How many steps a day do you really need? What the research says

Almost everyone who counts steps knows the number 10,000. But it wasn’t born in a lab. Research from recent years paints a different picture: the benefit starts well below that mark, grows with more steps and then levels off.

Before we get to the numbers, one important point. Nearly all the studies below are observational: they measure how much people walk and, years later, compare who died or got sick. They show an association, not cause and effect. People who walk more may have been healthier to begin with. The authors try to filter this out statistically, but it can’t be done completely. Whenever we talk about a benefit below, this association is what we mean.

Short answer

• The benefit starts well below 10,000. In older American women, about 4,400 steps a day was already linked to lower mortality than about 2,700 steps (Lee et al., 2019).
• It grows with more steps, then levels off. For people aged 60 and over at roughly 6,000–8,000 steps, for younger adults at roughly 8,000–10,000 (Paluch et al., 2022).
• More steps didn’t raise the risk of death. High step counts weren’t linked to higher mortality (Paluch et al., 2022), and 10,000 remains a reasonable target for people who already walk a lot (Ding et al., 2025).

If you have a chronic condition or trouble walking, talk to your doctor about the right amount of activity for you.

Where 10,000 steps came from

The authors of Lee et al. (2019) write that the origin of the 10,000-step goal is unclear. It most likely comes from the trade name of a pedometer sold in 1965 by the Japanese company Yamasa. It was called “manpo-kei,” which means “10,000-step meter” in Japanese.

The meta-analysis by Paluch et al. (2022) sums it up briefly: the 10,000-step goal isn’t based on evidence but on a marketing campaign in Japan. As of 2022, according to the authors, there was still no public health guideline that set a step count based on data.

In its 2020 guidelines, the World Health Organization (WHO) talks about minutes, not steps. According to the review by Ding et al. (2025), the evidence for a step target wasn’t sufficient at the time. For adults, the WHO recommends at least 150–300 minutes of moderate-intensity aerobic activity a week, or 75–150 minutes of vigorous activity, or a combination of both. On top of that, muscle-strengthening activities on at least 2 days a week.

What the big studies show

A meta-analysis of 15 cohorts: where the benefit levels off

Paluch et al. (2022) pooled results from 15 cohorts, mostly from the US and Europe, totaling 47,471 adults. Participants wore a pedometer or accelerometer for a week, and researchers then followed them for a median of 7.1 years. During that time, 3,013 of them died.

The researchers split the participants in each cohort into four groups by step count. Compared with the least active quarter (median of 3,553 steps a day), the group with a median of 5,801 steps had a 40% lower risk of death, the group with 7,842 steps a 45% lower risk and the group with 10,901 steps a 53% lower risk. These are relative differences in risk, not percentages of people.

The most interesting part is where the curve bends. Risk fell as steps went up, but only up to a point, and that point depended on age:

Source: Paluch et al. (2022), meta-analysis of 15 cohorts, all-cause mortality.

For women and men alike, the lowest risk came out at a similar level, roughly 7,000–9,000 steps a day. The authors also point out limitations: participants were volunteers from wealthy countries, mostly white, and steps were measured only once, over a single week.

A newer review: 7,000 steps as a realistic goal

Ding et al. (2025) reviewed 57 studies from 35 cohorts and included 31 studies from 24 cohorts in their meta-analyses. They looked not only at mortality but also at cardiovascular disease, cancer, diabetes, dementia, depression and falls.

Compared with 2,000 steps a day, 7,000 steps was linked to:

• a 47% lower risk of all-cause mortality,
• a 25% lower risk of developing cardiovascular disease,
• a 38% lower risk of dementia,
• a 22% lower risk of depressive symptoms,
• a 14% lower risk of type 2 diabetes.

Mind the starting point: 2,000 steps a day is really very little movement, and these are relative differences, too. For mortality, the biggest difference comes in the first few thousand steps. Just 4,000 steps was linked to a 36% lower risk of death than 2,000 steps. According to the authors, the decline in risk was already slowing before 7,000 steps. They rate the certainty of evidence for all five outcomes in the list as moderate.

From this, they conclude that 7,000 steps may be a more realistic goal for some people, while 10,000 remains a good target for more active people. One difference from the Paluch et al. meta-analysis is worth mentioning: in older adults (in studies where participants’ mean age was 65 or older), Ding et al. found no leveling off for all-cause mortality — their risk kept falling with more steps. So treat the age thresholds in the table above as a rough guide.

