For thirteen months I averaged 4,295 steps a day. Well below the 10,000 you’ve been told you need. And I lost four and a half stone and eight and a half inches off my waist.
Not in spite of the low step count. Alongside it. Which made me look hard at what the 10,000-steps advice is actually based on, and whether the mechanism people think is doing the work when they walk is the mechanism that’s actually doing the work. Turns out I’d had it the wrong way round for years. Dr Vonda Wright, an orthopaedic surgeon who has spent decades studying muscle physiology, reframed this completely for me. And once I understood what she said, the step counter stopped being the point entirely.
The Advice That Made Perfect Sense
The 10,000-steps guidance has been around so long it feels like it came from a study. It sounds scientific. It has a number. And the reasoning genuinely makes sense on the surface: more movement means more calories burned, more calories burned means fat comes off, therefore walk more and lose weight.
The NHS promotes it. Every fitness tracker is built around it. GPs mention it in lifestyle conversations. I believed it myself for years.
Most of us who come to this kind of content have the same starting experience: I’ve got weight around my middle that won’t shift no matter what I do. I was doing what I was told. Walking more, trying to hit the target, tracking the steps. The weight was going nowhere. I didn’t question the target. I questioned myself.
That’s what the advice does when it doesn’t work. It puts the failure back on you.
Dr Vonda Wright put the mechanism plainly: muscle is a critical vehicle for pulling glucose out of the blood, turning it into the energy our body needs. The more muscle you have, the more efficient you are at doing that. Which sounds reasonable enough, until you follow the implication. Because the 10,000-steps message skips that implication entirely. And it’s the thing that changed how I think about movement completely.
What the Data Showed Before
I want to go back to 2023, specifically to the Isle of Wight where I was living before December that year. I was eighteen stone. Multiple medications. And I was walking. Genuinely. I love a walk. I was doing 10,000 steps and more on good days, following coastal paths, getting fresh air.
I went from eighteen stone to about seventeen stone.
And then I stopped losing weight. Completely. Nothing moved. I was walking 10,000 steps. Eating what I thought was reasonably well. And somewhere between seventeen stone and sixteen stone nine, the scale just sat there. For months.
There was a practical problem I didn’t talk about much at the time. At eighteen stone, chafe was a real issue. Ninety minutes of walking in the heat and I was in genuine discomfort. So the idea that I could cheerfully knock out 10,000 steps a day regardless of conditions wasn’t really the reality. On bad Yorkshire days, raining and cold, I’d average maybe a thousand steps. On good days, six thousand, perhaps more.
WMTWL-3317, my step count dataset from Boxing Day 2023 through to October 2025, shows average daily steps across the entire transformation period: 4,295. Not 10,000. Not even close. And in the Isle of Wight period before that, when I was genuinely trying, genuinely walking, I hit a ceiling I couldn’t break.
What wasn’t changing was the food. What wasn’t changing was insulin. I was walking, but I was eating in a way that kept insulin elevated, kept my body locked into fat storage, and the walking simply couldn’t override that.
What Actually Changed
Boxing Day 2023. I looked in the mirror and said this ends now.
I didn’t set a new step target. I changed what I was eating and when: 18:6 fasting window, non-UPF food, kept it simple. The step target went out the window entirely. My life didn’t allow for a ninety-minute walk every single day. So I moved when I could. Walked when I felt like it. On good days maybe six thousand steps. On bad ones, under two thousand.
From early 2024 onwards I added some resistance training. Short sessions. Bodyweight first, then weighted. Not a gym programme. Just building muscle. Because I’d started to understand something about what muscle actually does to blood sugar, and that understanding changed everything.
Here’s what muscle is doing, and it took me longer than it should have to see it clearly. Your muscles are like a water butt in the garden. After heavy rain, a large butt with capacity absorbs the overflow quickly and cleanly. A small butt, or one that’s already full, lets the water run off and flood things downstream. After you eat, blood sugar rises and needs somewhere to go. Muscle tissue is the primary reservoir. The more muscle you have, the faster and more efficiently it drains the post-meal spike. Exercise keeps the water butt empty enough to absorb the next meal.
The steps weren’t the story. The story was what was happening to insulin.
The Numbers After
The waist data is where this gets stark.
