health

8,000 steps once or twice a week cuts mortality risk: study

28 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© 2023 AFP

©2024 GPlusMedia Inc.

28 Comments

Comments have been disabled You can no longer respond to this thread.

As usual with studies focused on mortality risk related to lifestyle there are a lot of assumptions and unknowns that could be a source of unidentified bias for the reported results, but seeing such an important effect correlated with the measured parameter gives a lot of confidence that the authors are correct in their conclusions.

One important benefit from this report is that it gives a clear cutoff value for people to aim, not a vague "walking more" or "as many days as possible" but a clear limit that still gave a big increase on survival rates.

The best thing is that 8K steps once or twice a week is something perfectly possible for most people, even some that have physical disabilities.

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

Animals (including humans), and made to be animated, not sitting on chairs. I can personally recommend a four hour walk each day. I don't know how many steps that is. Even better is to count the time not spent moving, and try to reduce that to the bare minimum, only using the daily idle time for sleeping and eating...

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Not sure JT is the best place for "scientific studies".

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Not sure JT is the best place for "scientific studies".

The original scientific study was published in JAMA Network Open, which is a perfectly valid indexed journal with peer review for their articles.

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2802810

What the articles in newspapers, magazines, etc. do is just communicate to a wider audience those studies in a shorter, easier to read way. As long as they don't overhype or misrepresent the findings of the study there is nothing wrong with publishing these kind of articles, some people find them interesting and it can lead to making better decisions about their health.

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

We will all die one day. That is guaranteed. What matters is our quality of life as we age. This is an easy recommendation to extend your lifespan with a healthier body.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

if you walk leisurely and not in haste, enjoying the time of your life then maybe... i walk around 30 km a week because i dont have a car and have to walk half a way to work by feet, also tending to some other bussiness, so, can i live forever please? XD

i think these days you can sooner have an early death from exhaustion and lack of sleep than not walking enough.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

The actual study did not give a clear cutoff value as erroneously mentioned by users here because in fact 6,000-10,000 steps was mentioned as the magic numbers.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

The actual study did not give a clear cutoff value as erroneously mentioned by users here because in fact 6,000-10,000 steps was mentioned as the magic numbers.

Yes it did, having other information does absolutely nothing to refute the fact it gave a clear cutoff value, even included in the title of this article.

8,000 steps once or twice a week cuts mortality risk

So, what source do you have that say this clear and precise cutoff value is not part of the conclusions? without this source your claim clearly becomes false.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

Yes it did, having other information does absolutely nothing to refute the fact it gave a clear cutoff value, even included in the title of this article.

A little quick research shows, yes, there is no clear cutoff. The range is given between 6,000-10,000.

Always good to read the whole study.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

A little quick research shows, yes, there is no clear cutoff. The range is given between 6,000-10,000.

Always good to read the whole study.

Both accounts are repeating the same mistake, the clear cut off is mentioned even in the title of the article, it does not matter how much other data you bring, as long as you can't falsify the clear cutoff value given in the original source and this article your claim that there is none keeps being false.

So, any source to disqualify the clear value given?

2 ( +5 / -3 )

So, any source to disqualify the clear value given?

Um, yeah, like the source you provided,

Even your other account would agree.

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

Reading the actual study---6,000 to 10,000 steps it is.

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

According to the study the experts have concluded we don't need a clear cut number of 8,000.

The same pattern held true for people meeting step goals of 6,000 to 10,000 steps.

https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/brisk-walking-1-to-2-days-a-week-reduce-all-cause-cardiovascular-mortality

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

Um, yeah, like the source you provided,

Where in that source does it say the clear cutoff value mentioned is not valid? making up things when you don't have a real reference only makes it evident you already understand your claim is false.

Reading the actual study---6,000 to 10,000 steps it is.

Still making the same mistake? people can explain things to you, but nobody can make you understand, for the claim to be true you need proof the clear cutoff value is not the one mentioned in both the primary source and this article.

According to the study the experts have concluded we don't need a clear cut number of 8,000.

No, that is not what you claimed, your claim is that this clear cut off value was not true, when in fact the authors explicitly mention it.

The authors in the primarcy source:

Participants who only took 8000 steps or more 1 or 2 days during the week also showed substantially lower all-cause and cardiovascular mortality risk.

There is not much more than can't be done to make this clear cutoff value more obvious.

Again, for all three accounts making the same false claim, the argument is not that there were no other findings in the study, the argument is that this clear cutoff value is explicitly mentioned by the authors, neither of the three accounts have disproved this, only made false claims this value is not mentioned by the authors.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Where in that source does it say the clear cutoff value mentioned is not valid? making up things when you don't have a real reference only makes it evident you already understand your claim is false.

