Step counting is a weak measure — here is what to use instead

Step counts are an appealing measure because everyone already has one on their phone. But it is a weak measure for comparing one person with another, and in a team challenge comparing people with each other is exactly what you are doing.

Three specific limitations

1. Steps do not measure intensity

1,000 steps of strolling and 1,000 steps of sprinting are very different levels of effort but produce the same score. Over a long challenge, that rewards someone who walks for many hours and gives no credit to someone training hard for a short time.

WHO’s guidance distinguishes moderate from vigorous intensity by the effort a session demands, a quality that no step count records at all.

2. Height and stride length skew the comparison

Two people walking the same 5 km, and the taller one usually takes fewer steps, since longer legs tend to mean longer strides (a general tendency we did not measure). Nobody is “training less”, yet a ranking based on steps puts the taller person lower. In a challenge mixing different groups of people, this skew is systematic, not random.

3. Step counting misses most other activity

Swimming, cycling, strength training and yoga produce few or no steps on most step counters. If points count steps only, a team with strong swimmers ranks below a team that only walks. The result is distorted motivation: participants learn to pick the activity that scores well rather than the activity they enjoy.

Why weighted activity minutes are better

Activity minutes have three advantages:

• They capture effort, not just distance. A minute of running is not a minute of walking, and an intensity factor records the difference.
• They apply to every activity type. Swimming, cycling and strength training all convert into the same unit.
• Participants can check them. They know how long they trained without having to trust a step-counting algorithm.

The scientific basis for setting factors is public: the Compendium of Physical Activities supplies MET values by activity type, data that is openly available and widely used in activity research.

A proposed conversion table

If you are stuck with steps

Sometimes there is no choice: the workplace devices count steps and nothing else. Two ways to reduce the skew:

1. Normalise per person. Compare each person against their own first week (percentage increase), not against other people.
2. Use a threshold instead of a total. Award points for the number of days reaching a threshold the organisers set (8,000 steps is used here only as an illustration), rather than summing steps. This reduces the effect of one very long walking day and is fairer between consistent trainers and people who cram everything into one session.

Both of these are workarounds, and it should be stated clearly that a substitute measure is being used.

Sources

• WHO, Physical activity fact sheet — moderate and vigorous intensity; 150 minutes of moderate-intensity activity per week (opened 2026-10-28)
• Compendium of Physical Activities, walking — 3.8 METs at 2.8 to 3.4 mph and 4.8 METs at 3.5 to 3.9 mph (opened 2026-10-31)
• Compendium of Physical Activities, running — 8.5 METs at 5.0 to 5.2 mph (opened 2026-10-31)
• Compendium of Physical Activities, bicycling — 4.0 METs under 10 mph and 6.8 METs at 10 to 11.9 mph (opened 2026-10-31)