You may be laser-focused on hitting your daily step count goal. But have you ever considered the length of the walks you take to get there?

You should, according to a study recently published in Annals of Internal Medicine. Walking for at least 10 to 15 minutes at a time seems to be better for your health and longevity than taking lots of shorter strolls, the study suggests.

Particularly for people who are fairly inactive, taking “two 10- to 15-minute walks a day is better than walking around the house all day” in short bursts, co-lead author Borja del Pozo Cruz, PhD, a professor of sports sciences at Universidad Europea de Madrid in Spain, told Health.

Lots of researchers, including del Pozo Cruz, have tried to determine the ideal number of steps to take per day to optimize health. (Del Pozo Cruz’s research suggests it’s somewhere between 7,000 and 10,000.)

But del Pozo Cruz and his team wanted to know whether it matters when and how those steps are taken—in short chunks, or during longer strolls.

To find out, they analyzed step-count data gathered from more than 33,000 adults ages 40 to 79 who wore activity trackers for up to a week. People in the study were somewhat inactive, with daily step counts below 8,000.

The researchers divided the participants into four categories: those who got most of their daily steps during walks shorter than five minutes, during walks of at least five but less than 10 minutes, during walks of at least 10 but less than 15 minutes, or during walks longer than 15 minutes.

Those who got most of their steps during longer walks, they found, were less likely to die or experience cardiovascular problems (such as a heart attack or stroke) during a follow-up period of around eight years.

Specifically, people who got most of their steps during super-short walks had a roughly 4% chance of dying and a 13% chance of suffering a cardiovascular problem. Among people who walked for at least 15 minutes at a time, those numbers dropped to 0.8% and roughly 4%.

That said, the study wasn’t designed to prove cause and effect, only to uncover patterns based on a relatively short period of data collection and follow-up. There could have been some “reverse causation” at play—that is, people in better health to begin with may have been more likely to take longer walks—although the researchers tried to minimize that possibility by excluding participants with serious preexisting conditions or self-reported poor health.

When doing low-intensity physical activity like walking, del Pozo Cruz said, it may take time to fire up the cardiometabolic system in ways that benefit health, such as by improving heart rate variability and insulin sensitivity.

Decades of research support that idea, agreed Kelley Pettee Gabriel, PhD, a professor of epidemiology at the University of Alabama at Birmingham who studies physical activity but was not involved in the new research.

It takes time to “turn on the physiology,” Gabriel told Health. “So the findings did not surprise me.”

But what about the many studies that say “exercise snacks”—otherwise known as extremely brief workouts of just a few minutes—can meaningfully improve well-being? Does the new study conflict with those?

Del Pozo Cruz doesn’t think so. Intensity is the key, he said. If you’re moving vigorously, a bite-sized workout may be enough to get your systems firing. But for mellower activities, like walking, more time may be necessary.

Don’t forget about your step count just yet, said Amanda Paluch, PhD, an associate professor of kinesiology at the University of Massachusetts Amherst who studies physical activity but was not involved with the new research.

Plenty of prior studies—including hers—suggest that “total volume of steps is really what’s most important,” Paluch told Health.

The new study starts an important conversation about the impact of walking patterns, a topic that scientists know less about, Paluch said. While the findings are preliminary, they suggest that longer walks may hold particular benefits for the cardiovascular system, she said.

Ideally, people would pay attention to both activity duration and total number of steps, Gabriel said. A study published in 2024 concluded that both are good ways to measure progress toward physical activity goals.

In a perfect world, people would “move as often as possible and squeeze in two purposeful walks [of at least 10 to 15 minutes] per day,” del Pozo Cruz said.

But something is always better than nothing, Paluch said. A longer walk might be optimal, especially for the cardiovascular system—but if you’re limited by your health, schedule, or energy, it’s still worth taking a shorter outing. After all, lots of studies suggest that breaking up sedentary time, even with brief and light-intensity activity, may be beneficial for health.

“If people are only able to step for two minutes at a time, we certainly wouldn’t want to discourage them from doing that,” Gabriel agreed.

Look for opportunities to add walks to the activities you’re already doing, Gabriel recommended. Pick a distant parking spot at the grocery store, for example, or walk laps around the field while your child is at soccer practice. If your community isn’t safe for outdoor walking, see if there’s a mall or community center where you can get some steps in, Gabriel added.

“It’s not an all-or-nothing situation,” Paluch said. Every step is a step toward better health.