises should be ignored, and it certainly doesn't mean that burpees should be ignored. Patrick Murphy is making the claim that burpees are bad in the face of explanations of how burpees are good. The burden of proof is on him to explain why they're bad, as well as anyone on who cites him.
As a proud owner of a herniated spinal disk, the advice makes alot of sense without any study. Putting pressure on an untrained bent lower back a bad ideea. The spine is held in place by strong muscles that will indeed atrophy for office workers, allowing the disk to damage and bulge towards the spinal cord.
Thanks. That's good information. That being said, if someone is injured or so out of shape that burpees would put too much pressure on their back, I imagine that normal exercise theory should not apply to them. I suppose they need to go through physiotherapy or rehab before they can partake in normal exercise. If we want to include them in the discussion, then I fear that's moving the goalposts, no?
For your herniated disk, hope it gets better, whether through back surgery, a chiropractor, or a physiotherapist. Best of luck.
For your herniated disk, hope it gets better, whether through back surgery, a chiropractor, or a physiotherapist. Best of luck.
It's not really moving the goalposts since in overweight and obese people the disk can damage by improperly lifting their own body weight - and that matches well with the demographics for low intensity physical exercise like 10000 steps.
So I'm not against burpees and if it works for you that's good, I would avoid recommending any spinal stressing exercise to a broad demografic where it can do more damage than good for some. Seen in this light, his answer makes sense: the exercise that you should NEVER do is probably safe for most people, but could be detrimental for enough otherwise healthy people for him not to endorse it. A classic case of a few of us ruining it for the rest of you.
Thank you for the kind words.
So I'm not against burpees and if it works for you that's good, I would avoid recommending any spinal stressing exercise to a broad demografic where it can do more damage than good for some. Seen in this light, his answer makes sense: the exercise that you should NEVER do is probably safe for most people, but could be detrimental for enough otherwise healthy people for him not to endorse it. A classic case of a few of us ruining it for the rest of you.
Thank you for the kind words.
I'm not sure whether burpees are good or bad, but are you really citing the notoriously unreliable Independent's reporting of quotes from a "celebrity personal trainer" as a source?
Are there any peer-reviewed scientific studies of the advantages and disadvantages?
Are there any peer-reviewed scientific studies of the advantages and disadvantages?
>Are there any peer-reviewed scientific studies of the advantages and disadvantages
Are there any in the parent comment? At least this is a reference you can check and decide.
Also, what is the "notoriously unreliable" part? The person is a professional personal trainer, has worked for celebrities, and I see no reason to believe Independent has reported their quote correctly.
You could argue that a random professional personal trainer is not the ultimate source for such advice (though, obviously better than a random comment), but not that there's something "notoriously unreliable" in Independent reporting on what they advice -- except if you extend it to Independent's political affiliations or whatever.
Are there any in the parent comment? At least this is a reference you can check and decide.
Also, what is the "notoriously unreliable" part? The person is a professional personal trainer, has worked for celebrities, and I see no reason to believe Independent has reported their quote correctly.
You could argue that a random professional personal trainer is not the ultimate source for such advice (though, obviously better than a random comment), but not that there's something "notoriously unreliable" in Independent reporting on what they advice -- except if you extend it to Independent's political affiliations or whatever.
I did them for a while but then my shoulder started giving me problems so I had to stop. Definitely a quick exercise but can cause injuries.
How many of these do you do every day? How long?
I started with 10 per day. As my strength grew, I added more per day, plus exercises to work other muscles and stretch.
Now I do 3 sets of 9 burpees after waking and before sleeping, for 54 per day.
Other exercises include planks, crunches, single-arm rows, bridges, and curls.
The routine is about 10 minutes each in the morning and evening.
Now I do 3 sets of 9 burpees after waking and before sleeping, for 54 per day.
Other exercises include planks, crunches, single-arm rows, bridges, and curls.
The routine is about 10 minutes each in the morning and evening.