Other studies in brief

• Banach et al. (2023), a meta-analysis of 17 cohort studies with 226,889 participants: every additional 1,000 steps a day was linked to a 15% lower risk of all-cause mortality, and every 500 steps to a 7% lower risk of cardiovascular death. The group with a median of 5,537 steps already had a 48% lower risk of death than the least active group, with a median of 3,867 steps. The data went up to 20,000 steps a day, and according to the authors, more was still linked to lower risk even there.
• Lee et al. (2019), 16,741 American women with a mean age of 72: about 4,400 steps a day was linked to lower mortality than about 2,700 steps. Mortality kept falling with more steps and leveled off at around 7,500 steps.
• Saint-Maurice et al. (2020), 4,840 American adults aged 40 and over, followed for an average of 10.1 years: 8,000 steps a day was linked to a 51% lower risk of death than 4,000 steps (hazard ratio 0.49).

Does pace matter?

Less than you might expect. In both Lee et al. (2019) and Saint-Maurice et al. (2020), a faster pace was linked to lower mortality. But once the authors accounted for total step count, the link weakened and was no longer statistically significant (mostly so in Lee et al.).

Paluch et al. (2022) have mixed results. Pace during the fastest 30 or 60 minutes of the day was linked to lower risk even after accounting for step count. Time spent walking at a cadence of at least 40 or at least 100 steps per minute was not. The authors themselves call their conclusion on pace inconclusive, and Ding et al. (2025) also describe the data as mixed.

In practice: steps first, pace second. Brisk walking still makes sense, though: it helps you meet the WHO guidelines, which count minutes of moderate-intensity activity. As a rough guide, about 100 steps per minute is a reasonable lower threshold for moderate-intensity walking (Tudor-Locke et al., 2011). So twenty minutes of brisk walking adds up to roughly 2,000 steps or more.

Consistency: the week counts, not a single day

The WHO guidelines are weekly. Since 2020, they count moderate-to-vigorous activity in bouts of any length; the earlier requirement for bouts of at least ten minutes was dropped (Bull et al., 2020). The studies above also work with average steps over the measurement period, which usually lasted about a week.

So one weaker day most likely doesn’t ruin anything. A study by Inoue et al. (2023) of 3,101 American adults found that even people who reached 8,000 or more steps on only 1–2 days a week had lower mortality over ten years than those who never reached it. The benefit leveled off at around three days a week. But the group without a single such day was, on average, considerably older and in poorer health, and the authors themselves admit that bias can’t be fully ruled out.

So why bother with every day? For the habit. Paluch et al. found a stronger association in studies with shorter follow-up. They interpret this to mean that recent activity may matter more than what you did years ago. In general, though, they admit that the reverse relationship can’t be ruled out either: illness can slow people down before they die. So it’s not about one heroic week, but about making movement last.

How long it takes for movement to become automatic is covered in How long does it take to form a habit. What to do when you miss a day is in Missed a day?

How to set your own goal

1. Find out where you are now. Look at your average step count over the past few weeks in whatever app counts your steps. A single day tells you nothing.
2. Add about 2,000 steps. People in pedometer programs increased their daily steps by 2,000–2,500 on average (Bravata et al., 2007; Tudor-Locke et al., 2011). That’s about 20 extra minutes of walking.
3. Keep it up most days, then increase. The ranges from the table above work as a rough target: 6,000–8,000 steps if you’re 60 or over, 8,000–10,000 if you’re under 60. If you’re still well below them, the first few thousand extra steps will probably do you the most good.

A specific goal probably helps. In a review of 26 pedometer studies, having a step goal was among the important factors linked to people actually walking more (Bravata et al., 2007).

Where Tada!’s 6,000 steps fit in

In Tada!, a day is active at 6,000 steps or 20 minutes of workout — one of them is enough. The 6,000 isn’t a magic health threshold. It’s a bar you can clear even on a bad day: walking to work, getting groceries on foot, taking the dog out.

Here’s how it compares with the studies: it’s more than the 4,000 steps at which Ding et al. already see a markedly lower risk than at 2,000, and it’s the lower edge of the range where, according to the Paluch et al. meta-analysis, the benefit levels off for people aged 60 and over. For younger adults, it’s more of a floor than a ceiling, because the Paluch et al. meta-analysis shows their risk falling further up to roughly 8,000–10,000 steps.

If 6,000 doesn’t suit you, Tada! Plus lets you set your own goal. What exactly counts toward an active day is explained in the help article What is an active day.

