Walking 7,000–8,000 steps per day, or accumulating 150–300 minutes of brisk walking each week

11. Walking 7,000–8,000 steps per day, or accumulating 150–300 minutes of brisk walking each week

Cost: It costs nothing. In terms of steps, walking 60–90 minutes daily can easily be split into short bouts during commutes or errands. In terms of time, it requires just 20–45 minutes per day. The real challenge is maintaining this habit over the long term.

In plain terms: People who walk roughly 7,800 steps daily have a mortality risk roughly 45% lower than those walking only 3,500 steps. The same pattern holds when measured by time: those who engage in 150–300 minutes of brisk walking weekly face about 30% lower risk than inactive individuals. Beyond a certain threshold, further increases bring little extra benefit; for people over 60, 6,000–8,000 steps per day is sufficient. Meeting either step target is enough.

Benefit: Fifteen studies tracking large groups of people were combined for analysis without subgrouping. These studies included 47,471 participants and 3,013 deaths. When grouped by daily step counts, the lowest group had a median of 3,553 steps/day; the next three groups had medians of 5,801, 7,842, and 10,901 steps/day. Their mortality risks were roughly 40%, 45%, and 53% lower than the lowest group (HR 0.60, 0.55, 0.47 respectively). For those over 60, benefits plateau after reaching 6,000–8,000 steps/day; for younger adults, the plateau appears at 8,000–10,000 steps/day. Another analysis found benefits begin at around 3,867 steps/day; each additional 1,000 steps/day reduces mortality risk by roughly 15%. When measured by exercise time, individuals meeting 1–2 times the recommended weekly activity level (7.5–15 MET·h/week, equivalent to 150–300 minutes of brisk walking) had a mortality risk about 31% lower than inactive people (HR 0.69). Those below this threshold still saw a 20% reduction (HR 0.80), while those exceeding it 3–5 times saw a maximum reduction of 39% (HR 0.61). Further increases bring no additional benefit, though they pose no harm (HR 0.69 at >10 times the threshold). A final study using accelerometers showed that the top quarter of participants in terms of moderate-to-vigorous activity had a mortality risk roughly 48% lower than the bottom quarter (HR 0.52). Accelerometers are wearable devices that measure actual physical activity levels.

Evidence grade: A

Sources: Paluch AE et al. (2022). Daily steps and all-cause mortality: a meta-analysis of 15 international cohorts. Lancet Public Health. <https://doi.org/10.1016/S2468-2667(21)00302-9>; Banach M et al. (2023). The association between daily step count and all-cause and cardiovascular mortality: a meta-analysis. European Journal of Preventive Cardiology. <https://doi.org/10.1093/eurjpc/zwad229>; Arem H et al. (2015). Leisure time physical activity and mortality: a detailed pooled analysis of the dose-response relationship. JAMA Internal Medicine. <https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2015.0533>; Ekelund U et al. (2019). Dose-response associations between accelerometry measured physical activity and sedentary time and all cause mortality: systematic review and harmonised meta-analysis. BMJ. <https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.l4570>

Notes: Step counts and exercise time describe the same behavior; meeting either target suffices. The greatest benefit is seen when increasing daily steps from 4,000 to 7,000; there is no need to reach 10,000 steps. It is important to note that these studies merely track activity levels; the least active participants often include those already ill or frail, which can inflate observed risk differences. Studies relying on accelerometer measurements tend to involve shorter follow-ups and older populations, so their reported benefits may be somewhat overestimated. Nevertheless, the overall trend of greater activity leading to better outcomes remains clear.