That’s sounds really great. Do you mind sharing your work out plan in more detail? I have tried some of the 7min apps, but I’m not satisfied with the exercises.
The link in my top post goes into detail if you click the links in the table of contents on the right, especially "Video: I recorded my burpee sidcha".
However, more than what exercises I do, I recommend the process of finding what's right for you. I started with what was challenging but I knew I would do (ten burpees per day), then added more when my abilities allowed. Some addition I kept, others I dropped, based on how they worked for me. In 7.5 years, that's a lot of experimentation to find something right for me. It's evolved since those videos, by the way.
For me, at least, the important thing is to start with something I knew I would do, then to iterate, experiment, listen to others, iterate, and iterate some more.
However, more than what exercises I do, I recommend the process of finding what's right for you. I started with what was challenging but I knew I would do (ten burpees per day), then added more when my abilities allowed. Some addition I kept, others I dropped, based on how they worked for me. In 7.5 years, that's a lot of experimentation to find something right for me. It's evolved since those videos, by the way.
For me, at least, the important thing is to start with something I knew I would do, then to iterate, experiment, listen to others, iterate, and iterate some more.
Thank you
Burpees _are_ great.
How many per day?
The 10k steps approach takes an activity that people already do out of necessity and turns it into a goal. There may be better ways to get fit, but this one doesn't require a big behavior change. That approach will be more successful for more people than a specific exercise routine since it's just "do a little bit more of what you're already doing".
And I always thought the point wasn't necessarily 10k steps (you can set your goal to any number), but rather the tracking. Being aware that you aren't as active as you used to be might be all it takes to reverse the trend.
So if the journalist wants to ask if there's something better, I'd have to ask what the constraints are. You might be able to be active for even less time if you are willing to buy a ROM machine. Is that better?
IMHO, it's hard to beat counting steps because it's a pretty decent proxy for activity level for lots of people. The counters are cheap and walking is easy and fun, especially if you have a dog.
So if the journalist wants to ask if there's something better, I'd have to ask what the constraints are. You might be able to be active for even less time if you are willing to buy a ROM machine. Is that better?
IMHO, it's hard to beat counting steps because it's a pretty decent proxy for activity level for lots of people. The counters are cheap and walking is easy and fun, especially if you have a dog.
There is a Michael Mosley BBC documentary "BBC Horizon: The Truth About Exercise" in which they find you can get most of the health benefits of aerobic exercise in about 3-10 minutes of HIIT exercise, high intensity here being going completely flat out (absolutely maximum effort!) for three 20 second burst with rest to catch your breath in between. The summary is here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iEc7QFc5vIQ I cant locate the full Doc online right now.
Has anyone been "successful" at step counting? I've been in athletic shape since high school (7+ years) and have maintained a healthy lifestyle since-- but keeping track of anything like steps or calories seems like it would be a burden, could become compulsive, and/or possibly lead to long-term failure.
I'm also pretty young and have time to run&lift 5-7 times a week, so maybe I'm biased.
I'm also pretty young and have time to run&lift 5-7 times a week, so maybe I'm biased.
Late 30s, in adult life never been fat, never been lean. Have always 'exercised', but in the last couple of years have taken it a bit more seriously. Basically an actual plan, proper stretches, decent exercise routines, conscious food choices etc.
As they say, "you can't exercise out a good diet". I've been counting macros (MyFitnessPal) over the last few months, as dull as it is, and I'm in the best shape I've been in, probably ever. I'm also nowhere near my goal, but the progression is encouraging.
Also wear a fitbit, it's nice to hit my 10k, but it's not something I go out of my way to achieve (other than, perhaps, walking up stairs rather than grabbing a lift or whatever). I do, however, pay close attention to my sleep (I'm noticeably worse at work with bad sleep) and my resting heart rate (spikes hard after drinking, affects sleep).
