Daily steps targets and goal streaks...

[WhitstableDave]

In addition to whatever else I might be doing each day, I like to keep an eye on my steps count. 

As I'm sure everyone knows, the oft-mentioned 'magic' target of 10,000 steps a day is arbitrary and dates back to 1964 and an advertising campaign for an early pedometer. The number 10,000 is nicely rounded though and suitably challenging, so it's the one I've kept as my daily steps target for several years.

Today, my goal streak (the number of successive days I've reached 10,000 steps) reached 366 days. That's one whole year of doing at least 10,000 steps each and every day (it's 366 days because last year was a leap year!). 



I know not everyone will be interested in counting their steps or even have the means to do so. I also know that devices that can count steps are not always particularly accurate and I certainly wouldn't try to report walking miles calculated from steps. The reason I like recording my steps is because it provides me with a daily motivational aid which might only be needed occasionally, but it's there when it is. And it gives some extra targets to try to beat every so often... 

[richardh1905]

I remember that my activity tracker would furiously record steps whilst I was being motored out to an Orkney lighthouse in a bouncy RIB.

[WhitstableDave]

I remember that my first GPS watch, a Garmin Vivoactive, didn't record my steps at all when I did regular long walks pushing a pushchair to a distant playground and back. But my current watch, a Fenix 6, is far better in that respect. 

[BuzyG]

I remember that my activity tracker would furiously record steps whilst I was being motored out to an Orkney lighthouse in a bouncy RIB.

Try taking one up in a chinook  

[Kev06]

In addition to whatever else I might be doing each day, I like to keep an eye on my steps count. 

As I'm sure everyone knows, the oft-mentioned 'magic' target of 10,000 steps a day is arbitrary and dates back to 1964 and an advertising campaign for an early pedometer. The number 10,000 is nicely rounded though and suitably challenging, so it's the one I've kept as my daily steps target for several years.

Today, my goal streak (the number of successive days I've reached 10,000 steps) reached 366 days. That's one whole year of doing at least 10,000 steps each and every day (it's 366 days because last year was a leap year!). 

I know not everyone will be interested in counting their steps or even have the means to do so. I also know that devices that can count steps are not always particularly accurate and I certainly wouldn't try to report walking miles calculated from steps. The reason I like recording my steps is because it provides me with a daily motivational aid which might only be needed occasionally, but it's there when it is. And it gives some extra targets to try to beat every so often... 

The specific figure of 10,000 steps might be slightly invented (and doesn't consider how fast or how steep etc) but I think the principle is really worthwhile; the benefits of doing some meaningful exercise every day continue to be supported by modern research, and as you say having a target of some kind often helps with motivation. Even so, to have done it so consistently is really quite an achievement!

My phone used to count steps, and for bigger walks I'd also turn on viewranger to record distance. These days diabetes has shifted my target more to blood glucose levels, which is affected by other things too but the contribution of exercise is still very clear. The effect can last for about 16hrs afterwards, and whilst healthy people may not need it for this exact reason, I believe it is still quite beneficial for everyone.

Your consistency puts me to shame though. I average around 30,000 steps but that is made up of some longer walks and some quite sedentary days, which do no good at all. I suppose the ideal might be to go somewhere (preferably hilly) every morning and every evening, but even every day would be an improvement.

[BuzyG]

Just did a few sums. As you do and now I'm surprised how low your maximum steps in a day figure is. 

MrsG uses a step counter and it registered close to 23000 steps on a 7.1 mile walk, with hills on farm tracks, on Saturday.  So by scaling that up to a 25 mile walk in mountainous terrain.  I could see it easily hitting 80,000+ on such a day hike. Baring in mind going up and down on steep ground, steps are likely to be in the 12 to 20 inch range. ie 3-5000 steps per mile.

100% agree the counters are good for motivation.   

[WhitstableDave]

Just did a few sums. As you do and now I'm surprised how low your maximum steps in a day figure is. 

MrsG uses a step counter and it registered close to 23000 steps on a 7.1 mile walk, with hills on farm tracks, on Saturday.  So by scaling that up to a 25 mile walk in mountainous terrain.  I could see it easily hitting 80,000+ on such a day hike. Baring in mind going up and down on steep ground, steps are likely to be in the 12 to 20 inch range. ie 3-5000 steps per mile.

100% agree the counters are good for motivation. 

I'd be interested to see your sums... 

According to Garmin (and my own measurements) my average stride length was 0.93m (or 36.6 inches) measured over the 248 walks I recorded last year.

On normal solo walks, I do about 17,000 steps in 10 miles, which is very different from what your wife would do!

On that record-breaking day last year, I did a 31.6 mile walk with my wife.

If that walk had been a solo walk, I would have done around 54,000 steps (plus any others on that day). However, when I walk with my wife, I go a bit more slowly and my stride length is shorter - hence the extra steps recorded that day.

The previous year, I did a 32.3 mile solo walk in 7 hrs 55 mins, and the step count (for the walk plus the rest of the day) was approximately 56,000 steps - my daily record at the time. The 31.6 mile walk with my wife took 9 hrs 50 mins, which was much slower and resulted in a shorter stride length and consequently increased number of steps.

