How Many Steps Are Optimal For Health?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 6 лют 2024
- Join us on Patreon! / michaellustgartenphd
Discount Links:
Epigenetic, Telomere Testing: trudiagnostic.com/?irclickid=...
Use Code: CONQUERAGING
NAD+ Quantification: www.jinfiniti.com/intracellul...
Use Code: ConquerAging At Checkout
Oral Microbiome: www.bristlehealth.com/?ref=mi...
Enter Code: ConquerAging
At-Home Metabolomics: www.iollo.com?ref=michael-lustgarten
Use Code: CONQUERAGING At Checkout
At-Home Blood Testing: getquantify.io/mlustgarten
Green Tea: www.ochaandco.com/conqueraging
Diet Tracking: shareasale.com/r.cfm?b=139013...
If you'd like to support the channel, you can do that with the website, Buy Me A Coffee: www.buymeacoffee.com/mlhnrca
Conquer Aging Or Die Trying Merch! my-store-d4e7df.creator-sprin...
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paper referenced in the video:
Relationship of Daily Step Counts to All-Cause Mortality and Cardiovascular Events
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37676... - Наука та технологія
The study also found step cadence (number of steps per minute) was associated with reduced hazard ratios, even when adjusted for total steps. So >63 steps/min appears more beneficial than low cadence (29 steps/min was the author reference).
As an older person who's been deliberately walking for about the last 15 years and tracking the last 5 or so, I can say that it is very easy to get around 10,000 steps a day (my goal). I start my day off with a 20 minute walk (2000+ steps) and make a point to get up every 30 to 45 minutes to take a short 2 to 3 minute walk which is often combined with some task. On days with more house/yard work my step count can easily near 15K. The morning walk also helps me mentally, clarity etc. a good way to start the day. Given the error in these studies I tend to go a little longer which also helps compenstae for teh few days in which my walking suffers.
Thanks Mike for identifying this meta analysis study, It strengthens earlier studies that support previous conclusions on step count. Earlier studies have been a little more granular: CVD lowest risk around 8k steps, lowest cancer risk around 14k. It is noticeable that the 95% confidence interval opens out beyond the 8.8k mark. My personal observation is if you have the time to get the extra 5k steps per day, go for it. Personally I would use that time on resistance training and HIIT.
I passed 55 and I walk daily around 8-10 K steps ....and I feel very good for my sleep and my body physic ....I know other people who walk more than 15 K ...and now it is clear that it does not have that difference in reducing ACM ....Thanks very good information
Those who believe more is better, they need to take into consideration the energy taken away from other healthy activities is reduced and the much lower benefit that comes from walking more than 8,800 steps, expose themselves to greater injury
Another great video. I also add rucking.
Rucking is absolutely the best low impact exercise there is. But unfortunately, not all joints can tolerate it.
Great topic
Fascinating. Thanks for the detailed video.
Another thing they don't adjust for is the terrain. Walking around in a warehouse I doubt is equivalent to hiking in the hills, or climbing stairs.
Good point. I’ve noticed that “so called” Blue zones are invariably hilly, a factor never mentioned.
This is why I track the average daily HR instead, but for the general population, tracking steps is likely better than not tracking.
@@davidgifford8112 Yes, they tend to be. Loma Linda, California is pretty flat, though. There, it is pretty clear why people are living longer...all the 7th day Adventists eating a pretty good diet, and perhaps socializing more.
Sardinia, Ikaria and Okinawa are very hilly...and people actually walk. Nicoya is pretty flat. That one is likely genetic, as they have unusually long telomeres. Though, it is possible something in the diet promotes that.
@@conqueragingordietrying1797 Average HR seems hard to use. When you are healthy, you have a low resting HR. Exercise may elevate it, then that low resting HR will pull it down. Heart rate variability, and the difference between the highest and the lowest, may be useful. But they still likely show less than could be measured. Heart rate could spike for just a moment, and that would not be distinguished from an elevated HR where someone exercised for half an hour.