TL;DR: I wish I'd put more effort in (wrt exercise/health) as a younger guy and this would be much easier now. Plans/routines are super important. Sleep/alcohol/lack of exercise/shitty food affects me far more now than it ever did. Effort and tracking is dull, but the benefits are worth it.
As they say, "you can't exercise out a good diet". I've been counting macros (MyFitnessPal) over the last few months, as dull as it is, and I'm in the best shape I've been in, probably ever. I'm also nowhere near my goal, but the progression is encouraging.
Also wear a fitbit, it's nice to hit my 10k, but it's not something I go out of my way to achieve (other than, perhaps, walking up stairs rather than grabbing a lift or whatever). I do, however, pay close attention to my sleep (I'm noticeably worse at work with bad sleep) and my resting heart rate (spikes hard after drinking, affects sleep).
TL;DR: I wish I'd put more effort in (wrt exercise/health) as a younger guy and this would be much easier now. Plans/routines are super important. Sleep/alcohol/lack of exercise/shitty food affects me far more now than it ever did. Effort and tracking is dull, but the benefits are worth it.
You're not biased, but your life is surely less complex than it will be when you are in your 40s.
40 is also when many people who've always had high metabolism suddenly change and begin to gain weight.
While the article sort of points at 20-somethings as the Fitbit worshippers, it's not for them. It's for older adults who let life get out of control and are looking for some way to get back in shape. That's what I see on the streets, at least.
40 is also when many people who've always had high metabolism suddenly change and begin to gain weight.
While the article sort of points at 20-somethings as the Fitbit worshippers, it's not for them. It's for older adults who let life get out of control and are looking for some way to get back in shape. That's what I see on the streets, at least.
I've lost about 36Kg so far by keeping track of things, after several years of slowly getting heavier and vaguely intending to do something about it.
Anecdotally it's a bit of an interesting statistic for me where after a particularly active day (or a day as a tourist) it's interesting to see how many steps were registered. I'm not doing it for fitness. It's no burden since it comes for free with just wearing my watch. I probably wouldn't do it if I didn't have a smart watch for other reasons.
On the other hand, my mother is a bit compulsive about her fitbit, though I see some real benefit. On days where she sees she's below her target, she opts to walk when she otherwise wouldn't or goes outside for a walk to make sure she meets the target. It's definitely causing her to be healthier than she otherwise would be.
On the other hand, my mother is a bit compulsive about her fitbit, though I see some real benefit. On days where she sees she's below her target, she opts to walk when she otherwise wouldn't or goes outside for a walk to make sure she meets the target. It's definitely causing her to be healthier than she otherwise would be.
It's kind of amazing how much more active you can be on vacation, and not even notice it. I've racked up over 25000 steps wandering leisurely around Paris in one day. By comparison, if I don't go out of my way to get some extra walking in on a regular work day, I struggle to crack 2500. Which is just kind of sad, but I sit at a desk all day, walking a few dozen feet to the water cooler or the conference room at a time.
If you have an iPhone it tracks your steps automatically. I had a nice surprise when I found a years worth of tracking when I thought to check the health app.
>Has anyone been "successful" at step counting?
Err, machines can do that for you.
Err, machines can do that for you.
Think some of the comments don't have some context. This is a piece of news from the BBC about a BBC TV programme that is part of a wider education campaign to deal with an inactive population. This link [1] has more details about the reason that the UK population is being 'nudged' into being more active.
- 6 million adults aged 40-60 do not achieve 10 minutes of brisk activity in a month;
- population is 20% less active than in the 1960's
- the campaign is aimed at the low active (not the fit)
For more about the campaign by Public Health England [1] https://www.gov.uk/government/news/6-million-adults-do-not-d...
For more about the campaign by Public Health England [1] https://www.gov.uk/government/news/6-million-adults-do-not-d...