[BuzyG]

I'd be interested to see your sums... 

According to Garmin (and my own measurements) my average stride length was 0.93m (or 36.6 inches) measured over the 248 walks I recorded last year.

On normal solo walks, I do about 17,000 steps in 10 miles, which is very different from what your wife would do!

On that record-breaking day last year, I did a 31.6 mile walk with my wife.

If that walk had been a solo walk, I would have done around 54,000 steps (plus any others on that day). However, when I walk with my wife, I go a bit more slowly and my stride length is shorter - hence the extra steps recorded that day.

The previous year, I did a 32.3 mile solo walk in 7 hrs 55 mins, and the step count (for the walk plus the rest of the day) was approximately 56,000 steps - my daily record at the time. The 31.6 mile walk with my wife took 9 hrs 50 mins, which was much slower and resulted in a shorter stride length and consequently increased number of steps.

I suspect you must be walking different terrain to me Dave.  The only time I have matched that pace up on the moor, was in a supported race and I was running all the flat and down hill sections, not walking. 

[snaderson]

I'm always gobsmacked by WD's distances and pace (I picture him zipping around like an Olympic walker). The most steps I've done is just over 60k on a 25 mile charity walk (twice, actually, once in the Lakes, once in the Peaks).

[WhitstableDave]

I suspect you must be walking different terrain to me Dave.  The only time I have matched that pace up on the moor, was in a supported race and I was running all the flat and down hill sections, not walking.

I walk all sorts of different terrains Buzy. I live in Kent, so most of my walking is done in our wonderful countryside, but in 2019 (Before Covid), we did walking holidays in Scotland (Isle of Harris, Coigach & Assynt), Wales (Snowdonia, Brecon Beacons) and England (Peak District, Surrey Downs). But surely no one sticks to just one type of terrain anyway... 

Of course, I did the 32.3 miles on flat, easy terrain... because it would have been a bit daft to try to walk that distance in under 8 hours across hilly, boggy moors! 

[WhitstableDave]

I suspect you must be walking different terrain to me Dave.  The only time I have matched that pace up on the moor, was in a supported race and I was running all the flat and down hill sections, not walking.

Funnily enough, one of our aims once lockdown is over is to get dropped off a marathon distance from home on the North Downs Way and get back as quickly as possible. It's an undulating route so we plan to walk the ups and run the downs. We'll take the flats as they come!

[BuzyG]

I think I do automatically tend to pick the hardest route I can find from A to B. I guess that comes from Climbing not walking.  I will often pick a point I have been to many many times before and then try and find a different way to get there.  If I get there still fresh I will pick another point.  If I get there and my fluids, food and legs have had enough, then I will take an easier route back to the car.  I maintain a similar cadence what ever the terrain.  Up scree down tarmac lanes, across bogs and tussocks or sand dunes.  What alters drastically is my speed over the ground any where from 4.5 mph on flat tarmac to <1mph on tough ground. The obvious change to bring the speed down whilst maintaining an efficient cadence, is my stride length is correspondingly shorter. So perhaps the actual number of steps is possibly a better measure of effort, in some cases than the distance travelled 

[WhitstableDave]

As I've been getting more into running, I've been thinking about cadence quite a lot. Runners tend to believe there is a 'perfect' cadence of 180 steps per minute - or, as I prefer to say, the same foot hitting the ground 90 times per minute (because that's easier to count!). While it's also accepted that we're all different, especially in leg length, a cadence of 90/180 is apparently what nearly all top marathon runners have.

Anyway, my problem is that my running cadence is low - typically 75/150 - and I've been working on raising it. I can get it up to 85/170 when I concentrate and my aim is to do that naturally. I think the problem is that my brisk walking cadence on the flat is 60/120, which is very convenient because I can measure time by counting my steps! But I think the long stride / low cadence has carried over into my running. What I have discovered though is that shorter steps and higher cadence make for easier going uphill and downhill whether running or walking.


 

[BuzyG]

I have no idea what my actual cadence is .  Just that lot's of people told me shortening the stride length up hill made it more efficient and when I experimented a few years back I found a balance that allowed me to stay slightly out of breath all the time up hill and down dale and suddenly I could move more efficiently over the course of a day. So I stick with it when I'm out alone and pushing on.  Basically it allows me to maintain a reasonably steady work rate that gradually drops off as I get tired.  It's not something I measure. But I know from progress vs my peer group that it works.

So hope we can get back walking in groups and taking part in events this summer.  Not having a specific high points to aim at makes keeping fit simply a daily activity, that some enjoy more or less than others. although I am one of those that enjoys the hard work more than most, know one can train maximum effort 365 days a year, you need peaks and rest periods.

[Slogger]

I have Strava, plus a Garmin fenix 6 Solar as well as a Fitbit which i only use for phone call alerts. My wife also has a fitbit type device and counts her steps. Personally I don't bother as they don't only count the actual steps you take but record other body too movements too as steps.