Which is more important: reaching 10,000 steps or walking faster?

Ten thousand steps. The figure appears on smartwatches, mobile apps, and fitness bands to the point of becoming an almost automatic reference to measure whether our daily movement has been enough or not. Reaching it seems to mean we have succeeded; falling short means something is still missing.

However, counting steps only offers part of the information. It is not the same to take them slowly throughout the day as to include periods when we walk at a faster pace. A new study published in the British Journal of Sports Medicine has precisely analyzed both variables to answer a question very present in physical activity research: does it matter more how much we walk or the intensity with which we do it?

The origin of 10,000 steps as a healthy threshold

Before seeking an answer, it is worth pausing on the figure that has conditioned much of this conversation. The 10,000 daily steps did not arise from research identifying that number as the exact point from which walking becomes healthy.

Its origin dates back to Japan in the 1960s, when a pedometer called manpo-kei, translatable as "10,000 steps meter," was marketed. The figure worked well as a simple and easy-to-remember goal and ended up spreading far beyond that device. Over time, the 10,000 steps went from being a commercial reference to establishing itself as a goal linked to better health.

But that does not make the goal useless. Walking more has been consistently associated with improved health status, and 10,000 steps can be a perfectly valid goal for many people. What subsequent research has shown is that the benefits do not suddenly start upon reaching that figure.

A review published in The Lancet Public Health in 2025, which gathered 57 studies, found relevant associations with various health outcomes around 7,000 daily steps. Compared to 2,000 steps, that amount was related, among other outcomes, to lower risk of all-cause mortality, cardiovascular disease, dementia, type 2 diabetes, and depressive symptoms. In some indicators, the benefit curve began to stabilize approximately between 5,000 and 7,000 steps.

The question, therefore, is no longer only how many steps we should take. It also matters how we take them.

More than 64,000 people and eight years of follow-up

This new study used data from the UK Biobank, one of the largest biomedical databases in the United Kingdom. For seven days, participants wore a wrist accelerometer that allowed recording how many steps they took and with what intensity they moved.

From that data, the researchers distributed them into four groups according to their daily activity: less than 5,000 steps, between 5,000 and 7,500, between 7,500 and 10,000, and more than 10,000. But the goal was not only to focus on the final number that would appear on any smartwatch. They also wanted to know what happened when part of those steps were taken at a higher speed.

To measure this, they used the so-called peak 30-minute cadence, which calculates the average pace of the 30 most active minutes of the day, although they do not have to be consecutive. This way, they could distinguish between people who accumulated a similar number of steps but performed them with different intensity.

The analysis gathered more than 64,000 adults, with an average age of 61 years, and followed their evolution for approximately eight years. During that time, the researchers could compare the different combinations of step count and walking pace with the risk of all-cause and cardiovascular mortality.

Walking faster does matter

The results show that quantity and intensity do not work so independently.

Among people who accumulated fewer than 5,000 daily steps, walking with greater intensity has been associated with a lower risk of mortality. For example, within this group, reaching around 80 steps per minute during the most active periods was associated with a risk reduction similar to that observed among those who took between 5,000 and 7,500 steps but at a lower pace.

This is a particularly interesting comparison for those who cannot easily increase their total number of steps. Moving more remains beneficial, but introducing some more intensity offers another way to increase physical activity without always chasing a specific number.

However, this does not mean that walking fast allows forgetting about how much we move. Estimates of lower mortality risk were found among those who accumulated between 7,500 and 10,000 daily steps, and that favorable association was observed regardless of pace.

In other words, speed can make an important difference, especially when we walk little, but the total volume of movement continues to matter.

So, is it better to walk more or walk faster?

The study does not allow answering with one of the two options. And precisely there lies one of its most interesting aspects.

For years we have tended to translate physical activity into a single figure: accumulated steps. The results suggest a somewhat more flexible perspective. A person can increase their activity level by walking more, increasing pace at certain moments, or combining both strategies.

And this is especially relevant for those who spend many hours sitting, have little time to walk, or find it difficult to reach a high number of daily steps. Moving from very low activity to some more movement already represents a significant change, and increasing pace during some daily trips helps increase intensity without needing to turn every walk into an exercise session.

But it is also unnecessary to interpret the intensity mentioned in the study as a new daily goal that replaces 10,000 steps. The study design itself measures the most active minutes of each participant and uses them to compare movement profiles, not to establish that everyone should walk at a certain speed for exactly half an hour.

A broader way to understand daily movement

The results, in any case, must be understood within the study’s scope. Participants’ activity was recorded for seven days and, from there, their evolution was followed for several years. That period offers a fairly accurate snapshot of how they moved at that time, but it does not allow knowing if they maintained exactly the same habits afterward. Also, as it is an observational study, other factors related to health and lifestyle intervene.

What the work does provide is a somewhat more complete way to look at a figure that has concentrated much attention for years. 10,000 steps remain a useful reference, but they do not function as a threshold from which benefits begin. Walking less also counts, and especially among those who accumulate few steps per day, doing so at a somewhat more intense pace adds another dimension to the level of physical activity.

Thus, perhaps the question is not so much whether we should choose between walking more or walking faster. The evidence points to both being part of the same goal: moving more and spending less time inactive. For some people, it will be easier to add steps throughout the day; for others, to take advantage of certain trips to increase pace a bit. And neither strategy requires the counter to mark exactly 10,000 before that movement starts to count.