Walking 7,000 steps a day may significantly reduce the risk of cancer, dementia and heart disease, offering a more realistic alternative to the 10,000-step target.
Researchers found that compared to walking just 2,000 steps a day, 7,000 steps was associated with a 25 per cent drop in cardiovascular disease risk, 38 per cent lower dementia risk, a 22 per cent reduction in depression and a 6 per cent fall in cancer risk.
The study, led by Dr Melody Ding, reviewed data from more than 160,000 adults across multiple international studies to assess how step count affects the risk of major diseases.
Ding said: “We have this perception we should be doing 10,000 steps a day.
“But it’s not evidence based.”
The 10,000-step target dates back to a 1960s marketing campaign in Japan, promoting a pedometer called manpo-kei, meaning “10,000-step meter”, launched ahead of the 1964 Tokyo Olympics.
The number was never grounded in scientific evidence but became widely accepted.
Health benefits were seen even at moderate activity levels, with those walking 4,000 steps a day showing improved outcomes compared to the least active.
For most conditions, the gains levelled off at around 7,000 steps, although heart health continued to benefit with higher counts.
Most public health advice currently focuses on minutes of activity.
The World Health Organization recommends at least 150 minutes of moderate or 75 minutes of vigorous exercise weekly—a message some find difficult to translate into daily routines.
Dr Ding suggested that step counts could complement existing advice.
She said: “There are people who swim, cycle, or have physical disabilities that don’t allow them to take steps.
“But steps could prompt people to think about spreading their physical activities throughout the day.”
Dr Daniel Bailey, a sedentary behaviour researcher at Brunel University London, said the study challenges the idea that 10,000 steps are essential.
He described 5,000 to 7,000 as a “more realistic and achievable target” for many.
Dr Andrew Scott, senior lecturer in clinical exercise physiology at the University of Portsmouth, agreed that consistency mattered more than precision:
He said: “More is always better.
“People shouldn’t worry if they can’t hit a specific number every single day.”