Maybe a measure where total area above the curve and total area below the curve is totaled. The line for what is above and what is below could be the average or the median, whichever is better.
Should be easy to program into a watch or ring. Though, I don't think they typically monitor every heartbeat. They could still make an estimate from samples, I suppose.
And, of course, this just reasoning, not science. It would have to be tested to see if it had any value beyond heart rate variability or other measures already used.
@@davidgifford8112 Blue zones are a myth
It would be interesting to achieve a similar assessment regarding the optimal dose for the lowest all cause mortality in the case of short (12-16 seconds for instance) sprints (as described by Dr Sean Omara) per day or per week.
Thx Prof LUSTGARTEN for this valuable presentation.
Hi Abdelilah, is the sprint data published in terms of ACM risk?
@@conqueragingordietrying1797to my very humble knowledge😊 no !
I use a walking treadmill in the morning to get 5.5k steps in and then go on brisk walks after each meal so get approximately 8k a day.
My job makes me walk between 5 and 10 miles per day.
A big confounder that likely is never accounted for is "walkable cities". I've never driven in my life & lived in London. Since I've been a kid I've walked 3-5 miles daily just to get to school, work, shopping etc.
I’m a country guy, but visit London. In the country you have to drive to get through daily life, there are plenty of nice walks to enjoy, but by-and-large lead nowhere useful. Ironically, I’ve noticed lower obesity rates in London compared to where I live, where a walk or a run is a deliberate act. When I visit London I often find myself walking many hours simply because it’s a practical option to get from A to B.
@@davidgifford8112 My local council had some data after introducing a mini holland scheme on how there was an increase in steps/cycling. City planning is important & movement should be part of city design. I often do sprints up the tube/metro escalators too - sprint interval training!
@@davidgifford8112 you notice this a lot when Americans travel to European countries. they eat the same or more but still manage to lose weight while on vacation. why? because a lot of euro cities are very walkable
It's my understanding (and mentioned in that paper) that it's also important to keep it brisk too, so excluding steps you might pick up shuffling about throughout the day.
Good stuff. I aim for 10k steps a day and usually get far above that.
Does it says to walk 8800 steps before or after eating? Or can it doit by 2. For example 4400 in the morning and 4400 in the evening?
I wear a Fitbit (charge 4 or 5) under a sock above my right ankle. Too
many false steps are counted on wrist. Fitbits are for miles and steps only.
Apple 8 on wrist for a more accurate health watch.
Audio volume is little low this time.
Yep, it's a common problem despite the mic being right next to my face. Thinking about getting a new microphone soon.
@@conqueragingordietrying1797 The mic would not be my first guess. You can't increase the gain?
was it like continuos steps or just the total amount of steps? also would like to know if it has to do anything with the amount of calorie intake, maybe in deficit?
Total steps in a day
so now i wonder whats the case for the other side(s?) of the coin
r there any associations with sitting and standing and rr? 🤔ive seen/heard conflicting evidence that sitting isnt even that bad after all (as long as u walk around sometimes every hour)
Unfortunately, the studies didn’t get the most important bias as you had explained regarding diet. This begs the question of if the benefit of the steps can be seen in the absence of a caloric deficit.
Or at least, adjusting for calorie intake, without diet quality or CR. Most people aren't in a caloric deficit, as obesity is on the rise globally.
BMI would partially correct for excess calories on a population scale, not absolute calories though. If they had waist hip thigh circumference and skinfolds that would be even better. But when you do these meta analysis you are reliant on what the included studies presented and complexity of the analysis.
Although there are “diminishing returns” to walking more than 8800 steps per day, the Meta analysis does indicate that the all cause risk of mortality can be reduced an additional 5 percent. In other words, walk significantly more than 8800 steps and, on average, you will live longer. My would argue that 8800 is “optimum” only if you really really dislike walking more. I enjoy doing the extra walking.
