DIETARY SUPPLEMENTS
Découvrez 08 - Slim
Your ally for a slimmer figure and healthy weight
Journal
10,000 steps a day. The number is everywhere: on our smartwatches, on our phones, in fitness recommendations, and across social media. We’ve heard it so often that 10,000 daily steps have become something of a universal benchmark for good health.
9,800 steps? You missed the goal.
10,012? Mission accomplished.
But does the human body really operate according to such a precise step counter? No. And that may be the first piece of good news in this article.
Research over the past several years suggests that many of the health benefits associated with walking begin well before 10,000 steps a day. So should you aim for 4,000? 7,000? 10,000? Does walking speed matter? Do you need to walk for long stretches at a time? And, ultimately, how many steps a day do you actually need for health and longevity?
The origin story is one of the most interesting parts of the 10,000-step phenomenon. The number did not come from a major clinical trial that identified exactly how many daily steps humans need to live longer.
Its origins were far more commercial.
In Japan in the 1960s, a pedometer called the manpo-kei was marketed to consumers. The name roughly translates to “10,000-step meter.” It was a simple number, easy to remember and easy to market.
Over time, 10,000 steps a day became an international benchmark—long before researchers had access to today’s large studies using accelerometers and other wearable devices to objectively measure daily physical activity.
In other words: 10,000 steps is not a biological threshold.
That does not mean walking 10,000 steps is pointless. Far from it. It simply means your body does not suddenly start benefiting from walking when you reach step number 10,000.
This may be the most important message for anyone who looks at their smartwatch at 9 p.m. and feels guilty about seeing:
4,327 steps.
A landmark study published in JAMA Internal Medicine in 2019 followed nearly 17,000 women with an average age of 72 [1]. Their daily steps were objectively measured with accelerometers, and researchers then followed mortality over several years.
Women averaging approximately 4,400 steps a day already had significantly lower mortality than women averaging roughly 2,700 steps a day [1]. As step counts increased, mortality continued to decline until approximately 7,500 steps per day, at which point the association began to level off in this population.
The first takeaway is simple: going from 2,700 to 4,400 steps can already matter.
You do not need to reach 10,000 steps before walking is associated with health benefits.
No.
And this is where we need to be careful not to replace one magic number with another.
The previous study primarily involved older women. It does not tell us that every human being should stop walking at exactly 7,500 steps.
A major meta-analysis published in The Lancet Public Health in 2022 provided a much broader picture [2]. Researchers pooled 15 international cohorts involving 47,471 adults and more than 3,000 deaths.
They found a clear relationship between daily step count and mortality. But more importantly, the shape of that relationship differed by age.
Among adults:
AGE 60 AND OLDER
the association between more steps and lower mortality tended to level off at approximately 6,000 to 8,000 steps per day.
Among adults:
YOUNGER THAN 60
the association continued further, to approximately 8,000 to 10,000 steps per day [2].
That is one reason there probably is no such thing as:
ONE PERFECT DAILY STEP COUNT FOR EVERYONE.
This may be the most useful way to interpret the research.
Imagine two people. One averages:
2,000 steps a day.
The other averages:
8,000.
Adding another 2,000 steps probably does not mean exactly the same thing for both of them.
For the first person, going from 2,000 to 4,000 steps means doubling their daily step count. For the second, going from 8,000 to 10,000 represents a much smaller relative increase.
The dose-response curves seen across several studies suggest that some of the biggest differences are observed when very inactive people simply start moving more.
That matters enormously from a public-health perspective.
The message should not be:
“If you can’t reach 10,000 steps, there’s no point.”
It should be:
“If you’re not moving much, start by moving more.”
In 2025, a major systematic review and meta-analysis published in The Lancet Public Health considerably expanded what we know about daily steps and health [3].
Researchers analyzed 57 studies from 35 cohorts. And this time, they looked beyond mortality.
The outcomes included:
cardiovascular disease, cancer, type 2 diabetes, dementia, depressive symptoms, physical function, falls, and all-cause mortality.
For several of these health outcomes, the dose-response relationship was particularly notable around 5,000 to 7,000 steps per day [3].
