The Firing of Professors Ralph Martin, Eduardo Echeverria, and Edward Peters from Sacred Heart Major Seminary: A Deep Dive into Controversy

The Firing of Professors Ralph Martin, Eduardo Echeverria, and Edward Peters from Sacred Heart Major Seminary: A Deep Dive into ControversyIn July 2025, the Catholic community was rocked by news of a significant shake-up at Sacred Heart Major Seminary in Detroit, 

Michigan. Archbishop Edward J. Weisenburger, newly installed as the leader of the Archdiocese of Detroit, terminated the contracts of three prominent faculty members: Dr. Ralph Martin, Dr. Eduardo Echeverria, and Dr. Edward Peters. The dismissals, which occurred on or around July 23, 2025, have sparked intense debate, with reactions ranging from outrage to approval among Catholics and observers. This blog post explores the circumstances surrounding the firings, the stated and speculated reasons behind them, the diverse reactions from the Catholic community, and the controversial statements or teachings by the professors that may have contributed to their dismissal. Drawing on recent reports, this post aims to provide a balanced and critical examination of this polarizing event.

The Situation: A Sudden and Unexpected Termination

On July 23, 2025, Archbishop Weisenburger informed Ralph Martin and Eduardo Echeverria that their positions at Sacred Heart Major Seminary were terminated effective immediately. Two days later, on July 25, Edward Peters announced via a post on X that his teaching contract had also been terminated by the archbishop. The three professors, each with over two decades of service at the seminary, were well-known figures in Catholic academic and theological circles. Their abrupt dismissals sent shockwaves through the Catholic community, particularly given the lack of detailed public explanations from the Archdiocese of Detroit.

- Ralph Martin, 82, had been a professor of theology and director of graduate programs in the New Evangelization since 2002. A leading figure in the Catholic Charismatic Renewal movement, Martin founded Renewal Ministries and hosted the EWTN program The Choices We Face. He holds a doctorate in sacred theology from the Pontifical Faculty of St. Thomas Aquinas (The Angelicum) in Rome and was appointed by Pope Benedict XVI as a consultor to the Pontifical Council for the Promotion of the New Evangelization in 2011. Martin expressed shock at his termination, noting his 23 years of contributions to the seminary, including leading its flagship Licentiate of Sacred Theology Degree in the New Evangelization. He reported that Archbishop Weisenburger cited “concerns about my theological perspectives” but declined to provide specifics.[](https://www.ncregister.com/news/ralph-martin-eduardo-echeverria-dismissal)[](https://www.ncregister.com/news/firing-shock-for-theologian-ralph-martin)

- Eduardo Echeverria, 74, was a professor of philosophy and systematic theology since 2003. A respected scholar, Echeverria authored several books, including Pope Francis: The Legacy of Vatican II and Are We Together?: A Roman Catholic Analyzes Evangelical Protestants. He was known for his work in ecumenical dialogue and contributions to publications like The Catholic Thing and Catholic World Report. Echeverria confirmed his dismissal to the National Catholic Register but was unable to elaborate due to a non-disclosure agreement.[](https://www.ncregister.com/news/ralph-martin-eduardo-echeverria-dismissal)[](https://catholicreview.org/detroit-archbishop-fires-theologians-ralph-martin-eduardo-echeverria-from-seminary/)

- Edward Peters, a canon lawyer in his late 60s, had taught at the seminary since 2005, holding the Edmund Cardinal Szoka Chair. Peters, one of the most prominent lay canon lawyers in the United States, was appointed by Pope Benedict XVI as a referendary to the Apostolic Signatura in 2010. He is known for his orthodox approach to ecclesiastical law and publications such as the English translation of the 1917 Code of Canon Law. Peters announced his firing on X, stating he had retained counsel and offering prayers for those affected, but he provided no further comment.[](https://www.ncregister.com/news/edward-peters-is-third-faculty-member-fired-by-detroit-archbishop)[](https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2025/07/29/canon-law-expert-edward-peters-is-third-faculty-member-fired-by-detroit-archbishop/)

The Archdiocese of Detroit, through its communications directors Holly Fournier and Angela Brown, consistently declined to comment on the firings, stating, “The Archdiocese of Detroit does not comment on archdiocesan or seminary personnel matters.” This lack of transparency has fueled speculation and controversy, with many questioning the motivations behind the dismissals.[](https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/detroit-archbishop-fires-renowned-conservative-professors-from-sacred-heart-seminary/)[](https://www.osvnews.com/detroit-archbishop-fires-theologians-ralph-martin-eduardo-echeverria-from-seminary/?=)

The Reasoning Behind the Firings

While the Archdiocese of Detroit has not provided an official explanation, the firings appear to be linked to the professors’ public criticisms of the late Pope Francis, who died on April 21, 2025. Archbishop Weisenburger, appointed by Pope Francis in February 2025 and installed in March, is perceived as aligning with Francis’ more progressive theological and pastoral approaches. The professors, in contrast, were known for their orthodox and conservative perspectives, particularly their concerns about doctrinal ambiguity in Pope Francis’ teachings and actions.[](https://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/detroit/2025/07/31/archbishop-edward-weisenburger-detroit-archdiocese-catholic-church-sacred-heart-seminary-professors/85408993007/)

- Ralph Martin’s Criticisms: Martin was vocal about what he perceived as confusion caused by Pope Francis. In his 2021 book, A Church in Crisis, he described a reluctance to dispel ambiguity as “almost a hallmark” of Francis’ approach. Following the 2018 sex abuse scandal involving then-Cardinal Theodore McCarrick, Martin wrote a letter to Catholics, acknowledging Francis’ positive contributions but criticizing actions that he believed led to “confusion and disunity in the Church.” In 2018, Martin also supported Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò’s claims against Pope Francis and expressed concern over Francis’ hope that hell might be empty, arguing it contradicted his belief that hell is populated.[](https://catholicreview.org/detroit-archbishop-fires-theologians-ralph-martin-eduardo-echeverria-from-seminary/)[](https://www.ncronline.org/opinion/false-orthodoxy-and-fired-professors)

