Is how fast you walk more important than how much you walk?

Activity goals that use the number of steps a day may be easier to follow than those that use activity duration or intensity. But previous studies have produced mixed results, with some suggesting benefits from as few as 4,400 steps, and others showing little additional benefit from taking more than 6,000 steps a day.

Findings are also conflicting on the benefits of walking briskly compared with walking slowly.

What does this research tell us?

In this study, the researchers wanted to understand how the number of steps walked and speed of walking could affect the risk of early death from any cause, cancer or cardiovascular disease (including coronary heart disease, stroke and heart failure), and disease diagnosis.

This study, published in the journal JAMA Internal Medicine, used UK Biobank data on adults aged 40—79, living in England, Scotland, and Wales. The participants were asked to wear an accelerometer which could detect the time they spent sitting, moving around, walking and running, 24 hours a day for 7 days.

The accelerometer could also measure how fast they walked – specifically, the average number of steps per minute for the 30 fastest minutes in the day, which didn’t have to be consecutive.

The study included 78,500 people who were followed for an average of 7 years. During the study period, 664 people died of cardiovascular diseases and 1,325 people died of cancer. There were 10,245 new diagnoses of cardiovascular diseases and 2,813 new diagnoses of cancer.

Up to about 10,000 steps a day, walking more was associated with a lower risk of developing cardiovascular disease or cancer, or of dying prematurely. (The study did not find any clear additional benefit to doing more than 10,000 steps a day.) Walking faster was also linked with a lower risk of cardiovascular disease, cancer, and early death, but to an even greater extent. Age, BMI, sleep and diet also affected these outcomes.

A previous study from some of the same authors, which used similar methods and the UK Biobank data, showed that modest amounts of moderate–to–vigorous activity in short bouts over a week can help reduce the risk of developing cardiovascular diseases.

The BHF verdict

Studies like this can only show a link between physical activity and health outcomes – they can’t prove cause and effect. Although being active has been linked to better health and lower disease risks, it doesn’t guarantee you will live a longer life.

Previous studies have shown that more steps may help reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease–related death. These studies have mostly been based on specific groups, like older adults, men only, women only, high–risk populations, or samples that recorded few deaths, making generalisations difficult.

This study is a useful reminder that being active every day is likely to have benefits for your heart health and overall health. And if you go for a walk, try to aim for a brisk walk if you can, which is what counts as moderate–intensity exercise. "Moderate" is any activity that increases your heart rate whether or not it leaves you out of breath.

The NHS guidelines recommend that adults aged 19–64 do 150 minutes of moderate or 75 minutes of vigorous activity every week, whether that’s brisk walking, dancing, swimming, water aerobics or moderate cycling. If you have a health condition, check with your GP before starting a new exercise regime.

You can achieve this target through several shorter sessions or a mix of activities. The NHS does not recommend any specific targets based on the daily number of steps.

How good was the research?

The sample size was large, which is helpful in allowing researchers to spot even small differences in the results. The study was designed to ensure that step count–related information was as complete as possible, separating walking from other daily activities.

The researchers used reliable health databases for information about which participants went onto develop a heart condition or cancer, or to die. They didn’t look at diagnoses or deaths in the first two years of the study, which would be more likely to be linked to something else that happened before the study began. The researchers adjusted the results to take account of other factors such as age and weight.

This study collected step count data at the start of the study rather than over time, so we don’t know for sure that the participants continued their habits – although for the participants who continued to use the accelerometer (a total of 3,400), the researchers found a strong correlation between the number of steps recorded at the start of the study and what they were doing about four years later. The study design makes it difficult to distinguish the effects of walking from those of unmeasured factors that affected the participants over the long term.

Finally, the study authors point out that the people that responded to their invitation were generally healthier, richer, and more likely to be women (55 per cent women), which means this sample wasn’t representative of the UK Biobank population, let alone the general population in the UK. So we can’t say whether these findings would apply to everyone.

How good was the media coverage?

The study was picked up by The Independent. Although the reporting was mostly accurate, highlighting the health benefits of walking, it could have done more to explain the limitations of the study. The article did helpfully explain that if you can’t manage 10,000 steps, even walking relatively small amounts each day can make a positive difference to your health.

What to read next...