Compared with 2,000 daily steps, approximately 7,000 steps per day was associated with a relative risk that was:
47% lower for all-cause mortality
25% lower for cardiovascular disease incidence
14% lower for type 2 diabetes
38% lower for dementia
22% lower for depressive symptoms
and:
28% lower for falls [3].
Those numbers are striking.
But they require one very important caveat.
Why?
Because these findings come primarily from observational research.
Researchers observe what happens to people who walk more or less. They cannot perfectly eliminate every other difference between those groups.
People who walk more may also exercise more, smoke less, have better health to begin with, eat differently, have different body compositions, or differ in socioeconomic and other health-related factors.
Statistical analyses attempt to adjust for many of these variables.
But they can never do so perfectly.
So it would be incorrect to translate these findings as:
“Walk 7,000 steps a day and you will reduce your risk of dying by 47%.”
What we can say is that, in the populations studied, approximately 7,000 daily steps were associated with a range of more favorable health outcomes compared with very low levels of daily movement.
That distinction matters.
One reason walking is so compelling is its accessibility.
For most people, it requires:
no gym membership, no specialized equipment, no complicated technique, and no elaborate training plan.
And it can be built directly into everyday life.
Walk to get coffee.
Get off public transportation one stop earlier.
Walk the dog.
Run errands on foot.
Take a phone call while walking.
Go for 20 minutes after lunch.
Take the stairs.
Walk to dinner.
It all adds up.
And that is precisely why daily step count can be such a useful measure: it captures a portion of the physical activity we accumulate without necessarily thinking of it as exercise.
No.
Getting 7,000 steps does not mean you need to go on one long daily walk.
Steps can accumulate throughout the day: a few hundred in the morning, walking during your commute, moving around at work, taking a short walk after lunch, running errands, and going out again in the evening.
From the perspective of total daily movement, those steps add up.
That makes a daily step goal much more achievable than treating walking as a separate workout that has to happen all at once.
It is tempting to assume that:
faster automatically means better.
The reality is more nuanced.
In the study of older women, total daily step count was more consistently associated with lower mortality than step intensity once total volume was taken into account [1].
The 2022 international meta-analysis reached a similarly cautious conclusion: after adjusting for total step volume, several measures of walking intensity were no longer clearly associated with lower mortality [2].
That absolutely does not mean walking speed is irrelevant.
Brisk walking raises your heart rate more, places greater demands on your cardiorespiratory system, and can help improve aerobic fitness.
But for someone who is currently very inactive, the first priority may be much simpler:
WALK MORE.
Before worrying about:
WALKING PERFECTLY.
The available evidence strongly suggests that meaningful differences appear well below the 10,000-step mark.
In the 2019 study, mortality differences were already apparent among groups averaging around 3,000 to 4,000 daily steps compared with the least active participants [1].
That completely changes how we can think about daily step goals.
For someone currently averaging:
2,000 steps a day
jumping immediately to:
10,000
may feel completely unrealistic.
But going to:
3,000
then:
4,000
and eventually:
5,000
is far more achievable.
And importantly:
THOSE INTERMEDIATE STEPS STILL COUNT.
The cardiovascular system is one of the most obvious potential beneficiaries of regular physical activity.
In the major 2025 meta-analysis, approximately 7,000 daily steps were associated with about a 25% lower relative risk of developing cardiovascular disease compared with 2,000 steps per day [3].
The association with cardiovascular mortality was even larger, although the certainty of the evidence was lower [3].
This fits within a much larger body of evidence showing that regular physical activity supports cardiovascular health.
But walking has one particularly important advantage:
it is accessible to millions of people who do not think of themselves as “athletic.”
You can meaningfully increase your daily activity without becoming a runner.
The same general principle applies to metabolic health.
Skeletal muscle is one of the body’s major sites for glucose disposal. When we walk, our muscles use energy, and regular physical activity can improve insulin sensitivity.
In the 2025 meta-analysis, approximately 7,000 daily steps were associated with a 14% lower relative risk of type 2 diabetes compared with around 2,000 steps [3].
Again:
association does not equal guarantee.
But the overall direction of the evidence is consistent: regular movement is part of a lifestyle that supports metabolic health.
This is probably one of the findings that gets the most attention.
The 2025 meta-analysis also found an association between daily step count and dementia risk. Around 7,000 daily steps, the observed relative risk was approximately 38% lower than at 2,000 steps [3].