- Eduardo Echeverria’s Statements: Echeverria similarly critiqued Pope Francis for contributing to a “crisis in the Church” due to ambiguous words and actions. In a 2019 revision to his book Pope Francis: The Legacy of Vatican II, he wrote that Francis’ lack of clarity and tendency to demean Christian doctrine exacerbated doctrinal, moral, and ecclesial issues. In a 2022 interview with Crisis Magazine, Echeverria argued that Francis’ apostolic exhortation Amoris Laetitia was not orthodox, particularly in its approach to pastoral and moral reasoning.[](https://catholicreview.org/detroit-archbishop-fires-theologians-ralph-martin-eduardo-echeverria-from-seminary/)[](https://www.ncronline.org/opinion/false-orthodoxy-and-fired-professors)

- Edward Peters’ Critiques: Peters, through his blog In Light of the Law, critiqued Pope Francis’ Amoris Laetitia for “writing flaws” and its suggestion that divorced-and-civilly-remarried Catholics might receive the Eucharist in certain cases. He also criticized Francis’ handling of the McCarrick case and other sexual abuse issues, as well as the 2018 revision to the Catechism on the death penalty. Peters was known for seeking canonical loopholes to interpret Francis’ teachings in ways that aligned with traditional doctrine.[](https://www.ncregister.com/news/edward-peters-is-third-faculty-member-fired-by-detroit-archbishop)[](https://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/detroit/2025/07/31/archbishop-edward-weisenburger-detroit-archdiocese-catholic-church-sacred-heart-seminary-professors/85408993007/)

These criticisms are central to the argument made by some, like Mike Lewis of Where Peter Is, who described the firings as “necessary and overdue.” Lewis argued that the professors’ public dissent from Pope Francis’ magisterial teachings violated the doctrine outlined in Vatican II’s Lumen Gentium (no. 25), the Catechism (no. 892), Canon Law (can. 752), and the Professio Fidei, which require religious submission to the pope’s ordinary magisterial teachings. Lewis and others viewed the professors’ actions as scandalous, particularly given their roles in forming seminarians.[](https://wherepeteris.com/false-orthodoxy-and-fired-professors/)[](https://www.ncronline.org/opinion/false-orthodoxy-and-fired-professors)

However, others speculate that the firings reflect a broader agenda by Archbishop Weisenburger to shift the seminary’s theological culture. Weisenburger’s earlier actions, such as restricting the Traditional Latin Mass (TLM) in June 2025 and banning the ad orientem posture in Novus Ordo liturgies, suggest a move to align the Archdiocese with more progressive priorities. Critics argue that the dismissals were less about specific theological disputes and more about consolidating power and suppressing conservative voices.[](https://www.ncronline.org/news/detroit-archbishop-fires-3-sacred-heart-seminary-theologians-who-criticized-pope-francis)[](https://www.osvnews.com/detroit-archbishop-fires-theologians-ralph-martin-eduardo-echeverria-from-seminary/?=)

Reactions from Catholics and Others

The firings have elicited a spectrum of reactions, reflecting the deep divisions within the Catholic Church over issues of doctrine, papal authority, and seminary formation.

- Criticism and Outrage: Many conservative Catholics view the firings as an unjust attack on orthodoxy. Eric Sammons, editor-in-chief of Crisis Magazine, called Weisenburger’s actions “an act of a thin-skinned, petty tyrant,” arguing that the firings were about “power and control” rather than advancing the Gospel. He emphasized that Martin and Echeverria were not traditionalists but “faithful Catholics” who spoke out against perceived evils in the Church. Sammons predicted a decline in Sacred Heart’s reputation, warning that it might become a “third-rate institution” that deters faithful seminarians.[](https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/detroit-archbishop-fires-renowned-conservative-professors-from-sacred-heart-seminary/)[](https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/detroit-archbishop-fires-third-professor-in-seminary-purge/)

Dr. Janet Smith, a former colleague at Sacred Heart, described the firings as “outrageous and terribly damaging to the seminary and to the Church.” She praised Martin and Echeverria’s contributions and called their dismissals a “shameful act of attempted humiliation.” Brian Holdsworth, a Catholic commentator, lamented that the firings exemplify why “good Catholics don’t want to work for the Church,” citing the risk of career disruption by new bishops.[](https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/detroit-archbishop-fires-renowned-conservative-professors-from-sacred-heart-seminary/)[](https://www.ncregister.com/news/ralph-martin-eduardo-echeverria-dismissal)

Anne Hendershott, writing for Crisis Magazine, argued that the professors had fostered a “culture of faithful orthodoxy” at Sacred Heart and were not critics of Francis’ papacy but rather sought clarification of his ambiguous statements. She expressed concern that the firings damaged the American Church and morale on Catholic campuses.[](https://catholicvote.org/crisis-magazine-3-fired-sacred-heart-professors-had-created-culture-of-faithful-orthodoxy-at-the-seminary/)

- Support for the Firings: On the other side, some Catholics, particularly those aligned with Pope Francis’ vision, supported the dismissals. Mike Lewis of Where Peter Is argued that the professors’ public rejection of Francis’ teachings was unacceptable for seminary educators. He pointed to reports of a “Francis-free zone” at Sacred Heart, suggesting that the seminary had produced poorly formed priests under the influence of these professors. Lewis framed the firings as a necessary correction to ensure fidelity to the Church’s magisterium.[](https://wherepeteris.com/false-orthodoxy-and-fired-professors/)[](https://www.ncronline.org/opinion/false-orthodoxy-and-fired-professors)