The amount of exertion that a brisk walk gives you will vary hugely from person to person. This is a very important point in the article:
>The Active 10 group were also told that their aim was not to amble but to get their pace up so that they would be working their heart and lungs. Prof Copeland told them: "You are aiming to walk fast enough so that you can still talk but not sing."
I think for a lot of people walking won't be enough to get to this state. In my experience you get a much bigger effect (especially on mood) if you make sure that you are getting to a point that you are almost gasping for air at least once or twice a day. Burpees, sprints, biking uphill hard, and rowing machine are good for this.
>The Active 10 group were also told that their aim was not to amble but to get their pace up so that they would be working their heart and lungs. Prof Copeland told them: "You are aiming to walk fast enough so that you can still talk but not sing."
I think for a lot of people walking won't be enough to get to this state. In my experience you get a much bigger effect (especially on mood) if you make sure that you are getting to a point that you are almost gasping for air at least once or twice a day. Burpees, sprints, biking uphill hard, and rowing machine are good for this.
This is one of the areas where I wished there were some collusion and journalists and scientists always published stories that recommend more movement than is actually necessary.
I get the point of the article, but to me it seems that every time there is some new research on "how to achieve okay results with less movement and/or time" people will move less.
Not that I do that much of physical activity myself, but I am not complacent about it.
I get the point of the article, but to me it seems that every time there is some new research on "how to achieve okay results with less movement and/or time" people will move less.
Not that I do that much of physical activity myself, but I am not complacent about it.
Evidence is important. The goal is to have improved health, not 10k steps. If you want more adherence to interventions you want to constantly review better evidence.
Collusion would require that the answer be known already.
Collusion would require that the answer be known already.
Well we do know part of the answer. The 3x Active 10 is better than 10k. I do not have a problem with the results, but with the fact that search for "how little can one move and still remain somewhat healthy" is a thing.
> every time there is some new research on "how to achieve okay results with less movement and/or time" people will move less
Moving more doesn't necessarily mean you'll be healthier, the entire point of the article is that a shorter time spent doing vigorous exercise is better for you than a longer time spent doing relaxed exercise.
Moving more doesn't necessarily mean you'll be healthier, the entire point of the article is that a shorter time spent doing vigorous exercise is better for you than a longer time spent doing relaxed exercise.
So did they compare the total number of steps in the 2 groups? Although the 3x 10 minutes only counted for 3,000 steps, the participants in that group could easily have walked 7,000 steps outside of that 30 minute window.
Also, do people really think walking 10k (or indeed n-k) steps is a substitute for intense exercise?
Also, do people really think walking 10k (or indeed n-k) steps is a substitute for intense exercise?
>So did they compare the total number of steps in the 2 groups?
Considering that between mobile phones, smartwatches and dedicated devices, it is less than trivial to do that, I doubt that is something they overlooked.
Considering that between mobile phones, smartwatches and dedicated devices, it is less than trivial to do that, I doubt that is something they overlooked.
[deleted]
This! If you aim for 10k steps the only thing you'd achieve is becoming really good at walking. A good weightlifting session 3x a week is about 100x better for one's health/fitness/conditioning/fat loss/whatever.
10k steps worked really well for me but I would plateau a lot and not lose anymore. It was also hard to find the time to put in the 10k, it would typically mean walking somewhere for lunch and coffee and almost all the time I had to run 2-3 miles in the evening.
The thing thats worked better for me and actually led to noticeable changes in body composition has been olympic lifts and intermittent fasting. I try to at the very minimum do 3x5 of any of the big lifts at high intensity, and barbell complexes 3-4x10 for volume about 4-5 times per week. It helps having all the equipment in the garage.
The thing thats worked better for me and actually led to noticeable changes in body composition has been olympic lifts and intermittent fasting. I try to at the very minimum do 3x5 of any of the big lifts at high intensity, and barbell complexes 3-4x10 for volume about 4-5 times per week. It helps having all the equipment in the garage.
If you access to a stationary bike. Go as hard as you can for 30 seconds every other minute for 5 minutes.