But this finding requires particular caution.
The estimate was based on far fewer studies than the mortality analysis.
It would therefore be wrong to conclude:
“7,000 steps a day prevents Alzheimer’s disease.”
The evidence suggests something more modest: higher levels of daily movement are associated with a lower risk of dementia in the available cohorts.
There are several plausible pathways linking physical activity and brain health, including cardiovascular health, metabolism, inflammation, cerebral blood flow, and overall physical fitness.
But no daily step count is currently an insurance policy against neurodegenerative disease.
The data are also becoming interesting when it comes to mental health.
The 2025 meta-analysis found an association between higher daily step counts and fewer depressive symptoms [3].
A separate 2024 meta-analysis specifically examining this question, including 33 studies and more than 96,000 adults, similarly found that higher daily step counts were associated with fewer depressive symptoms [4].
That obviously does not mean walking replaces appropriate treatment for depression.
But it is another reminder that physical activity is not only about:
weight, heart health, or muscle.
It is associated with multiple dimensions of both physical and mental health.
If you enjoy walking and 10,000 steps fit naturally into your day:
absolutely.
The research does not suggest that 10,000 steps somehow become unnecessary or stop being beneficial.
Among adults younger than 60, mortality data suggest that the favorable association may continue up to approximately 8,000 to 10,000 daily steps [2]. And for some health outcomes, benefits may continue beyond 7,000 steps.
The problem was never:
10,000 STEPS.
The problem is believing:
9,999 = FAILURE
while:
10,000 = HEALTH.
Human biology simply does not work that way.
4,000. 5,000. 7,000. 8,000. 10,000.
All of these numbers can be meaningful depending on your age, baseline activity level, health status, and goals.
What the latest research really tells us is a story of progression.
If you barely walk, walking a little more matters.
If you already average 5,000 steps, 7,000 may be a useful target.
If you comfortably get 10,000, there is no reason to stop at 7,000 simply because a newer study highlighted that number.
The most useful scientific message is therefore probably not:
“GET 10,000 STEPS.”
Or even:
“GET 7,000 STEPS.”
It is:
MOVE MORE THAN YOU DO NOW IF YOU’RE INACTIVE—AND BUILD FROM THERE.
It may simply be:
barely moving at all.
When we look at dose-response curves, some of the most meaningful differences often appear in the transition from:
VERY INACTIVE
to:
A LITTLE MORE ACTIVE.
That is far less dramatic than a universal 10,000-step prescription.
But it may be much more useful.
Because it turns walking into something you can accumulate, adapt, and gradually increase—without perfection, without guilt, and without pacing around your living room at 11:45 p.m. because your smartwatch says you are 600 steps short.
That leaves us with the questions that matter most in real life:
How many steps should you actually aim for? How do you increase your daily steps if you currently get only 2,000 or 3,000? Do you need to walk for 30 minutes at a time? Is walking after meals especially beneficial? Does walking on a treadmill count? What about stairs? Can you get 10,000 steps and still be too sedentary? Does walking count as cardio? And do you still need strength training if you walk every day?
After debunking the 10,000-step myth, one question remains: how much should you actually walk every day?
The answer that best reflects the scientific evidence is less exciting than a number flashing on your smartwatch: it depends largely on where you’re starting from.
As we saw in Part 1, large studies show a dose-response relationship between daily step count and several health outcomes [1–3]. Benefits appear well before 10,000 steps, and some of the largest differences are seen when people move from very low levels of activity to somewhat higher ones.
In other words, if you currently average 2,000 steps a day, your first priority probably shouldn’t be hitting 10,000 tomorrow. It should simply be walking more than you do now.
Try 3,000.
Then 4,000.
Then perhaps 5,000.
It almost sounds too simple, but that is precisely what the dose-response curves suggest: the first few thousand additional steps may be particularly meaningful for people who are the least active [2,3].
You do not need to completely overhaul your lifestyle overnight. Adding a 10- or 15-minute walk, walking a short trip you would normally drive, heading outside after lunch, or simply creating more opportunities to move throughout the day can make a meaningful difference to your daily step count.
The best target is not necessarily the one that looks optimal on paper. It is the one you can actually sustain.
Based on the current evidence, it is a very reasonable target for many adults—as long as we don’t turn it into another rigid rule.