WMTWL-EVID-140. Waist measurement, Boxing Day 2023: 48 inches. Waist measurement, December 2025: 39.5 inches. Eight and a half inches. Averaging 4,295 steps a day. Below what any tracker would call a success.
The weight: eighteen stone at the start, dropped through seventeen, sixteen, fifteen, touched twelve stone fourteen at the lowest. The lightest I’d been since my early thirties.
And in October 2025, WMTWL-3289, one day I hit 20,000 steps. Not because I planned it. Just kept going. Morning walk, afternoon errands, evening stroll. Energy to spare. Eighteen months earlier at eighteen stone, 2,000 steps left me breathless. The capacity to move more had come from losing the weight. The weight loss had not come from moving more.
Biochemist Jessie Inchauspé, who has written extensively on glucose, found that when we move after eating, we flatten our glucose curve without increasing insulin. The muscles absorb glucose directly. That’s not nothing. But it’s a supporting mechanism, not the primary driver.
My GP wasn’t tracking step counts in our reviews. She was tracking cholesterol, uric acid, HbA1c, kidney function. The body composition change showed up in the clinical picture. What she said was: whatever you’re doing, keep doing it.
Why the Advice Didn’t Keep Up
The 10,000-steps guideline wasn’t drawn from metabolic research on fat loss. Most people are surprised to learn it originated from a Japanese marketing campaign for a pedometer in the 1960s. A round number that looked good on a device. The guidelines didn’t account for insulin’s role in whether the body stores or burns fat. Not because anyone was being dishonest. The science on insulin dynamics and the glucose sink function of muscle has developed significantly since then.
You were given a map drawn before we understood this. Of course the route didn’t take you where you expected.
What the Data Suggests
What my data suggests, and it’s one person’s data, thirteen months, N=1, is that step count was not the primary driver of my body composition change. The primary drivers were fasting and food quality, because those are the things that changed insulin. Movement supported the process. Specifically, walking after eating helped flatten blood sugar, and resistance training built muscle, which improved how efficiently blood sugar cleared over time.
The 10,000-step target on its own, without changing what and when I was eating, produced a plateau I sat in for months.
None of this means walking doesn’t matter. It absolutely does. Movement is non-negotiable for long-term health: cardiovascular function, joint health, mental clarity, longevity. If your GP has recommended increasing your activity levels, that conversation is worth having properly, not dismissing. The guidelines exist for good reasons and for people not changing anything else, more walking is almost certainly better than less.
But if you’re watching your numbers, noticing your belly fat isn’t shifting despite walking regularly, wondering why the effort isn’t producing results, this might be worth raising with your GP before the clinical conversation becomes more urgent. The mechanism that determines whether your body stores or burns fat operates at the hormonal level. No amount of steps overrides it if the inputs that drive it haven’t changed.
That’s not about you. That’s biology.
I’ll leave that with you.
🎯 Key Takeaways
- Step count alone isn’t the driver: My 4,295 daily average produced significant fat loss because the hormonal environment changed. Walking supported the process; fasting and food quality were the primary levers.
- Muscle is your primary glucose sink: The more muscle tissue you have, the more efficiently blood sugar clears after meals. Resistance training builds that capacity permanently.
- Walking after eating does something specific: It activates muscle glucose uptake at the exact moment blood sugar is rising. Short post-meal walks have an outsized metabolic effect relative to their effort.
- The capacity to move more followed the fat loss: By October 2025 I was hitting 20,000 steps on some days. That wasn’t discipline. It was what happened when the body was working properly again.
- The 10,000-step guideline predates modern metabolic understanding: That’s not a reason to ignore movement. It’s a reason to understand what movement is actually doing.
Ready to Understand the Mechanism Behind Your Fat Loss?
If this has made you curious about what fasting actually does to insulin, and why changing the when of eating changed the results when changing the how much didn’t, the 7-Day Fasting Blueprint covers it clearly. Free download, no catch.
👉 Get the 14-Day Rhythm Reset Guide (free)
💪 Want ongoing support? Join Rhythm Club for £30/month (includes FREE app access, community, and weekly accountability calls)
⚠️ Important: This is educational content based on evidence and personal experience. It is not medical advice. Speak to your GP before making changes to your fasting pattern, diet, or medication.
Questions? Email hello@waymorethanweightloss.com
© 2025 Way More Than Weight Loss. All Rights Reserved.