You might not see results but your insides will love you for it.
Looks like they are proposing a mild form of High-intensity interval training (HIIT). It seems there's extensive research on this topic.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-intensity_interval_traini...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-intensity_interval_traini...
Yes: the article's author, Michael Mosley, has written a book on HIIT and is constantly advocating for HIIT (and similarly the 5:2 diet) via his employment at the BBC.
So how about doing 20 push-ups and 30 sit-ups daily. Wouldn't that take even less time (just 2 minutes) and have an even higher effect?
But sure, it would take a lot more discipline and will power as those aren't normal every day activities. So in the end its just a trade about time for will power.
You better have at least one of them.
But sure, it would take a lot more discipline and will power as those aren't normal every day activities. So in the end its just a trade about time for will power.
You better have at least one of them.
Sit-ups are not a good exercise, they put too much pressure on the spine and can result in injuries such as herniated discs, there are much better core exercises.
You can check my source here: https://uwaterloo.ca/applied-health-sciences/hes-got-our-bac...
You can check my source here: https://uwaterloo.ca/applied-health-sciences/hes-got-our-bac...
Of course it would. Running or cycling would also have a greater benefit in much less time. But walking doesn't really involve any effort, it's just a time commitment, which apparently people have plenty of.
TL;DR doing 3x 10min brisk walks every day is (a) easier and (b) healthier than aiming for 10k steps each day
Rob then split them into two groups. One was asked to hit the 10,000-step target - around five miles - in a day, while the other group was asked to do three sessions of "Active 10" - which adds up to around 1.5 miles - more like 3,000 steps. [..]
The Active 10 group actually did 30% more 'moderate to vigorous physical activity' than the 10,000-step group, even though they moved for less time
Rob then split them into two groups. One was asked to hit the 10,000-step target - around five miles - in a day, while the other group was asked to do three sessions of "Active 10" - which adds up to around 1.5 miles - more like 3,000 steps. [..]
The Active 10 group actually did 30% more 'moderate to vigorous physical activity' than the 10,000-step group, even though they moved for less time
The editorialised TL;DR
An experiment was set up for a TV show using a very small sample to achieve a particular outcome. Sure enough, said outcome was achieved.
I appreciate it's not intended to be science, it's a TV show. And I'm sure that there are likely to be actual studies that do actually show that the effect is real. I understand all that (though a link would have been nice, it is the internet after all).
But for some reason I find it bloody irritating. Don't know why. Maybe I'm not getting enough exercise.
An experiment was set up for a TV show using a very small sample to achieve a particular outcome. Sure enough, said outcome was achieved.
I appreciate it's not intended to be science, it's a TV show. And I'm sure that there are likely to be actual studies that do actually show that the effect is real. I understand all that (though a link would have been nice, it is the internet after all).
But for some reason I find it bloody irritating. Don't know why. Maybe I'm not getting enough exercise.
10 minutes brisk walk counts as a single "Active 10", and the goal is to do three Active 10s per day. This study compared people who did 10,000 steps with people who did three Active 10s.
TL;DR ad for "something called, Active 10"
I have never met a person who obsessed over 10k steps per day, who didn't also eat like total shit.
Hello.
Now you have :)
Color me skeptical, but I'm not inclined to believe an anonymous person on the internet, who brings no evidence to the table. What's your TDEE and macro ratio?
10k steps a day is a marketing gimmick designed to sell fancy pedometers, rebranded as "fitness trackers". Literally everyone I have ever met who talks about this as a real world metric is terribly out of shape.
10k steps a day is a marketing gimmick designed to sell fancy pedometers, rebranded as "fitness trackers". Literally everyone I have ever met who talks about this as a real world metric is terribly out of shape.
Here's another counterpoint for you.
Former US Ski Team member, XC running, Cycling, Mtn Bike, and auto racing compeititor, still do some competitions.
