CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 1,087Physical Activity and HealthCardiovascular and exercise physiologyContext-Aware Activity Recognition Systems

How many steps/day are enough? for adults

Open access
Tudor-Locke, Catrine, Craig, Cora L, Brown, Wendy J, Clemes, Stacy A, De Cocker, Katrien, Giles-Corti, Billie, Hatano, Yoshiro, Inoue, Shigeru +10 more·2011·International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity
DOI 10.1186/1479-5868-8-79PMC PMC3197470
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Physical activity guidelines from around the world are typically expressed in terms of frequency, duration, and intensity parameters. Objective monitoring using pedometers and accelerometers offers a new opportunity to measure and communicate physical activity in terms of steps/day. Various step-based versions or translations of physical activity guidelines are emerging, reflecting public interest in such guidance. However, there appears to be a wide discrepancy in the exact values that are being communicated. It makes sense that step-based recommendations should be harmonious with existing evidence-based public health guidelines that recognize that "some physical activity is better than none" while maintaining a focus on time spent in moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA). Thus, the purpose of this review was to update our existing knowledge of "How many steps/day are enough?", and to inform step-based recommendations consistent with current physical activity guidelines. Normative data indicate that healthy adults typically take between 4,000 and 18,000 steps/day, and that 10,000 steps/day is reasonable for this population, although there are notable "low active populations." Interventions demonstrate incremental increases on the order of 2,000-2,500 steps/day. The results of seven different controlled studies demonstrate that there is a strong relationship between cadence and intensity. Further, despite some inter-individual variation, 100 steps/minute represents a reasonable floor value indicative of moderate intensity walking. Multiplying this cadence by 30 minutes (i.e., typical of a daily recommendation) produces a minimum of 3,000 steps that is best used as a heuristic (i.e., guiding) value, but these steps must be taken over and above habitual activity levels to be a true expression of free-living steps/day that also includes recommendations for minimal amounts of time in MVPA. Computed steps/day translations of time in MVPA that also include estimates of habitual activity levels equate to 7,100 to 11,000 steps/day. A direct estimate of minimal amounts of MVPA accumulated in the course of objectively monitored free-living behaviour is 7,000-8,000 steps/day. A scale that spans a wide range of incremental increases in steps/day and is congruent with public health recognition that "some physical activity is better than none," yet still incorporates step-based translations of recommended amounts of time in MVPA may be useful in research and practice. The full range of users (researchers to practitioners to the general public) of objective monitoring instruments that provide step-based outputs require good reference data and evidence-based recommendations to be able to design effective health messages congruent with public health physical activity guidelines, guide behaviour change, and ultimately measure, track, and interpret steps/day.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/1479-5868-8-79

Cites

86 of 86 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Prior studies have focused on a relatively targeted set of outcomes limited to mortality, diabetes and cardiovascular disease.

    “Second, prior studies have focused on a relatively targeted set of outcomes limited to mortality, diabetes and cardiovascular disease.”

    From Association of step counts over time with the risk of chronic disease in the All of Us Research Program (2022) · cites this paper as [4]

    The Results section (“Steps/day associated with various health outcomes”; page unavailable) discusses prior studies of depression, BMI, body composition and obesity. Those outcomes fall outside mortality, diabetes and cardiovascular disease, contrary to the claim that prior studies were limited to those three. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Prior studies consistently show that taking fewer steps per day is associated with higher risk of all-cause mortality and cardiovascular disease.

    “Prior studies consistently show that taking fewer steps per day1–6 is associated with higher risk of all-cause mortality and cardiovascular disease.”

    From Association of step counts over time with the risk of chronic disease in the All of Us Research Program (2022) · cites this paper as [4]

    The Results section (‘Steps/day associated with various health outcomes’; page unavailable) reports more adverse cardiometabolic risk factors among adults taking fewer than 5,000 steps/day. That supports an association with risk factors, but not the claimed higher risk of all-cause mortality or cardiovascular disease. The mortality reference listed in the paper concerns sitting time, not daily steps. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Prior studies assessed physical activity either by self-reported questionnaires or by having participants wear a research-grade device for a brief monitoring period, most often 7 days.

