How Exercise Snacks Compare With 10,000 Steps

Derek: The whole 10,000-steps-a-day recommendation that a lot of people have is obviously time-consuming, but also effective if you are actually going to adhere to it. I just find that a lot of people probably will not adhere to it consistently.

I imagine the answer is yes, but I am just thinking out loud here. If you were to do a bandwidth allocation where you have thousands of steps, but not 10,000—maybe half of that—and then do these exercise snacks, could you get the same net effect, if not a better one?

Dr. Rhonda Patrick: Yes. I think we should replace 10,000 steps with about 10 minutes of exercise snacks, and we have data to back that up.

There have now been multiple very large studies, with hundreds of thousands of people involved in the data samples. They are wearing accelerometers, so scientists can measure increases in their heart rate and also their distance. These are called vigorous intermittent lifestyle physical activity studies—VILPA for short. The results have been very eye-opening.

I am going to summarize many years of research in a couple of sentences. People who do anywhere from three to nine minutes of these short, vigorous exercise snacks—and they are not even structured—might sprint up the stairs because their office is on the third floor instead of taking the elevator. Whatever gets their heart rate up significantly is measured.

If you are doing one minute three times a day, or doing it as much as nine times a day, people doing this have 50 percent lower cardiovascular-related mortality than people who are not doing these vigorous-intensity bursts of exercise. They have 40 percent lower cancer-related mortality and 40 percent lower all-cause mortality. This is even true among people who identify as non-exercisers.

In other words, they do not take time to go to the gym, walk around the lake, or walk on the beach. They are getting exercise benefits from short, intense bursts dispersed throughout their day, up to nine minutes. The statistics I quoted were all at the nine-minute range, so it is dose-dependent. If you are doing only three minutes, you are getting less of an effect, but you are still getting an effect.

Regarding your question about 10,000 steps, some people love to walk. They do walk, and they do 10,000 steps. Some people do 15,000 or 20,000 steps a day. But, if possible, I think it would be more beneficial to replace that with 10 minutes of vigorous-intensity activity a day.

Again, vigorous intensity is relative. It does not take much for an activity to be vigorous for someone who is sedentary. They will eventually adapt and get better. You do need to try, and I think that as people start doing vigorous-intensity exercise, they begin to like it.

There is a lot of pushback. I hear researchers say, “People are not going to comply. It is so hard. You cannot get someone to—”

Derek: I feel like it is easier to think about how I can spend 20 to 25 minutes a day doing that, spread throughout the day, than how I can make sure I reach 10,000 steps when I have a desk job.

Dr. Rhonda Patrick: It was not even 25 minutes, Derek. It was nine minutes maximum. These people were not even thinking about exercise. They were taking the stairs. Rather than getting into the car, they might ride their bike. They took advantage of everyday situations to get their heart rate up. Even that was beneficial.

Thinking about exercise snacks makes it easier for people. You can get up and do jumping jacks for two minutes. Whatever amount you want to do, you can start with three minutes, increase to six minutes, and then reach nine minutes a day. It is not that hard, and it is so beneficial.

I think it is time to rethink 10,000 steps. Many people have devices that measure their physical activity, whether it is a Fitbit, Apple Watch, Whoop, or something else. You can get that data and feedback. You might see that you got your heart rate up to a certain level for two minutes that day. That is a start.

Derek: If you were to rank the benefits of 10,000 steps, is it caloric expenditure? Are you training your cardiovascular system at all? Is it glucose management? How would you rank the benefits?

Dr. Rhonda Patrick: I think it depends on how vigorous the person’s steps are.

Derek: What about casual strolling?

Dr. Rhonda Patrick: There are metabolic benefits. You are activating glucose transporters to some degree, so you are getting those metabolic benefits.

You are also helping your cardiorespiratory fitness a little. There is increased blood flow, increased demand on the lungs, and adaptations that occur, but they are fairly minor. It is better than doing nothing. Those benefits add up.

When someone is not doing anything, a goal of 10,000 steps at least gives them something to keep in mind and work toward. It makes them put in an effort to move more. Moving more has metabolic benefits and some cardiorespiratory benefits. They are limited, but it is good compared with doing nothing.

Derek: If you compare that with the exercise-snack, HIIT-style activity that would theoretically replace it, you are getting better glucose management and better training of your cardiovascular system.

But what about caloric expenditure? I do not think anyone should create their calorie deficit through exercise. It is mainly determined in the kitchen. But if I spend nine minutes doing that instead of taking 10,000 steps, am I burning 300 fewer calories and therefore need to factor that in?

Dr. Rhonda Patrick: I do not really know. It depends on the person’s walking speed. That makes a difference, so it is hard to compare.

The bigger question would be brain benefits. It is clear that going to a higher intensity will maximize those brain benefits, and you are not getting as much of that from 10,000 steps.

There is also muscular adaptation. When you are walking, you are stressing your muscles only so much. It is more of a cardiovascular stress. But when you do a high-intensity activity—such as racing up the stairs or doing air squats—you are also engaging your muscles. You are getting that resistance training and increase in muscle protein synthesis as well.

There are many layers to why you would want to do more vigorous-intensity activity instead of only walking.

Derek: I would be very curious to see the effect on body composition—fat loss compared with muscle loss—among people in the same calorie deficit.

One person might be doing HIIT to manage glucose, while another is casually strolling and reducing food intake proportionally. Let us say they both have a 500-calorie deficit. I wonder whether either approach produces a better outcome. Would I lose more fat than muscle? Would I retain more muscle through this pathway, even if I am also doing hypertrophy work as an adjunct? Presumably, anyone watching this is not going to be doing only cardio, but it would be interesting.

Dr. Rhonda Patrick: Right. I think that by engaging the muscle, you would obviously get more hypertrophy. There is also somewhat of an afterburn effect with high-intensity interval training, where you continue burning calories after doing it.

I still think vigorous-intensity exercise wins, but it also depends on what you are doing. Are you going on the Peloton and just biking? Are you adding resistance so that you activate your quadriceps and hamstrings? If you are going to do exercise snacks, I think it is good to engage your muscles as well.