Daniel Hovey, quoted in the Detroit Free Press, echoed this sentiment, stating that the firings addressed a culture at Sacred Heart that fostered skepticism or rejection of papal leadership. He suggested that the seminary had become a national center for conservative Catholicism, which Weisenburger sought to reform.[](https://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/detroit/2025/07/31/archbishop-edward-weisenburger-detroit-archdiocese-catholic-church-sacred-heart-seminary-professors/85408993007/)

- Concerns About Seminary Formation: The firings have raised broader questions about the future of priestly formation at Sacred Heart, a seminary known for its orthodox reputation. Critics like Sammons and Hendershott fear that the dismissals signal a shift away from orthodoxy, potentially deterring vocations. A commenter on Fr. John Zuhlsdorf’s blog expressed concern about finding a “decent seminary” for his son, highlighting anxieties about the impact on future priests. Conversely, supporters of the firings argue that removing dissenting voices strengthens the seminary’s alignment with the Church’s current leadership.[](https://wdtprs.com/2025/07/archb-of-detroit-fired-two-distinguished-seminary-profs-why/)

- Speculation About Pope Leo XIII: Some commentators have questioned whether the firings reflect the priorities of the new pontiff, Pope Leo XIII, elected after Francis’ death. Critics like Sammons noted that Weisenburger was one of Francis’ final appointments, suggesting he is executing a pre-existing agenda. However, others, including Sammons, caution against assuming Pope Leo’s stance, noting that popes typically do not intervene in local personnel decisions.[](https://crisismagazine.com/editors-desk/the-purging-of-faithful-catholics-continues)

Controversial Statements and Teachings

The professors’ public criticisms of Pope Francis are widely cited as the primary trigger for their dismissals. Below are key examples of their controversial statements:

- Ralph Martin:

  - In A Church in Crisis (2021), Martin argued that Pope Francis’ reluctance to clarify ambiguous statements was a hallmark of his pontificate, contributing to confusion.[](https://catholicreview.org/detroit-archbishop-fires-theologians-ralph-martin-eduardo-echeverria-from-seminary/)

  - In a 2018 letter, he supported Viganò’s allegations against Francis and questioned Francis’ hope that hell might be empty, asserting that hell is populated.[](https://www.ncronline.org/opinion/false-orthodoxy-and-fired-professors)

  - Martin criticized Francis’ handling of the 2018 McCarrick scandal, suggesting it deepened Church disunity.[](https://www.ncronline.org/news/detroit-archbishop-fires-3-sacred-heart-seminary-theologians-who-criticized-pope-francis)

- Eduardo Echeverria:

  - In a 2019 revision to Pope Francis: The Legacy of Vatican II, Echeverria stated that Francis contributed to a Church crisis through ambiguous words, one-sided formulations, and a tendency to demean doctrine.[](https://catholicreview.org/detroit-archbishop-fires-theologians-ralph-martin-eduardo-echeverria-from-seminary/)

  - In a 2022 Crisis Magazine interview, he declared Amoris Laetitia unorthodox due to its pastoral and moral reasoning, a claim debated by Pedro Gabriel.[](https://wherepeteris.com/false-orthodoxy-and-fired-professors/)

- Edward Peters:

  - In his blog In Light of the Law (April 2016), Peters critiqued Amoris Laetitia for “writing flaws” and its approach to allowing divorced-and-remarried Catholics to receive the Eucharist.[](https://www.ncregister.com/news/edward-peters-is-third-faculty-member-fired-by-detroit-archbishop)

  - He criticized Francis’ handling of the McCarrick case and the 2018 Catechism revision on the death penalty, often proposing alternative canonical interpretations.[](https://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/detroit/2025/07/31/archbishop-edward-weisenburger-detroit-archdiocese-catholic-church-sacred-heart-seminary-professors/85408993007/)

These statements, particularly their public nature, were seen by some as crossing a line for seminary educators, who are expected to model fidelity to the Church’s magisterium. Critics of the firings, however, argue that the professors’ critiques were measured and aimed at defending orthodoxy, not rejecting papal authority.

Analysis and Implications

The firings of Martin, Echeverria, and Peters highlight ongoing tensions within the Catholic Church between traditionalist/orthodox and progressive factions. The professors’ criticisms of Pope Francis, while rooted in concerns about doctrinal clarity, were perceived by some as dissent that undermined the formation of seminarians. Archbishop Weisenburger’s actions, combined with his restrictions on the TLM and ad orientem worship, suggest an intent to steer Sacred Heart toward a more progressive theological orientation. However, the lack of transparency and the abrupt nature of the dismissals have fueled perceptions of authoritarianism, as voiced by critics like Sammons and Smith.

The controversy also raises questions about academic freedom in Catholic institutions and the role of seminaries in navigating theological disputes. While Lewis and others argue that seminary professors must align with the pope’s teachings, others contend that constructive criticism is essential for Church reform and clarity. The firings may impact Sacred Heart’s reputation, potentially deterring conservative seminarians while appealing to those aligned with Francis’ vision.

Conclusion

The dismissal of Ralph Martin, Eduardo Echeverria, and Edward Peters from Sacred Heart Major Seminary is a flashpoint in the ongoing Catholic culture wars. Their firings, linked to their criticisms of Pope Francis’ perceived doctrinal ambiguity, have divided Catholics, with some decrying the loss of orthodox voices and others praising the move as a necessary correction. The lack of clear explanations from the Archdiocese of Detroit has only deepened the controversy, leaving room for speculation and debate. As the Church navigates this turbulent period under Pope Leo XIII, the firings serve as a reminder of the challenges in balancing fidelity, critique, and unity within the Catholic tradition.

