10,000 steps a day: Might there be something better?
bbc.co.uk
bbc.co.uk
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.
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.
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...
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".
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.
"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)
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.
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.
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.
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.”
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.
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?
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?
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.
For your herniated disk, hope it gets better, whether through back surgery, a chiropractor, or a physiotherapist. Best of luck.
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 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.
I'm also pretty young and have time to run&lift 5-7 times a week, so maybe I'm biased.
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.
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.
Err, machines can do that for you.
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.
For more about the campaign by Public Health England [1] https://www.gov.uk/government/news/6-million-adults-do-not-d...
Really need a balanced lifestyle to have a good life. No single item will have significant effect.
>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.
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.
Collusion would require that the answer be known already.
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.
Also, do people really think walking 10k (or indeed n-k) steps is a substitute for intense exercise?
Considering that between mobile phones, smartwatches and dedicated devices, it is less than trivial to do that, I doubt that is something they overlooked.
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.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-intensity_interval_traini...
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.
You can check my source here: https://uwaterloo.ca/applied-health-sciences/hes-got-our-bac...
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
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.
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.
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.
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.