Adjusting NEAT vs structured exercise for caloric expenditure?

Training Q&A [Moderated]
1

I hear many people, especially in the bodybuilding sphere, talk about increasing NEAT for fat loss. Both competitors and those more in the research space. Someone says something like “I’ll up my step count by parking far away to get to work.”

what confuses me is if someone is intentionally adjusting their daily routine to ups steps, isn’t that not increasing NEAT but more so adding more structured exercise? Not to mention upping step count will probably have little impact on energy expenditure anyway. Just wanted to hear your thoughts.

I also have a bonus question about step counts. I understand that very deconditioned individuals could benefit from higher step counts for activity. However for more well trained people wouldn’t it be more beneficial to engage in structured conditioning that actually elevates the HR to induce better cardiovascular adaptations? My example would be a recreational swimmer who works a sedentary job. Sure they may have low step counts, but just getting more steps without challenging the cardiovascular system is unlikely to help their fitness much?

I’m just a rehab clinician but I’d love to hear thoughts, thanks!

2

Yes. You’ve crystallized exactly my argument.

By definition, exercise is a repetitive, goal-directed behavior that is designed to improve fitness, health, and/or performance. Non-Exercise-Activity-Thermogenesis (NEAT), i.e. Non-Exercise Energy Expenditure (NEEx), includes spontaneous physical activity (twitches, shivering), occupational activity, and other activities of daily life.

As you identified and based on this framework, going for a walk to increase energy expenditure would clearly quality as exercise. Adding more can be useful for more energy expenditure, but the body continues to adapt. The amount of adaptation varies based on the context.

We actually covered the step count discussion in detail on our latest Direct Line Ask Us Anything for our Barbell Medicine Plus subscribers. We spend ~ 15 min talking about it, which may be worth a dollar for you to check it out. Otherwise, a brief synopsis:

The 10,000-step target originated in 1960s Japanese marketing, not science. The evidence shows diminishing returns after roughly 7,500–8,000 steps/day. Walking can be sufficient for general health if done at very high volumes (15,000–20,000+ steps/day), but most people don’t have that time. Lower-intensity activity requires more volume for the same energy throughput. As time decreases, intensity must increase. For clients with limited training time, structured conditioning (even short HIIT sessions) addresses CRF in ways that step counts alone cannot.

The crux of your bonus question is whether Physical Activity Level (PAL), the ratio of total energy expenditure to basal metabolic rate, equally affects risk disease and mortality compared to Cardiorespiratory Fitness (CRF) . Based on available data, CRF is a better predictor, though it also includes non activity factors like genetic determinants of fitness. I’d favor a higher CRF (which generally requires a higher PAL to develop) over a higher PAL with the a lower CRF (all walking).

3

Awesome thanks for detailed answer! I was unfamiliar with the info about the benefits of higher step counts in that 15k+ range.

Appreciate everything you and the team do. I’ve followed y’all since I was 15 years old (now 26!) and use of lot of my learnings here with my patients every day!

Joe

4

That’s awesome. Thank you for the support over the years!