References:

- National Catholic Register, “Shake-Up in Detroit: New Archbishop Fires Ralph Martin and Eduardo Echeverria,” July 24, 2025.[](https://www.ncregister.com/news/ralph-martin-eduardo-echeverria-dismissal)

- Where Peter Is, “False Orthodoxy and Fired Professors,” July 27, 2025.[](https://wherepeteris.com/false-orthodoxy-and-fired-professors/)

- National Catholic Register, “Firing Was ‘A Shock’ for Theologian Ralph Martin,” July 24, 2025.[](https://www.ncregister.com/news/firing-shock-for-theologian-ralph-martin)

- National Catholic Reporter, “Detroit Archbishop Fires 3 Sacred Heart Seminary Theologians Who Criticized Pope Francis,” July 26, 2025.[](https://www.ncronline.org/news/detroit-archbishop-fires-3-sacred-heart-seminary-theologians-who-criticized-pope-francis)

- Catholic Review, “Detroit Archbishop Fires Theologians Ralph Martin, Eduardo Echeverría from Seminary,” July 25, 2025.[](https://catholicreview.org/detroit-archbishop-fires-theologians-ralph-martin-eduardo-echeverria-from-seminary/)

- National Catholic Register, “Canon-Law Expert Edward Peters Is Third Faculty Member Fired by Detroit Archbishop,” July 28, 2025.[](https://www.ncregister.com/news/edward-peters-is-third-faculty-member-fired-by-detroit-archbishop)

- LifeSite, “Detroit Archbishop Fires Renowned Conservative Professors from Sacred Heart Seminary,” July 25, 2025.[](https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/detroit-archbishop-fires-renowned-conservative-professors-from-sacred-heart-seminary/)

- National Catholic Reporter, “What Really Happened at Detroit’s Seminary: False Orthodoxy and Fired Professors,” July 28, 2025.[](https://www.ncronline.org/opinion/false-orthodoxy-and-fired-professors)

- OSV News, “UPDATE: Detroit Archbishop Fires Three Theologians from Sacred Heart Seminary,” July 25, 2025.[](https://www.osvnews.com/detroit-archbishop-fires-theologians-ralph-martin-eduardo-echeverria-from-seminary/?=)

- Catholic World Report, “Canon Law Expert Edward Peters Is Third Faculty Member Fired by Detroit Archbishop,” July 29, 2025.[](https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2025/07/29/canon-law-expert-edward-peters-is-third-faculty-member-fired-by-detroit-archbishop/)

- Detroit Free Press, “Detroit Archbishop Fires 3 Conservative Seminary Professors Who Criticized Pope Francis,” July 31, 2025.[](https://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/detroit/2025/07/31/archbishop-edward-weisenburger-detroit-archdiocese-catholic-church-sacred-heart-seminary-professors/85408993007/)

- Fr. Z’s Blog, “Archb. of Detroit Fired Two Distinguished Seminary Profs. Why? – UPDATED – Canonist Ed Peters Also Fired!,” July 25, 2025.[](https://wdtprs.com/2025/07/archb-of-detroit-fired-two-distinguished-seminary-profs-why/)

- LifeSite, “Detroit Archbishop Fires Third Professor in Seminary Purge,” July 26, 2025.[](https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/detroit-archbishop-fires-third-professor-in-seminary-purge/)

- Crisis Magazine, “The Purging of Faithful Catholics Continues,” July 25, 2025.[](https://crisismagazine.com/editors-desk/the-purging-of-faithful-catholics-continues)

- CatholicVote, “Crisis Magazine: 3 Fired Sacred Heart Professors Had Created ‘Culture of Faithful Orthodoxy at the Seminary,’” July 31, 2025.[](https://catholicvote.org/crisis-magazine-3-fired-sacred-heart-professors-had-created-culture-of-faithful-orthodoxy-at-the-seminary/)

Father Carlos Martins Cleared of Charges Following Alleged Incident During St. Jude Relic Tour

Father Carlos Martins Cleared of Charges Following Alleged Incident During St. Jude Relic Tour

Father Carlos Martins, a priest of the Companions of the Cross and host of the popular podcast The Exorcist Files, faced a misdemeanor battery charge stemming from an incident on November 21, 2024, at Queen of Apostles Parish in Joliet, Illinois. While leading a nationwide tour of a first-class relic of St. Jude the Apostle through his ministry, Treasures of the Church, Martins was accused of inappropriate conduct involving a 13-year-old female student during a presentation attended by over 200 students. The allegations centered on claims that Martins touched the girl’s hair, made a joking remark about using it to “floss his teeth,” and later sat behind her, allegedly making a growling noise. These actions were reported as boundary violations, prompting the parish to contact the police and halt the relic tour. Martins was temporarily suspended from ministry by his religious order, the Companions of the Cross, pending a police investigation.

The incident began when Martins, known for his engaging and humorous style, reportedly attempted to build rapport with the students by joking about his baldness. According to his attorney, Marcella Burke, he commented to the girl, “You and I have almost the same hairstyle,” which elicited laughter, and then remarked that he once had long hair like hers, jokingly adding he would “floss my teeth with it.” The student’s father, upon hearing of the interaction, contacted the police, leading to a criminal complaint filed by the Will County State’s Attorney’s Office on January 23, 2025. The complaint alleged that Martins placed the girl’s hair in his mouth in a “flossing motion,” an action his legal team vehemently denied, calling the accusations “egregious and unfounded” and describing the case as “a takedown of a good priest and an attempted shakedown of the Church”.[](https://www.americamagazine.org/faith/2025/02/04/exorcist-carlos-martins-pleads-not-guilty-battery-249837)[](https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/exorcist-father-carlos-martins-cleared-of-all-charges-over-absurd-misconduct-allegations)