    “First, prior studies assessed physical activity either by self-reported questionnaires or by having participants wear a research-grade device for a brief monitoring period (most often 7 days)1–4.”

    From Association of step counts over time with the risk of chronic disease in the All of Us Research Program (2022) · cites this paper as [4]

  • Prior studies report no information about activity levels between the baseline period and when outcomes are assessed at follow-up, often many years later.

    “Moreover, no information is reported about activity levels between the baseline period and when outcomes are assessed at follow-up, often many years later.”

    From Association of step counts over time with the risk of chronic disease in the All of Us Research Program (2022) · cites this paper as [4]

    The Results sections on normative data and interventions discuss step counts and activity goals, but do not say whether prior studies measured activity between baseline and follow-up. Searches for baseline, follow-up, and longitudinal activity measurements found no passage addressing that claimed reporting gap. (LLM, conf=0.72)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Tudor-Locke, C., Craig, C. L., Brown, W. J., Clemes, S. A., De Cocker, K., Giles-Corti, B., Hatano, Y., Inoue, S., Matsudo, S. M., Mutrie, N., Oppert, J.-M., Rowe, D. A., Schmidt, M. D., Schofield, G. M., Spence, J. C., Teixeira, P. J., Tully, M. A., & Blair, S. N.
Affiliations
  • Pennington Biomedical Research Center (US)
  • The University of Sydney (AU)
  • The University of Queensland (AU)
  • Loughborough University (GB)
  • Tokyo Gakugei University (JP)
  • Tokyo Medical University (JP)
  • Centro de Estudos do Laboratório de Aptidão Física de São Caetano do Sul (BR)
  • University of Strathclyde (GB)
  • Assistance Publique – Hôpitaux de Paris (FR)
  • University of Tasmania (AU)
  • Auckland University of Technology (NZ)
  • University of Alberta (CA)
  • Universidade Técnica de Lisboa (PT)
  • Queen's University Belfast (GB)
  • University of South Carolina (US)
Corresponding author
Tudor-Locke, Catrine
ORCID
Venue
International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2011
Volume
8
Issue
1
Pages
79
ISSN
1479-5868 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1186/1479-5868-8-79
PMC
PMC3197470
OpenAlex
W2138831913
Cited by
1,087
References
86
Citations by year
2026: 53 · 2025: 73 · 2024: 89 · 2023: 75 · 2022: 97 · 2021: 116 · 2020: 102 · 2019: 78 · 2018: 90 · 2017: 67 · 2016: 67 · 2015: 66 · 2014: 48 · 2013: 38 · 2012: 23
FWCI
3.80
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • UWA Profiles and Research Repository (UWA) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Strathprints: The University of Strathclyde institutional repository (University of Strathclyde) (acceptedVersion)
  • Ghent University Academic Bibliography (Ghent University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Minerva Access (University of Melbourne) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Edinburgh Research Explorer (University of Edinburgh) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • eCite Digital Repository (University of Tasmania) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Scholar Commons (University of South Carolina) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • RMIT Research Repository (RMIT University Library) (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Loughborough University Institutional Repository (Loughborough University) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion)
  • Loughborough University Research Repository (Loughborough University) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Research Portal (Queen's University Belfast) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Alere
  • Public Health Agency of Canada
  • University of Tennessee, Knoxville
  • Public Health Agency
  • National Institutes of Health (000/year)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Physical Activity and Health
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Complementary and alternative medicine › Cardiovascular and exercise physiology
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Context-Aware Activity Recognition Systems
Keywords
step count, physical activity guidelines, moderate-to-vigorous physical activity, cadence, walking intensity, pedometers, accelerometer, reference data, adults, public health communication
MeSH terms
Adult, Humans, Public Health, Health Behavior, Exercise, Walking, Guidelines as Topic, Monitoring, Ambulatory

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review