A new study has claimed that brisk walkers are at a serious health advantage to their slower walking counterparts, saying that the difference in life quality could be as high as 15 years.

This comes from researchers at University Hospitals Leicester, who analysed data taken from around 475,000 people with an average age of 52 over a 10-year period.

They looked at every single body type from underweight to morbidly obese, but the results were found across the board: fast walkers had a high life expectancy.

Women who walked briskly had a life expectancy of between 86.7 to 87.8 years old, whilst their male counterparts on average were expected to live to around 85.2 to 86.8 years old.

But what about the dawdlers? Women who strolled at a leisurely pace only lived on average to be 72.4 years old, while men who took their time were even lower at 64.8 years.

Tom Yates, professor of physical activity, sedentary behaviour and health at the University of Leicester and a lead author of the study, stated:

"Our findings could help clarify the relative importance of physical fitness compared to body weight on the life expectancy of individuals. In other words, the findings suggest that perhaps physical fitness is a better indicator of life expectancy than body mass index (BMI), and that encouraging the population to engage in brisk walking may add years to their lives."

But while co-author Dr Francesco Zaccardi, clinical epidemiologist at the Leicester Diabetes Centre based at Leicester General Hospital, confirmed the results, he did warn against taking the results at their face value. "Studies published so far have mainly shown the impact of body weight and physical fitness on mortality in terms of relative risk," he began.

"However, it is not always easy to interpret a 'relative risk'. Reporting in terms of life expectancy, conversely, is easier to interpret and gives a better idea of the separate and joint importance of body mass index and physical fitness."

This isn't the first study the two authors have done on the effects of slow walking on the human body. They also found last year that slow walkers were twice as likely to die from complications related to heart issues, even when factors such as smoking and/or their BMI were taken into account.

In a world where sedentary existence has become increasingly common, setting a daily step target can be an easy way to stay active. However, simply aiming for the golden figure that is 10,000 steps is merely a widely-peddled myth, according to a walking expert.

Dr Elroy Aguiar claims that while achieving the recommended daily step count is important, it’s not just the figure on the pedometer that matters — it’s how you got there, too.

What do experts suggest?

According to Dr Aguiar, the greatest health benefits come from combining a solid number of daily steps with a quicker pace, also known as cadence.

Research from his team, published in the British Journal of Sports Medicine, found that walking at more than 100 steps per minute is a good target for “moderate-intensity” exercise.

This matters because, as he explains, “all of the research in this area suggests that most of the benefits [from walking] accumulate at a moderate or higher intensity.”

Walking at around 100 steps per minute can deliver more substantial physical benefits than moving more slowly, mainly because of the increased effort required by the walker.

A faster pace raises your heart rate, boosts oxygen delivery to muscles, and increases overall intensity, placing the activity in the “moderate-intensity” category.

For years, hitting 10,000 steps a day has been treated like the gold standard of health. Credit: Milky Way / Getty

This aligns with guidance from the World Health Organisation, which recommends at least 150 minutes of moderate exercise per week, or 75 minutes of vigorous activity.

The good news is that this pace is realistic for most people. As Dr Aguiar puts it, “if most people went for a walk down the street, they would self-select a cadence of about 110 to 115 steps per minute, so 100 is a very achievable number.”

For those wanting to push harder, he adds: “If you wanted to bump the walk up to a vigorous intensity, you could walk at around 130 steps per minute… If you move within that range or slightly above, you can shift gears and get more benefit from the activity you’re doing.”

Experts discuss how to get the best results

When it comes to total steps, the science is less clear if pace isn’t taken into account. Dr Aguiar notes that “similar studies have shown that volume is not significant unless you also do it at a higher intensity.”

To get the best results, he recommends combining both factors. You don’t necessarily need to hit 10,000 steps either. Instead, “the research is suggesting around 7,000 to 8,000 steps per day… and part of that should include 20 to 30 minutes of walking at 100 to 130 steps per minute or faster.”