On July 30, 2025, the Will County State’s Attorney’s Office dismissed all charges against Martins, closing the case without any finding of wrongdoing or criminal liability. The Burke Law Group announced that Martins had been “fully cleared,” with attorney Marcella Burke stating, “This was a case that never should have been brought forward.” Martins expressed gratitude for the support and prayers he received, saying, “I am thankful for the truth coming to light and look forward to resuming my ministry and continuing to preach the Gospel”. The dismissal followed a lack of evidence to support the allegations, with Martins’ legal team asserting that he never placed the girl’s hair in his mouth or growled at her, as claimed. The Diocese of Joliet had initially classified the incident as a“boundary issue” rather than sexual misconduct, noting that additional facts existed but declining to elaborate pending the investigation.[](https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/exorcist-father-carlos-martins-cleared-of-all-charges-over-absurd-misconduct-allegations)[](https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/265661/father-carlos-martins-cleared-of-misdemeanor-charges-after-incident-at-illinois-parish)[](https://www.pillarcatholic.com/p/relic-priest-responds-to-incident)

The resolution of the case was seen as a vindication for Martins, whose ministry had been significantly disrupted. The St. Jude relic tour, endorsed by the Vatican’s Dicastery for the Causes of Saints and attended by nearly 2 million pilgrims, was abruptly ended following the incident. Supporters, including EWTN’s Raymond Arroyo, called for Martins’ immediate restoration to ministry, emphasizing his innocence and the impact of his work in promoting faith through relic veneration and his podcast. The case highlighted the challenges faced by clergy in navigating public interactions, with some commentators noting a “hypervigilant atmosphere” where accusations can lead to swift suspensions despite a lack of evidence. Martins’ clearance allows him to move forward with his mission, which has inspired thousands through spiritual warfare teachings and devotion to sacred relics.[](https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/265661/father-carlos-martins-cleared-of-misdemeanor-charges-after-incident-at-illinois-parish)[](https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/exorcist-father-carlos-martins-cleared-of-all-charges-over-absurd-misconduct-allegations)[](https://www.pillarcatholic.com/p/st-jude-relic-tour-suspended-over)

Did Vatican II Cause Mass Decline?

Refutation: The Decline in Catholic Mass Attendance Predates Vatican II

The claim that Vatican II (1962–1965) “triggered a decline” in worldwide Catholic Mass attendance, as asserted in the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) study cited in the post, oversimplifies a complex phenomenon and ignores significant evidence that the decline in Catholic religious participation began well before the Second Vatican Council. 

While the NBER study, titled Looking Backward: Long-Term Religious Service Attendance in 66 Countries, authored by Robert J. Barro, Edgard Dewitte, and Laurence Iannaccone, concludes that Catholic Mass attendance in predominantly Catholic countries decreased relative to other denominations after 1965, it does not adequately account for pre-existing trends of declining religious observance, broader secularization processes, and the unique socio-cultural contexts of the mid-20th century. This refutation will demonstrate that the decline in Catholic Mass attendance was already underway before Vatican II, driven by societal shifts such as secularization, industrialization, and changing cultural attitudes, and that Vatican II was more a response to these trends than their cause. Furthermore, it will critique the methodology and assumptions of the NBER study to highlight its limitations in establishing causality.

 1. Evidence of Pre-Vatican II Decline in Catholic Mass Attendance

Historical data and studies indicate that Catholic Mass attendance was already declining in several regions before Vatican II convened in 1962. These trends undermine the assertion that Vatican II was the primary trigger for the decline in attendance.

- Germany (1920s–1950s): Church historian Wilhelm Damberg notes that Catholic Mass attendance in Germany peaked in 1935 at approximately 50% but began to decline steadily thereafter. By 1965, the proportion of Catholics regularly attending Mass had fallen to 45%, a clear indication that the downward trend was in motion before Vatican II. This decline was influenced by post-World War II social changes, including urbanization and the disruption of traditional community structures, which weakened religious observance.[](https://praytellblog.com/index.php/2017/03/18/alternative-facts-on-vatican-ii/)

- Italy (1950s–1961): Stephen Bullivant’s Mass Exodus: Catholic Disaffiliation in Britain and America Since Vatican II (2019) documents that Mass attendance in parts of Italy had dropped to around 50% by 1961, before Vatican II began. This suggests that even in strongly Catholic countries, participation was waning due to broader societal shifts, such as increased prosperity and the rise of consumer culture, rather than the Council itself.[](https://catholicstand.com/did-vatican-ii-cause-the-catholic-church-to-decline/)

- France (Pre-1965): French historian Guillaume Cuchet’s work, referenced in the post, notes a decline in Catholic practice in France prior to 1965. For example, Mass attendance fell from an estimated 35–40% in the 1950s to 27% by 1965, reflecting a gradual erosion of religious observance tied to secularizing trends and the aftermath of World War II. While Cuchet points to 1965 as a significant turning point, he attributes this to the cumulative effect of cultural changes rather than Vatican II alone.[](https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/new-secular-study-finds-vatican-ii-triggered-a-decline-in-catholic-mass-attendance-worldwide/)

- United States (1950s): A 1958 Gallup Poll reported that 75% of U.S. Catholics attended Mass weekly, but this figure masks regional and demographic variations. By the early 1960s, attendance had begun to decline, particularly among younger Catholics. Kenneth Jones’ Index of Leading Catholic Indicators: The Church Since Vatican II notes that the number of seminarians in the U.S. dropped from 49,000 in 1965 to 4,700 by 2002, but this decline was preceded by a stagnation in vocations in the 1950s, signaling early signs of disengagement.[](https://vaticancatholic.com/figures-post-vatican-ii-decline/)

- England (1960): Bullivant also cites a suppressed 1960 report on Irish Catholic Mass attendance in England, which indicated significant declines among immigrant communities. This suggests that even in traditionally devout populations, participation was weakening before Vatican II, likely due to the challenges of integrating into a more secular society.[](https://catholicstand.com/did-vatican-ii-cause-the-catholic-church-to-decline/)

These examples demonstrate that Catholic Mass attendance was declining in multiple regions prior to Vatican II, driven by factors such as urbanization, economic prosperity, and the weakening of traditional social structures that had historically reinforced religious observance. The NBER study’s focus on a post-1965 decline in Catholic countries relative to others overlooks these earlier trends, which are critical to understanding the broader context.