An active day starts at 6,000 steps Tada! uses the steps your phone already counts to tell whether today was active, and keeps track of how many of those days you string together. No sign-up, no ads. Download for iPhone

Take your phone’s numbers with a grain of salt

Steps from a phone or watch aren’t the same as steps in the studies. Most studies in the Paluch et al. meta-analysis measured steps with a device worn on the hip, while consumer devices are often worn on the wrist. According to the authors, research devices and consumer devices can differ by 20% or more. So don’t look for a meaningful difference between 5,800 and 6,200 steps; watch your long-term average instead.

If steps are missing from your apps on Android altogether, the Health Connect guide will help.

Frequently asked questions

How many steps are in 1 kilometer?

It depends on your step length. Step length increases mainly with height and tends to be shorter in older people. In a study of 313 healthy adults (Mobbs et al., 2025) who walked 50 meters at a comfortable pace, the average step length across age and sex groups was roughly between 0.6 and 0.8 meters, and only about 0.5 meters in a small group of women aged 71–80. At that kind of pace, a kilometer usually takes roughly 1,250–1,700 steps, and 6,000 steps is about 3.6–4.8 km.

How many steps a day to lose weight?

There’s no number that guarantees weight loss. A meta-analysis of 9 studies of pedometer-based walking programs that didn’t include a diet found an average loss of 1.27 kg in programs lasting a median of 16 weeks. According to the authors, participants lost an average of 0.05 kg per week during the programs (Richardson et al., 2008). Steps alone make for slow weight loss; their main benefit lies elsewhere.

Do I have to get my steps in all at once?

No. Studies work with total steps per day, and since 2020 the WHO also counts short bouts of brisker activity. Stairs, the walk to the bus stop and a stroll after lunch all count toward your daily step total.

Is 10,000 steps a day overkill?

It’s not pointless — it’s just not the threshold where movement starts to make sense. In the Paluch et al. meta-analysis, high step counts weren’t linked to higher mortality, and for people under 60 the benefit leveled off right around 8,000–10,000 steps. If 10,000 works for you, feel free to stick with it.

Sources

1. Paluch, A. E., Bajpai, S., Bassett, D. R., et al. (2022). Daily steps and all-cause mortality: a meta-analysis of 15 international cohorts. The Lancet Public Health, 7(3), e219–e228. doi:10.1016/S2468-2667(21)00302-9
2. Ding, D., Nguyen, B., Nau, T., et al. (2025). Daily steps and health outcomes in adults: a systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis. The Lancet Public Health, 10(8), e668–e681. doi:10.1016/S2468-2667(25)00164-1
3. Banach, M., Lewek, J., Surma, S., et al. (2023). The association between daily step count and all-cause and cardiovascular mortality: a meta-analysis. European Journal of Preventive Cardiology, 30(18), 1975–1985. doi:10.1093/eurjpc/zwad229
4. Lee, I.-M., Shiroma, E. J., Kamada, M., et al. (2019). Association of Step Volume and Intensity With All-Cause Mortality in Older Women. JAMA Internal Medicine, 179(8), 1105–1112. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2019.0899
5. Saint-Maurice, P. F., Troiano, R. P., Bassett, D. R., et al. (2020). Association of Daily Step Count and Step Intensity With Mortality Among US Adults. JAMA, 323(12), 1151–1160. doi:10.1001/jama.2020.1382
6. Inoue, K., Tsugawa, Y., Mayeda, E. R., Ritz, B. (2023). Association of Daily Step Patterns With Mortality in US Adults. JAMA Network Open, 6(3), e235174. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.5174
7. World Health Organization (2020). WHO guidelines on physical activity and sedentary behaviour: at a glance. WHO. who.int
8. Bull, F. C., Al-Ansari, S. S., Biddle, S., et al. (2020). World Health Organization 2020 guidelines on physical activity and sedentary behaviour. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 54(24), 1451–1462. doi:10.1136/bjsports-2020-102955
9. Tudor-Locke, C., Craig, C. L., Brown, W. J., et al. (2011). How many steps/day are enough? For adults. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 8, 79. doi:10.1186/1479-5868-8-79
10. Bravata, D. M., Smith-Spangler, C., Sundaram, V., et al. (2007). Using pedometers to increase physical activity and improve health: a systematic review. JAMA, 298(19), 2296–2304. doi:10.1001/jama.298.19.2296
11. Mobbs, L., Fernando, V., Fonseka, R. D., et al. (2025). Normative Database of Spatiotemporal Gait Metrics Across Age Groups: An Observational Case–Control Study. Sensors, 25(2), 581. doi:10.3390/s25020581
12. Richardson, C. R., Newton, T. L., Abraham, J. J., et al. (2008). A meta-analysis of pedometer-based walking interventions and weight loss. Annals of Family Medicine, 6(1), 69–77. doi:10.1370/afm.761