10,000 steps a day are of no use if they are not done well

For years, the public health mantra has undoubtedly been focused on something very simple: walking. Anyone with high blood pressurediabetes or any other chronic illness received as a ‘treatment’ by taking a walk with the mantra of 10,000 steps in the background ringing. But the reality is that there are some voices that want to overthrow this concept in a radical way.

The criticisms. Felipe Isidro, professor of Physical Activity and Sports Sciences, has put his finger on the sore by pointing out that walking is not exercise, but rather it is wander. For this expert, prescribing “walking” to a patient is as useful as telling him to breathe because logically we are walking every day to get from one place to another (unless we are immobilized). And taking less than 120 steps per minute is inefficient.

And science is something that is supported in different studiesbecause human biology is extremely efficient: if an effort is not challenging, the body does not invest energy in adapting. This is what science calls “insufficient stimulus.”

For example, the LITE studio analyzed people who walked at low intensity and discovered something quite frustrating: in resistance and functional capacity tests, the results of those who walked slowly were practically identical to those in the control group that didn’t do anything. And it makes sense, since for the body that level of activity was background noise, not exercise. It’s literally like you’re wandering around.

The x3 rule. If we compare casual walking with moderate or vigorous exercise, the difference is not linear, but rather exponential. According to the data of the Framingham Heart Studyone of the longest-running and most respected analyzes in the world, moderate-high intensity exercise is three times more effective at improving physical fitness than walking at a slow pace.

And it makes sense. The metabolic response that our body has means that one minute of vigorous activity can provide the same cardiovascular benefits as six minutes of moderate walking. But in addition, meta-analyses on type 2 diabetes show that interval training (walking fast in sections) lowers blood sugar levels much more aggressively than always walking at the same pace.

And although walking more steps reduces overall mortality, the published reviews in The Lancet suggest that maintaining excessively slow paces can increase cardiovascular risks by up to 44% compared to those who push the pace.

A lie detector. Where is the scientific border between “walking” and “training”? The technical literature places the turning point in the cadence. For walking to have a real impact on health biomarkers (blood pressure, aerobic capacity, fat composition), studies suggest a range of between 120 and 140 steps per minute.

Below that figure, we are in what physiologists call “light physical activity.” This activity is useful for breaking a sedentary lifestyle (and has proven benefits on the mental health and mobility of older people, reducing motor difficulties by 14-16%), but it is insufficient to reverse metabolic problems or improve the cardiorespiratory system in healthy adults.

A clear verdict. Science does not say right now that walking is bad, but that what gives a neutral or even harmful effect is doing the basic minimum. This is why total steps are excellent for extending overall longevity and not dying early, but what really protects quality of life is intensity.

In short, if the smartwatch on duty indicates that you have taken 10,000 steps, but without your heart knowing, the truth is that you have only been wandering. What should be done is simply accelerate the pace so that our body can react (as long as each person’s limits allow it).

Images | Arek Adeoye

In Xataka | Walking changes the rules of Alzheimer’s: a few steps a day are enough to stop the spark that ignites the disease