Walking and daily steps

The goal of 10,000 steps a day is widely used as a default by wearable devices and smartphone software. A 2019 study of step counts in older women noted that the origin of the figure is unclear and that it likely derives from the trade name of a pedometer sold in 1965 by a Japanese company, Manpo-kei, which translates as "10,000 steps meter". The authors described the figure as having limited scientific basis [3].

A 2022 pooled analysis similarly noted that 10,000 steps a day is widely promoted despite little supporting evidence, and set out to determine the association between step count and mortality directly [1].

Results are reported as hazard ratios (the risk in one group relative to another; 0.80 means 20% lower). The largest pooled analysis combined participant-level data from 15 studies of adults who wore step-counting devices: 47,471 adults with 3,013 deaths over a median of 7.1 years. Median daily steps in the four quarters were 3,553, 5,801, 7,842 and 10,901. Compared with the lowest quarter, all-cause mortality was 40% lower in the second quarter (hazard ratio 0.60, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.71), 45% lower in the third (0.55, 0.49 to 0.62) and 53% lower in the highest (0.47, 0.39 to 0.57). Risk decreased progressively up to about 6,000 to 8,000 steps a day in adults aged 60 and over and 8,000 to 10,000 steps a day in adults under 60 [1].

A 2025 systematic review included 57 studies from 35 populations and pooled 31 studies from 24 of them. Compared with 2,000 steps a day, 7,000 steps a day was associated with 47% lower all-cause mortality (hazard ratio 0.53, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.60; 14 studies). The associations with all-cause mortality, cardiovascular disease, dementia and falls levelled off at around 5,000 to 7,000 steps a day [2].

Older women show the same pattern at lower step counts. In the Women’s Health Study, 16,741 women with a mean age of 72 wore accelerometers for a week, and 504 died over a mean of 4.3 years. Median daily steps by quarter were 2,718, 4,363, 5,905 and 8,442. Compared with the lowest quarter, mortality was 41% lower in the second (hazard ratio 0.59, 95% CI 0.47 to 0.75), 46% lower in the third (0.54, 0.41 to 0.72) and 58% lower in the highest (0.42, 0.30 to 0.60), and it levelled off at about 7,500 steps a day [3]. In each of these studies the largest differences in risk occurred in the first few thousand steps above a very low baseline.

The 2025 meta-analysis also examined outcomes other than death. Compared with 2,000 steps a day, 7,000 steps was associated with lower risk of cardiovascular disease, cancer death, type 2 diabetes, dementia, depressive symptoms and falls, while the association with cancer incidence was small and not statistically significant. The authors rated the certainty of the evidence as moderate for most outcomes, low for cardiovascular death and cancer incidence, and very low for falls [2].

The review noted that few studies were available for most outcomes and that residual confounding at the level of individual studies was a limitation. It concluded that 10,000 steps a day remains a reasonable target for more active people, while 7,000 steps a day is associated with clinically meaningful benefits [2]. Related outcomes are covered under fall prevention and sedentary time.

Faster walking converts more steps into moderate-intensity activity. In a laboratory study of 76 adults aged 21 to 40, a cadence of about 100 steps a minute corresponded to moderate intensity (3 METs, three times resting oxygen use) and about 130 steps a minute to vigorous intensity (6 METs) [6]. These thresholds were derived in young adults on a treadmill.

A pooled analysis of 11 population surveys in England and Scotland included 50,225 walkers. After excluding deaths in the first two years, walking at a self-rated average pace was associated with 20% lower all-cause mortality (95% CI 12% to 28%) than a slow pace, and a brisk or fast pace with 24% lower (13% to 33%); the corresponding figures for cardiovascular mortality were 24% and 21%. The associations were evident in people over 50 and in those who did not meet activity recommendations or did no vigorous activity, and there was no association with cancer mortality [4]. Self-rated pace partly reflects underlying fitness and health.

Device-based studies give a more cautious picture. In the 15-study pooled analysis, after accounting for total steps, time spent walking at 100 steps a minute or faster was not associated with mortality (hazard ratio 0.86, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.28), while the fastest 30 minutes of cadence in the day still was (0.67, 0.56 to 0.83) [1]. In the Women’s Health Study, most measures of stepping intensity were no longer significantly associated with mortality once total steps were taken into account [3]. In device-based data, total step volume carries most of the association and pace adds a smaller, less certain amount.

Stair climbing is a brief, relatively intense activity that forms part of many daily routines. In the UK Biobank, 280,423 adults reported the number of flights of stairs they climbed at home each day and were followed for a median of 11.1 years, with 9,445 deaths. The lowest risk was for 6 to 10 flights a day, which was associated with 9% lower all-cause mortality than no stairs (hazard ratio 0.91, 95% CI 0.85 to 0.98), equivalent to about 44 to 55 additional days of survival. Stair climbing was associated with lower cancer mortality (0.88, 0.80 to 0.97) but not with cardiovascular mortality (1.08, 0.91 to 1.29) [5].

The study tested for residual confounding using lung cancer as a negative control outcome, one that stair climbing would not be expected to affect. The association with lung cancer was similar to the association with all-cause mortality, which indicates that people who climb stairs differ from those who do not in other ways. The authors concluded that the association was small, susceptible to residual confounding, and that stair climbing at home is unlikely on its own to be sufficient physical activity to lower the risk of premature death [5].

All the studies described here are observational. Step counts are particularly affected by reverse causation, because people who are becoming ill, frail or depressed walk less, and some of them die during follow-up. Studies attempt to reduce this by excluding early deaths or people with known disease, but follow-up periods of about four to seven years are short [1, 3]. The 2025 review identified residual confounding and the small number of studies for most outcomes as limitations [2]. The causal effect of adding steps is likely smaller than the difference in risk between low and high step counts.

The findings are nonetheless consistent across device-based studies, questionnaire-based studies and populations in different countries. Walking is also a common route to the moderate activity described under Zone 2 training, and the separate risks of prolonged sitting are covered under sedentary time.