The standard recommendation for 'moderate' intensity (male) is 100 steps per minute. The best I can manage is about 92 per minute. However, all my walking is done:
(a) over rough ground,
(b) over 'undulating' ground (as in inclines - figures are for low to high, not distance - of up 50m, down 20m, up 30m, down 40m, up 40m, down 30m up 20m, down 50m over a 4km walk);
Obviously that terrain makes a difference. Are there any experts around who can give me an idea of what my 92spm pace equates to? I imagine it must be a lot more than 100 and I would test out my theory but there is no level ground round here!
I'm sorry I can't be of help with your question, but I was wondering where you got that info, about the standard intensity recommendation. I'm a walker, so it'd be interesting to see how far off I am from it.
Not sure if this will help but it's intresting.
To find your stride measure 30 feet (I stole the kids chalk to mark start and end) then start walking a few feet behind the line, count how many steps you take to get to for one to the other. divid 30' by steps = stride
I take 120-140 steps per/min. I have short legs and a husbnd with long legs so I have been training for years to keep up. LOL.
If you only know your permin (you don't have a counter) add 92x60= 5520
(at a 3 foot stride which is hubby's that's 3.2 miles per hour.)
I checked mine a few weeks ago and I do 125 per minute. I found a website that said 100+ per minute is considered power walking. Didn't save the link though.
The info came from various web sites (Google search "steps per minute") but is actually fairly useless - typical (mis)reporting of a scientific study.
I have since found the abstract of the study: 97 adults (mean age of 32.1 and a mean BMI of 28.8) completed four 6-minute incremental walking bouts on a level treadmill. Headline of the conclusion was "moderate-intensity walking appears approximately equal to at least" 100spm ... but the second sentence pointed out that "step counts per minute is a poor proxy for METs" and so 100spm should be used "only as a general physical activity promotion heuristic."
So (perhaps unsurprisingly) what I really need to find are some good MET figures ...
PS (re other comments) I use a pedometer (Omron HJ-113) which seems fairly accurate - I have calibrated it with routes of o.8km and 1.1km over which I have counted my own steps (gives me a much more accurate stride length than testing a mere 30m or 50m). The only problem I have noted with the pedometer is that some 'phantom' steps get added while driving.
I don't get the "phantom steps because I walk from my front door, do our loop, then back to my door.
I use the site for the mph to add my activity here.