He describes this as “the most efficient combination for getting the volume and intensity benefits,” while also noting that “there is no higher limit to how much walking activity is good or bad for you – the more steps you get, the better it is”.

In short, walking is one of the easiest ways to improve your health, but to truly reap the rewards, gathering a brisk pace offers greater benefit than simply striving towards the 10,000 target, which while still advisable, doesn’t take on quite the significance it once did.

Featured Image. Credit: Milky Way / Getty

In order to lead a healthy lifestyle, there are a number of things that a person needs. For starters, we need food and water, sleep and exercise, and a safe place to stay. But that's not all we need to be happy. Factor that into the equation, and we also need goals to strive for, things to look forward to, and, most importantly, other people to enjoy ourselves with.

We've known for a while now that too much of some of these things can be fatal. Too much food, of course, leads to obesity, and that, in turn, can cause or worsen a number of health problems that may eventually lead to an early death.

According to one study, however, being single can be even deadlier.

In a study conducted at Brigham Young University in the US, researchers looked into 218 studies that explained the health effects of loneliness and social isolation. What they discovered was that social isolation raised a person’s risk of death by 50 per cent; meanwhile, obesity only raised that risk by 30 per cent.

Dr. Julianne Holt-Lunstad, the lead author of the study, said: "Being connected to others socially is widely considered a fundamental human need, crucial to both well-being and survival.

"Extreme examples show infants in custodial care who lack human contact fail to thrive and often die, and indeed, social isolation or solitary confinement has been used as a form of punishment.

"Yet an increasing portion of the US population now experiences isolation regularly."

Of course, this doesn't just apply to being single. However, those with romantic partners are less likely to feel lonely than those without, and so having an other half definitely seems to be something of a necessity for wellbeing as well as just something that many of us desire.

What's more, many people who do experience loneliness tend to be older, and therefore are already at a higher risk of death from natural causes than younger people. Even with that considered, though, being alone has still been proven to be a contributing factor towards death. Indeed, a recent investigation, titled 'Loneliness in Older Persons: A Predictor of Functional Decline and Death' followed more than 1,600 adults with an average age of 71 and found that individuals who felt lonely died sooner than their more socially-engaged peers.

"There is robust evidence that social isolation and loneliness significantly increase risk for premature mortality, and the magnitude of the risk exceeds that of many leading health indicators," explained Holt-Lunstad.

"With an increasing aging population, the effect on public health is only anticipated to increase. Indeed, many nations around the world now suggest we are facing a ‘loneliness epidemic.’ The challenge we face now is what can be done about it."

So far, her main suggestion for helping to combat the epidemic is to teach the effects of it in school, and ensure that children have the social skills to prevent them from experiencing loneliness, but also to furnish them with the knowledge of how important it is to make sure that others aren't lonely.

And if you're currently feeling lonely while reading this, or know someone who might be, reach out! There are so many things you can do in order to spend more time with people - and dating is only one of them.

Is there anything worse than a slow walker? We've all been there: desperate to get our shopping done and dusted, only to be stuck behind someone who walks so leisurely, they might as well be standing still.

Well, have no fear bargain hunters, because a mall revolutionized shopping as we know it last year.

In November 2017, Lakeside Centre, a large out-of-town shopping centre in Essex, England introduced a fast lane for those of us who don't have all day to wait around while the two people in front of us have a slow-paced, intimate chat.

The 220-metre lane gives fast walkers the chance to pick up whatever they need quickly and get the hell out of there.

The management team claimed the lane claim designed for shoppers "who know where they want to go quickly and don’t want to get caught up behind leisurely shoppers on this busiest time of the retail year."

The fast lane's introduction came after a MasterCard survey found that slow walkers were the biggest annoyance of 80 per cent of shoppers - especially when it comes to Christmastime.

According to the study, the average walking speed is 2.85 miles per hour, but this drops by more than 20 per cent when people take to the stores to do their Christmas shopping.