 2. Broader Secularization Trends Across Religions

The decline in Catholic Mass attendance must be viewed within the context of a global secularization trend that affected all religious denominations, not just Catholicism. The NBER study’s claim that Vatican II caused a unique decline in Catholic attendance relative to other denominations is misleading because it understates the parallel declines in Protestant and other religious attendance during the same period.

- Protestant Decline Post-Vatican II: Bullivant’s Mass Exodus highlights that in the decade following Vatican II, Catholic Mass attendance in Western countries dropped by approximately one-third, but Protestant church attendance fell by half. In England, data from Christian-Research.org show that Church of England attendance was declining steadily from the 1930s, well before Vatican II, and continued to fall at a comparable rate to Catholic attendance after 1965. This suggests that a broader societal shift toward secularism, rather than Vatican II specifically, was driving declines across Christian denominations.[](https://catholicstand.com/did-vatican-ii-cause-the-catholic-church-to-decline/)

- Global Secularization Trends: The 20th century saw a rise in secular ideologies, including materialism, individualism, and consumerism, which eroded religious participation across faiths. For example, in Japan, nominal adherence to Shinto and Buddhism declined significantly in the post-World War II period, despite no equivalent to Vatican II in those traditions. Similarly, in Europe, the rise of secular education and media in the 1950s and 1960s contributed to declining religious observance across denominations. The NBER study’s focus on Catholic-specific declines ignores these parallel trends, which suggest that Catholicism was not uniquely affected.[](https://www.reddit.com/r/Catholicism/comments/1c3nymb/myths_of_lost_latin_and_vatican_ii_as_causes_of/)

- Baby Boomer Disengagement: The post-World War II generation, particularly the Baby Boomers, exhibited a marked shift away from institutional religion. A 2021 analysis on the Catholic TL;DR Blog argues that Boomer disengagement from religious practice began in the 1950s, driven by a rejection of traditional authority and an embrace of hedonistic cultural trends in the 1960s and 1970s. Between 1960 and 1970, Catholic Mass attendance among Boomers dropped from 70% to 20%, a trend that predates the full implementation of Vatican II’s liturgical reforms. This generational shift was not unique to Catholicism but reflected a broader cultural move toward individualism.[](https://www.catholictldr.com/blog/churchattendancepostvaticanii)

By framing Vatican II as the primary trigger, the NBER study fails to account for these broader secularization trends, which affected religious participation across multiple faiths and regions. The decline in Catholic Mass attendance was part of a larger societal shift rather than a direct consequence of the Council.

 3. Critiquing the NBER Study’s Methodology and Assumptions

The NBER study’s conclusion that Vatican II “triggered” a decline in Catholic Mass attendance relies on an event-study design that assumes Vatican II was an unanticipated shock that directly caused changes in attendance. However, this methodology has several limitations that undermine its causal claims.

- Overreliance on Post-1965 Data: The study emphasizes a relative decline in Catholic attendance starting in 1965, but it does not sufficiently explore pre-1965 trends. By focusing on the period immediately following Vatican II, the study risks attributing all subsequent declines to the Council without adequately controlling for earlier patterns. For example, the data cited above from Germany, Italy, and France show that attendance was already declining in the 1950s, suggesting that Vatican II may have coincided with, rather than caused, the trend.[](https://catholicstand.com/did-vatican-ii-cause-the-catholic-church-to-decline/)[](https://praytellblog.com/index.php/2017/03/18/alternative-facts-on-vatican-ii/)

- Selection Bias in Country Classification: The study defines “Catholic countries” as those with a Catholic population of 50% or greater, including nations like Ireland, Italy, and Brazil. However, this classification overlooks variations in cultural and historical contexts. For instance, France, which was predominantly Catholic, was already experiencing significant secularization due to its history of anti-clericalism and the impact of the French Revolution. The study’s broad categorization may exaggerate the apparent Catholic-specific decline by grouping together countries with diverse religious and social dynamics.[](https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/new-secular-study-finds-vatican-ii-triggered-a-decline-in-catholic-mass-attendance-worldwide/)

- Neglect of Non-Liturgical Factors: The NBER study attributes the decline to Vatican II’s perceived disruption of the Church’s authority and identity, citing scholars like Andrew Greeley and Robert MacCulloch. However, it downplays other significant factors, such as the 1968 encyclical Humanae Vitae, which reaffirmed the Church’s ban on contraception and provoked widespread dissent among Catholics. Bullivant notes that Humanae Vitae was a more significant driver of disaffiliation than liturgical changes, as it alienated many lay Catholics who felt the Church was out of touch with modern values. By focusing on Vatican II, the study underestimates the impact of subsequent events.[](https://www.americamagazine.org/arts-culture/2019/11/14/review-why-did-so-many-catholics-leave-after-vatican-ii)

- Retrospective Data Limitations: The study relies on retrospective questions from the International Social Survey Program (ISSP) to construct attendance rates back to the 1920s. While the authors claim that checks support the reliability of this data, retrospective surveys are prone to recall bias, particularly for events decades in the past. This methodological weakness may distort pre-1965 attendance figures, making it difficult to accurately assess trends before Vatican II.[](https://www.complicitclergy.com/2025/07/28/new-statistical-study-proves-vatican-ii-triggered-worldwide-decline-in-mass-attendance/)

These methodological flaws suggest that the NBER study’s causal attribution to Vatican II is overly simplistic and does not adequately account for alternative explanations or pre-existing trends.

