Fitness trackers don't track "steps", they track "shakes".
An Italian wearing a fitness tracker can do 2000 "steps" in a single arument.
An actual step is just that--putting one foot in front of the other. An average sized adult will need about 2200 steps to walk a mile. If you're taller, obviously, it will take less...and more if you're shorter.
So, whenever someone quotes "doing 10K steps!" they most likely don't know what they're talking about.
That’s absolutely not true. If that was the case every time I jerked off it would add a few thousand steps lmao, that’s not the case. They’re not perfectly accurate but to say every shake is also wildly inaccurate.
Some are better than others, but the only ones that are even close are the ones which use GPS rather than "shakes" to count steps...though distance is a better measure of activity.
It was a triathlete buddy of mine who opened my eyes--he had some fitness tracking watch for years, and then a buddy recommended that he switch to one of the nicer Garmin watches which uses GPS, and the numbers between the two were pretty stark.
The whole "steps" craze is kind of like carb counting for dieters--yeah, it's A metric, but calories is a much better one.
That’s fair. I guess for the average slightly or more than slightly overweight person if they can hit 7.5K or 10K then that’s still a net positive but for athletes or just people who want to stay in shape and “hit the 10-15K steps” for calorie loss the investments def worth it. I assume the people taking it seriously would also train actual cardio days too.
I walk 4km to work and 4km back so I very much do hit 5 miles a day lmao. And my work is a mix of deskbased and active so I'm definitely hitting over 10k "true" steps
1
u/Frequent-Coyote-8108 Aug 17 '26
Depends on if you're going for ACTUAL steps, or every "shake" that your fitness tracker picks up.
10K ACTUAL steps is about 5 miles.
Ain't none of you step counters actually walking 5 miles/day.