In the UK, people in the South East were said to be the fastest walkers with an average shopping speed of 2.92 mph, whereas Scottish shoppers were the slowest at 2.77mph.

[[twitterwidget||https://twitter.com/MrBlairHughes/status/936155955275776000]]

In addition, the research divided people in four different types of shoppers: Dodgers, Skaters, Tutters, and Bull-dozers.

So, what exactly do these terms mean? First of all, there are the 'dodgers', the shoppers who consistently change paths and directions, going between sluggish walkers who get in their way. Unsurprisingly, 51 per cent of the population allegedly fall into this category.

Next up, are 'skaters', who make up 31 per cent of people on the high street. These people have the rare skill of being able to "elegantly manoeuvre" their way through a crowd, politely avoiding conflict with others. Teach us your ways, skaters!

Thirdly are the 'tutters'. If you're a tutter - as 15 per cent of people out there are - you are massively passive aggressive and are recognised for mumbling, grumbling, and complaining loudly about the people who surround you. Guilty as charged.

Last of all come the 'bull-dozers': the 11 per cent of us who actively shove their way through big crowds, foregoing most niceties. Hey, sometimes you gotta do what you gotta do.

Mastercard News' Head of Masterpass, Elliott Goldenberg said: "Our spending data shows a real change in buying behaviour as people continue to blend both online shopping and visiting stores for gifts. What technology gives them is speed and convenience, but they really want to see that experience reflected on the high street. Intu Lakeside is a great example of how retailers are adapting to these needs, and catering to a much broader range of shopper preferences."

So what kind of shopper are you?

We've all got different tastes and palates, but while the internet is inundated with fiery debates on the merits of mushrooms and pineapple on pizza (for the record, it's an emphatic no from me on both counts), I think we can all agree on the fact that chocolate is awesome.

Stir it into your desserts, drizzle it atop a scoop of ice cream or chow down in its various candy bar forms, we all love the stuff, don't we? Of course, due to its large sugar content, we try to stay away from chocolate. But on this occasion, science has decided to be our friend, and explain why in some ways, chocolate ain't so bad after all.

A study from the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition explained that for the sake of your blood pressure, responsible for controlling your risk of a stroke, you should probably be eating chocolate. Or, at least, taking a cocoa flavanol supplement on a regular basis. But that doesn't sound as fun, does it?

"People can decrease their blood pressure by having a daily intake of flavanols," explained Dr Ana Rodriguez Mateo of Kings College London, who's also the lead researcher of this rather handy study. So, how did the scientists come to this conclusion?

Well, they looked at 45 healthy German men between the ages of 18 and 35, and took their blood pressure readings over the course of about a month. Splitting the men into three groups of 15, the subjects were given either a high or low dose of cocoa flavanol, or a dummy pill.

Here's what they found: those test subjects on the higher dosage of flavanol reported higher levels of blood pressure than the lower dosage or the dummy pill poppers. Dr Mateo confirmed this, saying: "Those taking the high dose of cocoa flavonols had an average six-point drop in blood pressure."

"We have done a number of studies and the evidence is stronger for people who already have high blood pressure, but we need more clinical data to be sure. We haven’t got trials studying people over many years but we would assume that short term results would be the same over a number of years."

But before you stuff that entire Kit-Kat into your mouth, I'm sorry to say that this doesn't exactly mean you can just eat chocolate and live forever. I wish it meant that, I really do. Dr Mateo explains that you'd have to eat a whole load of chocolates to see the effects, and the corresponding sugar levels would probably render all that hard work useless.

"You would have to eat huge quantities of chocolate to get this level of flavanols, and even if you tried you would be cancelling out any benefit by eating vast amounts of extra fat and sugar at the same time."

Ah well, folks. Even though it can't reduce your blood pressure, chocolate's already great for improving your mood, with plenty of antioxidants - plus, it might help to get rid of colds. So you've got plenty of explanations for biting into that extra candy bar.