The major 2025 meta-analysis published in The Lancet Public Health described 7,000 steps per day as a practical target associated with meaningful benefits across several health outcomes [3].
That does not mean anything magical happens between step 6,999 and step 7,000.
For someone who is highly sedentary, 4,000 or 5,000 steps may already represent substantial progress. For a younger, active person, 8,000, 10,000, or more may fit naturally into everyday life. And among adults younger than 60, mortality data suggest that the favorable association may continue to approximately 8,000 to 10,000 daily steps [2].
The most accurate way to put it is this:
7,000 steps is a useful benchmark—not a universal prescription.
Regular movement is an excellent goal, but missing one day obviously does not erase the benefits of the others.
A 2023 study published in JAMA Network Open examined 3,101 U.S. adults according to the number of days each week on which they reached at least 8,000 steps [5]. Interestingly, reaching that level on just one or two days per week was already associated with lower all-cause and cardiovascular mortality compared with never reaching it. The favorable association increased rapidly over the first few active days and then appeared to level off around three days per week [5].
Again, this was an observational study. It does not prove that a long weekend walk can somehow cancel out an entire week of inactivity.
But it does offer a reassuring message:
an imperfect week is not a wasted week.
No.
A continuous 30-minute walk is excellent if you enjoy it, but current physical activity guidelines no longer require activity to occur in bouts of at least 10 minutes in order to “count.”
The World Health Organization emphasizes a much simpler principle:
all physical activity counts [6].
Ten minutes in the morning, five minutes walking somewhere nearby, 15 minutes after lunch, and another 10 minutes in the evening all contribute to your daily movement.
That makes walking far easier to incorporate into real life. You do not have to treat your daily walk as a formal workout for it to be worthwhile.
Yes, particularly when it comes to the post-meal glucose response.
After we eat, blood glucose rises. Skeletal muscle is one of the body’s major sites for glucose uptake, and making those muscles work after a meal can help increase glucose utilization.
Trials and reviews suggest that walking after eating can reduce post-meal glucose excursions compared with remaining seated, and benefits can be seen with relatively short periods of light walking [7].
That does not mean you need to start power walking immediately after every meal.
A gentle walk after eating can be enough to get your muscles moving.
It may be one of the easiest habits to build into everyday life: finish lunch, then walk for a few minutes instead of immediately sitting down for the next several hours.
Available evidence suggests that walking relatively close to a meal can be particularly useful when the specific goal is to reduce the post-meal glucose rise [7].
In real life, that can be as simple as going for a short walk after lunch or dinner.
But there is no need to turn this into another stopwatch-driven health rule. If you cannot walk immediately after eating, a walk later in the day is still physical activity.
The bigger principle remains:
move more throughout the day.
If your goal is to increase daily movement, both count.
Walking on a treadmill still requires your muscles and cardiovascular system to work. Your body does not stop recognizing walking simply because the scenery is not moving around you.
Outdoor walking does have additional characteristics: uneven terrain, changes in direction, environmental exposure, daylight, and the fact that it can double as transportation. A treadmill, on the other hand, allows you to control speed and incline precisely and makes walking possible regardless of the weather.
For the purpose we are discussing here—increasing daily physical activity—both can be useful.
They count as physical activity—and they can be substantially more demanding than walking on level ground.
Climbing stairs requires you to move your body weight vertically against gravity, increasing both muscular and cardiovascular demand.
But your step counter may not fully capture that difference. A thousand steps on flat ground and a thousand steps that include several flights of stairs do not represent exactly the same physiological workload.
That highlights one of the limitations of obsessing over step counts:
a step counter measures movement quantity, not the full complexity of physical activity.
Not physiologically.
A hundred slow steps around your home do not challenge the body in exactly the same way as a hundred brisk uphill steps. Yet both increase your daily step count.
That is why step count is extremely useful—but imperfect.
It does not directly measure your cardiorespiratory fitness, muscle strength, balance, or the exact intensity of your activity.
Daily steps should therefore be viewed as a simple measure of everyday movement, not as a complete assessment of physical fitness.
They can—but not necessarily.
It depends on how those steps are accumulated.
Some of your daily walking can absolutely qualify as moderate-intensity aerobic activity if you walk briskly enough to noticeably increase your breathing and heart rate.