Used Fitbit extensively for several years until it died and I felt like I'd learned enough from it to not get another one (although I was more interested in its stairs/altitude gain tracking than the steps).
Very big on high intensity training as well as overall activity level (really non-stationary level), intermittent fasting, etc.
And no, I don't find TDEE and "macro ratio" very useful at all.
Yes, there's some examples of what you cite, and yes 10K/day was originally a mktg gimmick, but your generalizations are crap. Also, unnecessarily uncharitable against people who are at lower levels. Better that a couch potato starts to count steps and get out a bit more, and so discover they can do more than they thought, and grow into better fitness, than be ridiculed for not doing enough.
I could just as well criticize you for being some kind of idle geek for focusing on numbers I find only marginally relevant compared to HR-Max (186 these days), HR Recovery rate, Jump Height, etc., but I'll go with the hope that what you are doing works for you.
Former US Ski Team member, XC running, Cycling, Mtn Bike, and auto racing compeititor, still do some competitions.
Used Fitbit extensively for several years until it died and I felt like I'd learned enough from it to not get another one (although I was more interested in its stairs/altitude gain tracking than the steps).
Very big on high intensity training as well as overall activity level (really non-stationary level), intermittent fasting, etc.
And no, I don't find TDEE and "macro ratio" very useful at all.
Yes, there's some examples of what you cite, and yes 10K/day was originally a mktg gimmick, but your generalizations are crap. Also, unnecessarily uncharitable against people who are at lower levels. Better that a couch potato starts to count steps and get out a bit more, and so discover they can do more than they thought, and grow into better fitness, than be ridiculed for not doing enough.
I could just as well criticize you for being some kind of idle geek for focusing on numbers I find only marginally relevant compared to HR-Max (186 these days), HR Recovery rate, Jump Height, etc., but I'll go with the hope that what you are doing works for you.
You may not find TDEE and macro ratio very useful, but the scientists and nutritionists that work with high end human performance do, very much. Also, why track the metric of your steps, but not the fuel that powers them?
I bought and extensively used the top level Fitbit, with GPS, when it first launched. It can be used to effectively track activity, but only by people who already have an understanding of the metrics.
The point I was making is that "10k steps" is a Dr. Oz style fitness metric, mainly for people to feel good without actually solving their problem. The problem that 99.9% of people who "get their steps in" have is a complete lack of understanding of diet and fitness.
I also have a lot of empathy for people at the beginner level. My statements might seem harsh, but they are about the snake-oil salesmanship that exists in the fitness industry, which I spend an large amount of time in, being a gym rat. Marketing these false, "simple solutions" without educating people on their health is reckless.
And yes, every single person I have ever met who got a Fitbit and talked about "getting their steps in", didn't change a single long term thing about their diet. Half the time they jumped on some no-carb fad, and acted like the ground beef, egg and cheese casserole they ate 2k calories of was healthy.
I bought and extensively used the top level Fitbit, with GPS, when it first launched. It can be used to effectively track activity, but only by people who already have an understanding of the metrics.
The point I was making is that "10k steps" is a Dr. Oz style fitness metric, mainly for people to feel good without actually solving their problem. The problem that 99.9% of people who "get their steps in" have is a complete lack of understanding of diet and fitness.
I also have a lot of empathy for people at the beginner level. My statements might seem harsh, but they are about the snake-oil salesmanship that exists in the fitness industry, which I spend an large amount of time in, being a gym rat. Marketing these false, "simple solutions" without educating people on their health is reckless.
And yes, every single person I have ever met who got a Fitbit and talked about "getting their steps in", didn't change a single long term thing about their diet. Half the time they jumped on some no-carb fad, and acted like the ground beef, egg and cheese casserole they ate 2k calories of was healthy.
[deleted]
I walk to lunch and the round trip is about 20 minutes. I feel better after every one. Sometimes when I need a break at work, I'll just take a 5-10 minute walk and I come back ready to go.
It's quite amazing.