 4. Vatican II as a Response to Decline, Not a Cause

Rather than causing the decline in Mass attendance, Vatican II was convened to address the challenges of a changing world, including the already evident decline in religious participation. Pope John XXIII called for the Council in 1958 to pursue aggiornamento (updating) to make the Church more relevant in an increasingly secular society. The Council’s reforms, such as the use of the vernacular in the liturgy and greater lay participation, were intended to revitalize Catholic engagement, not to undermine it.

- Liturgical Reform Context: The liturgical changes introduced post-Vatican II, such as the Novus Ordo Mass, were part of a longer Liturgical Movement that began in the 19th century. For example, the Benedictine Liturgical Conference in the U.S. had been advocating for vernacular liturgy and lay involvement since the 1940s. These reforms were responses to a perceived disconnect between the Latin Mass and modern Catholics, many of whom, as described in a 2015 blog post, felt detached during pre-Vatican II Masses, with priests celebrating in Latin and minimal congregational participation.[](https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=9377)[](https://reinkat.wordpress.com/2015/07/07/before-and-after-vatican-ii/)

- Engagement with Modernity: Vatican II’s documents, such as Sacrosanctum Concilium and Lumen Gentium, emphasized active participation and the universal call to holiness, aiming to make Catholicism more accessible. While some argue that these changes disrupted traditional practices, others, like the author of a 2018 The Conversation article, contend that Vatican II gained the Church legitimacy by aligning it with democratic values and religious freedom, as seen in the Declaration of Religious Liberty. Without these reforms, the Church may have faced even greater losses as secularization accelerated.[](https://theconversation.com/the-catholic-church-resists-change-but-vatican-ii-shows-its-possible-102543)

- Mixed Outcomes: While the Council’s reforms did not fully reverse the decline, they were not without positive effects. For example, the National Catholic Reporter notes that Vatican II Catholics (born 1941–1960) maintained relatively stable Mass attendance rates of around 30%, and Millennials showed an 8% increase in attendance between 2005 and 2011, suggesting that some post-Vatican II generations responded positively to the reforms.[](https://www.ncronline.org/news/survey-reveals-generation-shift-catholic-church)

By framing Vatican II as a response to pre-existing challenges, it becomes clear that the Council was an attempt to adapt to a changing world rather than the primary cause of declining attendance.

 5. Alternative Explanations for Post-1965 Decline

Several factors unrelated to Vatican II contributed significantly to the decline in Catholic Mass attendance after 1965, further undermining the claim that the Council was the primary trigger.

- Cultural Upheaval of the 1960s: The 1960s were a period of profound social change, including the rise of the counterculture, feminism, and anti-authoritarian movements. These shifts challenged traditional institutions, including the Church, and led to widespread disengagement from organized religion. The Catholic TL;DR Blog argues that the Baby Boomer generation’s rejection of rules and authority was a key driver of declining attendance, a trend that began before Vatican II and intensified in the 1960s.[](https://www.catholictldr.com/blog/churchattendancepostvaticanii)

- Humanae Vitae (1968): The encyclical Humanae Vitae, which reaffirmed the Church’s opposition to contraception, caused significant disillusionment among Catholics. Bullivant notes that this document, more than Vatican II, led to a rebellion against ecclesial authority, as many Catholics felt the Church was out of step with modern values. This contributed to disaffiliation and reduced Mass attendance in the late 1960s and 1970s.[](https://www.americamagazine.org/arts-culture/2019/11/14/review-why-did-so-many-catholics-leave-after-vatican-ii)

- Clergy Abuse Scandal: Although the full scope of the clergy abuse scandal emerged later, early reports of abuse in the 1960s and 1970s began to erode trust in the Church. Bullivant argues that institutional distrust, exacerbated by later revelations, was a significant factor in Catholic disaffiliation, independent of Vatican II.[](https://www.americamagazine.org/arts-culture/2019/11/14/review-why-did-so-many-catholics-leave-after-vatican-ii)

- Economic and Social Mobility: Post-World War II economic prosperity and social mobility weakened the communal ties that had historically reinforced Catholic practice. As Catholics moved to suburbs and integrated into secular societies, ethnic parishes, which had been centers of religious and cultural identity, lost their influence. This trend was evident in the U.S. and Europe by the 1950s, well before Vatican II.[](https://www.ncronline.org/news/survey-reveals-generation-shift-catholic-church)

These alternative explanations highlight the complexity of the decline in Mass attendance and suggest that Vatican II was not the sole or primary cause.

 6. Conclusion

The claim that Vatican II “triggered” a decline in Catholic Mass attendance, as asserted by the NBER study, is not supported by a comprehensive analysis of historical and sociological evidence. Declines in Catholic participation were evident in multiple regions before 1962, driven by secularization, urbanization, and cultural shifts. The NBER study’s methodology, while rigorous in its statistical approach, overlooks these pre-existing trends and overemphasizes Vatican II’s role by focusing on post-1965 data without sufficient attention to earlier patterns. Moreover, the Council was a proactive attempt to address these challenges, not their cause, and its reforms aimed to revitalize Catholic engagement in a modernizing world. Alternative factors, such as Humanae Vitae, the 1960s cultural upheaval, and the clergy abuse scandal, played significant roles in post-1965 declines. By contextualizing the decline within broader secularization trends and providing evidence of pre-Vatican II declines, this refutation demonstrates that the Council was not the primary trigger for the decline in Catholic Mass attendance but rather a response to a world already moving away from traditional religious practice.

The Second Vatican Council (1962–1965) was convened to address significant challenges facing the Catholic Church, including a notable decline in Mass attendance and broader engagement with the faith. 

Here’s why Vatican II was called, with evidence pointing to the Church’s response to declining Catholicism:

Declining Mass Attendance: In the decades before Vatican II, studies and internal Church reports noted a drop in regular Mass attendance in Europe and North America. For example, a 1950s study in France (a historically Catholic stronghold) showed Sunday Mass attendance falling to 20–30% in urban areas, down from near-universal participation pre-World War II. Similar trends were observed in Italy and the U.S., where cultural shifts toward secularism and modernity pulled Catholics away from traditional practices.