But 10,000 steps accumulated very slowly throughout the day do not necessarily provide the same cardiorespiratory stimulus as brisk walking, cycling, swimming, or running.
That is why the WHO recommendations are not expressed in step counts alone. Adults are advised to get 150 to 300 minutes of moderate-intensity aerobic activity per week, or 75 to 150 minutes of vigorous-intensity activity, or an equivalent combination [6].
Daily steps are an excellent way to move more.
But step count and cardiovascular training are not completely interchangeable.
Potentially, yes.
Physical activity and sedentary behavior are related, but they are not exactly the same thing.
You could take a substantial walk in the morning and then spend most of the next ten hours sitting at a desk. Another person might never take a long dedicated walk but move frequently throughout the day.
Current recommendations therefore encourage people both to increase physical activity and reduce sedentary time [6].
That does not mean sitting at a desk somehow cancels your morning walk.
It simply reminds us that health cannot be reduced to hitting one number at one point during the day.
The broader goal is to put movement back into lives that increasingly contain very little of it.
There is no universally proven magic interval that applies to everyone.
But interrupting prolonged periods of sitting with short bouts of activity can improve certain metabolic markers, including post-meal glucose responses, compared with uninterrupted sitting [7].
And those breaks do not have to become mini-workouts.
Stand up. Walk for a few minutes. Get some water. Take the stairs. Walk down the hall.
The principle matters more than the stopwatch:
SIT LESS. MOVE MORE.
No.
And this is one of the most important points to remember after our previous article on muscle and longevity.
Walking uses your muscles, particularly those in the lower body. But in a healthy person, walking on level ground generally does not provide enough resistance to optimally train whole-body strength.
The WHO therefore recommends muscle-strengthening activities involving the major muscle groups on at least two days per week, in addition to aerobic activity [6].
Walking and strength training are not competitors.
They are complementary.
WALKING supports everyday movement and can contribute to aerobic fitness.
STRENGTH TRAINING specifically helps preserve muscle strength and function.
For healthy aging, both matter.
Walking becomes particularly valuable with age because it offers an accessible way to maintain everyday activity. But ideally, it should not be the only type of movement you do.
Recommendations for older adults also emphasize muscle strengthening, balance, and functional activities, particularly to help preserve physical capacity and reduce the risk of falls [6].
That fits directly with what we saw in our article on muscle and longevity: healthy aging is not simply about burning calories.
It is about maintaining the ability to walk, carry, push, pull, stand up, and stay balanced.
If you can comfortably walk faster, adding some brisk walking can be valuable because it creates a greater cardiorespiratory challenge.
One simple way to estimate moderate intensity is the talk test. You are breathing faster, but you can still hold a conversation. If you can sing easily, the intensity is probably relatively low; if speaking becomes very difficult, the intensity is likely higher.
But this should never discourage people who are currently inactive.
If you barely walk at all, walking more is already the priority.
Speed can come later.
No.
A smartwatch or smartphone can be useful because it gives you an objective sense of how much you actually move. A day that feels “busy” can sometimes turn out to involve only 2,500 steps.
A tracker can therefore help answer one useful question:
Am I moving more than I used to?
But the number should remain a tool, not a daily exam that you either pass or fail.
If you finish the day at 6,700 steps instead of 7,000, your body does not erase the first 6,700.
Not necessarily.
The goal is to find a level of activity that works with your life and that you can maintain over time.
Someone who suddenly jumps from 2,000 to 12,000 steps every day may develop pain, fatigue, or discomfort—particularly after a long period of inactivity.
Progress can be much simpler: establish your usual daily step count, then gradually add a few hundred or a few thousand steps depending on your capacity.
The best longevity strategy is probably not the one you can maintain:
for two weeks.
It is the one you can maintain:
for years.
Rather than prescribing one universal number, the research gives us several useful benchmarks.
If you are very inactive, start by increasing your current daily step count. Going from 2,000 to 3,000 or 4,000 steps is not an insignificant change.
Around 5,000 daily steps, you are already moving substantially more than someone at the very lowest activity levels.
Around 7,000 steps per day, recent evidence suggests a practical target associated with a broad range of favorable health outcomes [3].
Between approximately 8,000 and 10,000 steps, additional benefits may still be observed, particularly in some younger populations and for certain health outcomes [2,3].
And if you naturally walk more than 10,000 steps a day without pain or other limitations, there is no scientific reason to stop simply because a dose-response curve begins to flatten.
A PLATEAU IN ADDITIONAL BENEFIT DOES NOT MEAN MORE WALKING BECOMES HARMFUL.
If we had to distill years of research on walking, step counts, and longevity into one practical idea, it might be this:
IF YOU’RE INACTIVE, THE BEST STEP COUNT IS FIRST A LITTLE MORE THAN YOU’RE DOING NOW.
Then build from there.
3,000 can be better than 2,000.
5,000 can be better than 3,000.
7,000 appears to be a very reasonable target for many adults.
10,000 remains an excellent goal if it fits naturally into your lifestyle.
Science does not give us one magic number.
It gives us something much more useful:
a direction.
There is no universal threshold for what counts as “enough,” but 5,000 daily steps represent considerably more movement than 2,000. Research shows that favorable associations with health begin well below 10,000 steps per day [1–3].
The 2025 meta-analysis identified 7,000 daily steps as a pragmatic target associated with meaningful benefits across several health outcomes [3]. It is not, however, a universal biological threshold.
It depends on age and the health outcome being considered. For some outcomes, favorable associations continue beyond 7,000 steps, but the additional benefit tends to become smaller as step counts rise [2,3].
Regular movement is desirable, but a less active day does not erase everything else you do. Observational evidence suggests that reaching a higher daily step count even on only a few days each week is associated with lower mortality [5].
Brisk walking provides a greater cardiorespiratory stimulus. But for very inactive people, simply increasing total daily movement is already an important goal [1,2].
It can be particularly useful for post-meal blood glucose control. Short periods of walking after eating can reduce postprandial glucose excursions compared with remaining seated [7].
Yes. Walking on a treadmill is physical activity and can absolutely contribute to your total daily movement.
Not necessarily. Step count does not fully capture cardiovascular intensity or muscle strength. International physical activity guidelines include both aerobic exercise and muscle-strengthening activity [6].
Walking is an excellent foundation, but maintaining muscle strength and balance also becomes increasingly important with age. Strength training remains recommended for older adults [6].
For years, we may have been asking the wrong question:
“Did I get my 10,000 steps today?”
The more useful question may be much simpler:
“Did I move enough today?”
Because 10,000 steps is not the dividing line between a healthy day and an unhealthy one. And 7,000 should not become the new number we use to judge ourselves.
What the science tells us is far more encouraging: every increase from a very low activity level can matter, and you do not need to reach a perfect target before a more active life starts to count.
Walk to lunch. Take a short walk after dinner. Use the stairs. Get off a little earlier. Run an errand on foot when you can. Step outside for a few minutes between meetings.
And if your smartwatch says 6,842 steps at the end of the day?
You do not need to pace around your couch for another 158 steps just to satisfy an algorithm.
Your body cannot count to 10,000.
It only knows that you moved.
[1] Lee IM, Shiroma EJ, Kamada M, Bassett DR, Matthews CE, Buring JE. Association of Step Volume and Intensity With All-Cause Mortality in Older Women. JAMA Internal Medicine. 2019;179(8):1105–1112.
[2] Paluch AE, Bajpai S, Bassett DR, et al. Daily steps and all-cause mortality: a meta-analysis of 15 international cohorts. The Lancet Public Health. 2022;7(3)–e228.
[3] Ding D, et al. Daily steps and health outcomes in adults: a systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis. The Lancet Public Health. 2025.
[4] Bizzozero-Peroni B, et al. Daily Step Count and Depression in Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. JAMA Network Open. 2024.
[5] Inoue K, Tsugawa Y, Mayeda ER, Ritz B. Association of Daily Step Patterns With Mortality in US Adults. JAMA Network Open. 2023;6(3).
[6] World Health Organization. WHO Guidelines on Physical Activity and Sedentary Behaviour. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2020.
[7] Buffey AJ, et al. The Acute Effects of Interrupting Prolonged Sitting Time in Adults with Standing and Light-Intensity Walking on Biomarkers of Cardiometabolic Health: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Sports Medicine. 2022.