I'll conclude this:

The same pattern held true for people meeting step goals of 6,000 to 10,000 steps.

https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/brisk-walking-1-to-2-days-a-week-reduce-all-cause-cardiovascular-mortality

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

ll conclude this:

And the authors concluded the clear cutoff value of 8,000 steps reduces the mortality risk as quoted,

They are much more likely to be correct about their own study than you.

3 ( +6 / -3 )

You put the study out there, and we are just quoting the part that contradicts your claim. It is understandable because you only read the condensed article here, and not the entire study from the link you provided. It hapoens.

-5 ( +2 / -7 )

And the authors concluded the clear cutoff value of 8,000 steps reduces the mortality risk as quoted,

Here's that the authors concluded:

The same pattern held true for people meeting step goals of 6,000 to 10,000 steps.

Namaste!

-5 ( +2 / -7 )

You put the study out there, and we are just quoting the part that contradicts your claim.

No, you are not, you are just quoting other parts of the findings, and misrepresenting them as if this contradicted the claim made by the own authors of the study.

Can you quote the authors contradicting their own explicit conclusion:

8,000 steps once or twice a week cuts mortality risk

I mean, it is a very short phrase, and it clearly characterizes a cutoff value so, where did the authors said this is not true?

Here's that the authors concluded:

Still nothing in your quote contradicting the authors giving a clear cutofff value.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

6,000 to 10,000 steps is the range according to the study. No clear cutoff value though, so makes it easier for people to adapt to it.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

6,000 to 10,000 steps is the range according to the study. No clear cutoff value though, so makes it easier for people to adapt to it.

What do you mean "no clear cutoff value"? in the words of the authors of the article in their abstact:

8,000 steps once or twice a week cuts mortality risk

What part of this very concise and clear cutoff escapes your understanding? are you confused between the authors giving a clear cutoff in their report and they only reporting it as if it was a single data point in their whole report?

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Although I agree that exercise is important for longevity, I tend to be somewhat skeptical of this type of study. Did the extra steps lead to longer life? Or did poor health (for other reasons) lead to fewer steps and shorter life?

Also, walking is good, but many experts (eg Peter Attia) tend to recommend lifting weights for longevity, and feeling well in old age.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

I agree with RawBeer on cause and effect.

If you're fit enough to be getting in your 6,000~10,000 steps, is it the exercise that is making you healthy? Or are you able to do the steps because you are healthy and are able to lead a reasonably active life, and that active life provides you with both physical and mental stimulation that has a positive effect on your overall health?

If you have mobility problems, will struggling to get your steps in miraculously make you healthy? If you're not healthy, are you likely to be getting the steps in?

Healthy people are likely to live longer, and to have more active lives.

Just taking the dog out every morning gets me close to 6,000, more than that at the weekends when we have time for longer walks, over 10,000 easily.

I'm gonna live furrevver. :-)

1 ( +2 / -1 )

I agree with RawBeer on cause and effect.

The authors make a huge effort in controlling for variables that could affect both longevity and amount of exercise, and particularly they measured the amount of exercise done long before the deaths, which means the people would be in a much better shape and not likely to be affected by the health problems that ended up causing their death.

If this variable (health problems affecting both longevity and amount of exercise instead of a direct causal relationship) it would be expected for both things to be reduced in an equivalent degree in an inverse relationship with the amount of time between measurement and death (because those dying sooner after the amount of exercise was measured would already have the unidentified health problem affecting both things)

It is impossible to eliminate hidden causes of decreased mobility affecting also longevity, but since the researchers controlled for many sources of bias (from the methods: adjustment for age; sex; self-reported race and ethnicity; insurance status; marital status; smoking; BMI; estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR); statin use; and history of diabetes, hypertension, cardiovascular disease, cancer, and emphysema.) it is quite safe to say this possibility is remote.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

cleoToday  12:15 pm JST

I agree with RawBeer on cause and effect.

If you're fit enough to be getting in your 6,000~10,000 steps, is it the exercise that is making you healthy? Or are you able to do the steps because you are healthy and are able to lead a reasonably active life, and that active life provides you with both physical and mental stimulation that has a positive effect on your overall health?

I'm with you and RawBeer on that note too.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

I'm with you and RawBeer on that note too.

What problem do you see with the control of variables done in the article precisely to eliminate this possibility? as quoted this would meak this argument invalid.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites