We tend to judge the benefits of exercise by how much we do.

Probably because we’ve been conditioned to focus on thresholds like 150 minutes of weekly physical activity or the classic (yet somewhat arbritrary) 10,000 steps per day.

These thresholds gives us the sense that:

• More exercise is always better; and
• Falling short of them doesn’t really cut it

So, we try to do achieve these targets, or do more - often in vain. We might go for another walk, park further away or take the stairs - anything to give our step count or activity minutes an extra boost for the day.

But the reality is, it’s not always possible to hit these targets or just do “more”.

This comes back to the perils of goals too. Last week I covered why treating these as binary yes/no outcomes can leave us feeling like we’ve failed if we fall short… robbing us of motivation and replacing it with frustration in the process.

That's why I was excited by new research showing that doing “more” (steps in this case) isn’t the whole story - because what you do with those steps matters too.

And this gives us another lever to pull when “more” just isn’t possible.

What step counts don’t tell you

The great thing about step counts is its simplicity.

It’s pretty easy to see how the number on your smartwatch can be a barometer for how active you've been - and potentially for the health benefits you may get if the number stays high.

And there is evidence that higher step counts are generally linked to lower mortality risk - although much of the benefit occurs well below the magical 10,000 number. In fact one study found mortality risk progressively decreased with higher step counts, but only up to about 8,800 per day.

But this is where the limitations of step counts start to become clear.

They are a proxy for how much movement (ambulation specifically) you do, not necessarily how you do it.

I’ve covered some of this nuance before. Previous research suggests how fast you walk and how you accumulate your steps across the day may matter for health benefits too - for example, accumulating some steps at a faster pace or in longer walking bouts, rather than just focusing on your daily total.

Taking 5,000 steps pottering around the house or 5,000 steps with brisk or purposeful walking are clearly not the same thing. That’s because aside from volume (or amount), intensity matters too.

Which is why it’s timely that a new study investigated what happens when we consider both the amount and the intensity of daily steps taken.

In essence, their study asked whether it’s all about how many steps you do, or how you take those steps as well.

What the researchers did

The study in question analysed data from 64,743 adults (mean age = 61.5 years) in the UK Biobank study.

Participants in the study wore a wrist accelerometer for seven days to capture their physical activity levels (and steps taken). Afterwards they were followed up for a median period of 8 years to track health outcomes (including mortality), in which time 1,697 participants died.

The individuals in the study were grouped according to their daily step counts: <5,000, 5,000 to 7,500, 7,500 to 10,000, or >10,000 steps per day.

But importantly, they also captured stepping intensity using what they called “peak 30-minute cadence”. Essentially, this was the average number of steps taken per minute during the 30 highest-cadence minutes across the day.

These 30 minutes did not have to be consecutive either. That’s important, since it could capture steps taken during both formal exercise and shorter bursts of incidental walking.

So here’s what they found.

Finding #1: more steps still mattered

Of the step groups assessed, those taking 7,500 to 10,000 steps/day had the lowest risk of all-cause mortality.

This one was in broad agreement with other studies, suggesting that up to a point, “more” steps may provide extra benefit.

So, step count still matters - it’s just not the only thing that did.

Finding #2: but intensity mattered too

Higher stepping intensity seemed to matter too - particularly in those doing less daily steps.

Among people taking fewer than 5,000 steps/day, mortality risk generally decreased as peak cadence increased.

For example, taking <5,000 steps at a peak cadence of 80 steps/minute was linked to a hazard ratio of 0.72 (~28% lower mortality risk) relative to the reference group, which was people taking <5,000 steps/day with a peak cadence of around 45 steps/minute.

A note for reference: 100 steps/minute is commonly used to define moderate-intensity walking.

By comparison, for those in the same <5,000 steps group with a lower peak cadence (70 steps/minute), the hazard ratio for all-cause mortality was 0.80 (~20% lower risk).

So basically, doing similar daily steps with a higher peak cadence = possible greater benefit (lower mortality risk in this case).

Finding #3: there may be more than one way to make your steps count

The natural next question of finding #2 is:

Does a higher step cadence at a lower step count provide similar benefit to a larger step count with a lower step cadence?

Interestingly, the study did find some evidence for this.

Those who did <5,000 steps/day at a higher pace had a mortality risk comparable to those who accumulated 5,000 to 7,500 steps per day at a lower pace.

Their interpretation of this was that higher intensity at lower volume may provide similar benefit to “more” steps at a lower intensity.

In other words, there may be more than one way to make your daily steps "count".

This gives you two levers to pull

The first lever is to move more.

This is usually what most people focus on. Get in another walk, take the stairs, move aimlessly around the house - anything to get closer to that step goal, right?

And if you have the time and capacity for that, great.

But the second lever is to increase the intensity of some of the movement you already do.

This doesn’t mean every walk needs to be a strenuous workout.

But if you can probably find ways to pick up the pace of the steps you are already doing - whether that’s when you’re commuting, doing your usual walk, going to the shops, etc.

Remember - the 30 highest-cadence minutes that seemed to matter in this study were not consecutive. That means they can be scattered throughout the day, rather then in one continuous 30-minute walk.

If you can pull both levers (more movement AND more intensity), then great.

But when “more” just isn’t possible, making some of the movement you’re already doing a little more intense is another lever you can pull.

A cautionary note: this wasn't actually a trial

Instead, it was what’s called a prospective observational study.

In other words: a study that observes what a large group of people are naturally doing, and follows them over time.

This means that apart from step counts and step intensity, many factors could influence any of the outcomes measured across the ~8 years these people were tracked. That includes the possibility of reverse causation - the idea that healthier people (who were less likely to die) simply walked more or with more intensity.

Despite excluding certain participants from the study, or tweaking the statistical analyses to try to “control” for these factors, it can only show associations - not that deliberately increasing walking speed can reduce mortality by a specific amount.

So until more direct evidence becomes available, a reasonable interpretation is this study adds to evidence that both the amount and intensity of our movement matter.

But equally, it gives us a potentially useful way to think about movement when you can’t do “more”.

“More” isn’t your only option

Last week, my main message was to avoid seeing exercise goals as pass/fail.

Because exercise doesn’t work like that. Even small amounts can be beneficial, particularly when it's more than you’re currently doing.

This new research also shows how focusing on a specific step count is misguided too.

There will be some days that more is possible, but others when it isn’t. Perhaps some of these days you could make the steps you already do a little more purposeful. But sometimes that won’t be possible either, and that’s ok.

The main takeaway is that when “more” movement isn’t an option, there are other options too.

I hope you found this helpful.

Until next week,

Jackson

​​​

If you've got a moment, I'd love to hear your thoughts on this edition of The Weekly Exerciser.

Send me a quick message or email - I'll reply to every one!

PS: Did someone forward you this email? You can sign up to The Weekly Exerciser here.

IMPORTANT:

The information contained herein is of general nature only and does not constitute personal advice. You should not act on any information without considering your personal needs, circumstances, and objectives. Any exercise program may result in injury. We recommend you obtain advice specific to your circumstances from an appropriate health professional before starting any exercise program.