I agree, the authors language was sloppy to say the least. They appear to have a "time" bias. By optimum that are factoring in time as an assumption rather than doing the analysis for steps*time walking. The referees should have sorted that out, but it got through. If they reported what they found it would be continued reductions in HRs up to 12000-14000 steps/day, rather than some optimum.
Could you by chance buy a new micro? I'm listening in my headphones with full volume, and hardly hear anything.
Hey Erast, sorry about that, and that’s definitely on the to-do list.
@@conqueragingordietrying1797I don't think microphone needs changing, the quality is good. The audio gain just needs to be increased in any old video editing software. Likely that even your current recording/editing software has a setting somewhere.
@@LVArturs Agree.
I'm not a big fan of just walking. It's too boring and time consuming. Outside I prefer to bicycle, and inside I have a spin bike and an elliptical which I use while binge watching the latest shows or sports events. So it would be nice to know what 8800 steps translates to in my life. My HR when I am walking briskly is ~90 bpm, and it would take about 75-80 minutes for me to walk 8800 steps. So I've assumed that getting my HR up to 90 bpm for 75-80 minutes on my indoor equipment the equivalent of 8800 steps. But is that true? Or is calories burned the goal? My Polar tells me I burn about 250 calories per hour when my HR is `90 bpm.
Which dovetails with my next question. Everyone knows that mild caloric restriction is a key to longevity. Then is the main benefit of exercise in these ACM studies that it helps to achieve a net caloric deficit, without actually restricting food? It operates on the calorie output side, rather than the input side.
8800 steps amounts roughly to 4 MET net expended energy. You should translate that energy to your preferred exercise. However, more intense exercise is more efficient in activating the useful biochemical pathways, so the energy will be lower for more intense exercise.
That's a fair point, which is why I track HRV, RHR, and the average daily HR, not steps. However, this video is intended for a more general audience...
@@conqueragingordietrying1797 I find it interesting that there was no U-curve in your video. From the past publications, I thought after 40-50 weekly METs the curve slowly turns into the negative, but this is probably only valid for more intense exercise, but not for walking.
@@erastvandorenSure, we optimizers shouldn't just do Zone 1 every day. My target is 8800 steps in Zone 1 three to four days per weeks, and and hour of Zone 2 three to four days per week. Plus a HIIT session once per week. But is there an advantage to converting everything to METs? I'm not even sure how to do that accurately. Is there a daily or weekly MET score we're supposed to achieve?
@@erastvandoren Can you please post that data?
Good video. Diet quality seems to be consistently overlooked in orthodox western medicine. It's amazing we can go to the moon, but we really don't know what to eat to be healthy.
Amish men walk 17k per day. Women walk 14k
Yeah, but their diet is not optimal. Too much animal fat.
@@erastvandoren Uh huh. I put that # there so people have an 'ancestral' lifestyle equivalent. I am not campaigning in the UA-cam comment section for people to sell their worldly possessions and go join the Amish lifestyle.
@@imtryinghere1are Amish even known for any superior health outcomes like Adventists?
Oh boy, ain't that a load of assumptions?
I would think that our genes, after 2 million years of living on animal meat, bone marrow, brains and animal fat, would be fully adapted.
That is somewhere between 60.000 and 100.000 generations.
In those times plants were starvation food. Wheat is just a kind of refined grass and broccoli didn't exist 500 years ago.
So, I don't buy the statement that animal fat is bad as something likely in the light of evolution.
(If you think that the earth is only 6000 years old, I silence respectfully..)
My typing disappears, that's not nice 👐🏻
6000 will do..
yea u mean this cool and all but be real this aint good science tho right? like we don't actually know exactly the step and so on...
It's better science than self-reported step counts or activity levels
Even better is we objectively track our own data, with more specificity
yeah true but like... think about it how we know 10k is better then 11k steps... is kinda out there with this science i think... i think we don't actually ahve a thing that tell us specifically the best number... especially the individual one u know what i mean?@@conqueragingordietrying1797