Cultural and Social Challenges: The Church faced a rapidly changing world—industrialization, the rise of communism, secular ideologies, and post-war disillusionment. Pope John XXIII, in his 1959 announcement of Vatican II (Humanae Salutis), acknowledged the need to respond to “profound changes” in society that were alienating Catholics. The Church’s rigid, pre-modern approach was losing relevance, especially among younger generations.

Internal Church Data: Bishops’ reports to the Vatican in the 1950s highlighted declining vocations to the priesthood and religious life, alongside reduced participation in sacraments like confession. For instance, a 1960 Vatican survey of European dioceses noted a 15–20% drop in seminarians since the 1930s, signaling a weakening of Catholic institutional vitality.

Purpose of Vatican II: Vatican II aimed to renew the Church’s mission through aggiornamento (updating) and ressourcement (returning to sources). Documents like Gaudium et Spes addressed modern challenges directly, while liturgical reforms (e.g., Mass in vernacular languages) were designed to make worship more accessible, countering the decline in attendance. The council’s focus on ecumenism and dialogue with the modern world was a direct response to the Church’s diminishing influence.

1. Bullivant, Stephen. Mass Exodus: Catholic Disaffiliation in Britain and America Since Vatican II. Oxford University Press, 2019.

   - Bullivant’s book provides detailed data on Catholic disaffiliation, noting that Mass attendance in parts of Italy had dropped to around 50% by 1961, before Vatican II began. It also references a suppressed 1960 report on Irish Catholic Mass attendance in England, indicating concerns about declining participation. The book highlights pre-Vatican II declines in engagement, which informed the council’s push for liturgical reform to foster "full, conscious, and active participation."[](https://americamagazine.org/arts-culture/2019/11/14/review-why-did-so-many-catholics-leave-after-vatican-ii)

2. Barro, Robert J., Dewitte, Edgard, and Iannaccone, Laurence. "Looking Backward: Long-Term Religious Service Attendance in 66 Countries." National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER), June 2025.

   - This study uses retrospective data from the International Social Survey Program to document a global decline in Catholic Mass attendance starting around the time of Vatican II (1962–1965). It notes a relative drop of 4 percentage points per decade in predominantly Catholic countries post-1965, suggesting that Vatican II was called to address an already emerging trend of declining religious participation amid secularization.[](https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2025/07/conclusion-of-major-new-economic.html?m=1)

3. The Pillar. "Fact and Fiction: Vatican II and the 'Vocations Crisis'." May 2, 2022.

   - This article analyzes data from the Vatican’s Annuario Pontificio, showing a 28% decline in priestly ordinations in 17 major dioceses worldwide from 1950 to 1961, before Vatican II. It also notes that four out of seven major European dioceses had fewer seminarians in 1959 than in 1951, indicating a pre-existing vocations crisis that bishops hoped Vatican II would address.[](https://pillarcatholic.com/p/fact-and-fiction-vatican-ii-and-the)

4. Damberg, Wilhelm. "Church Attendance Trends in Germany." Cited in PrayTellBlog, March 18, 2017.

   - Church historian Wilhelm Damberg notes that in Germany, Mass attendance was around 45% in 1965, but this was already a decline from earlier decades, with secularization and societal changes impacting participation before Vatican II. The council was seen as a response to these trends, aiming to renew Catholic identity through reforms like vernacular liturgy.[](https://praytellblog.com/index.php/2017/03/18/alternative-facts-on-vatican-ii/)

5. Dantis, Trudy, and Reid, Stephen. "Absent from the Table: A National Study on Catholic Mass Attendance." National Centre for Pastoral Research (NCPR), forthcoming (study announced June 2024).

   - This ongoing Australian study, set to conclude in November 2025, builds on earlier research indicating that Mass attendance in Australia was declining before Vatican II, with rates dropping from a high of 75% in 1958 to lower figures by the early 1960s. The study aims to explore why Catholics disengage, citing pre-Vatican II cultural shifts as a key factor in the council’s call for renewal.[](https://ncronline.org/news/survey-reveals-generation-shift-catholic-church)[](https://catholicweekly.com.au/national-study-to-investigate-decline-in-mass-attendance/)

6. Cuchet, Guillaume. How Our World Stopped Being Christian: Anatomy of a Collapse. Seuil, 2018.

   - French historian Guillaume Cuchet argues that Mass attendance in France was already declining in the 1950s (e.g., 27% in some regions by 1965, down from higher pre-WWII figures). He suggests Vatican II was called to counter this "evisceration of obligatory practice" by making Catholicism more accessible, though the scale of changes may have undermined confidence in the Church’s authority.[](https://nytimes.com/2022/11/04/opinion/vatican-ii-catholics.html)

7. Vatican Archives: Antepreparatory Commission Reports (1959–1960).

   - Pope John XXIII’s Antepreparatory Commission (established May 17, 1959) collected 9,438 responses from bishops, Catholic universities, and Curia departments. Many bishops reported declining Mass attendance, vocations, and sacramental participation, particularly in Europe, as key concerns prompting the council. These reports, summarized in The Second Vatican Council (Wikipedia), emphasized the need for aggiornamento to address secularization and reconnect with the faithful.[](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Vatican_Council)

- French Mass attendance data (1950s): Le Bras, Gabriel. *Études de sociologie religieuse*. Paris, 1955–1956.[](https://catholicstand.com/did-vatican-ii-cause-the-catholic-church-to-decline/)

- Pope John XXIII’s announcement of Vatican II: *Humanae Salutis* (1959).[](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Vatican_Council)

- Vatican survey on vocations (1960): Internal Vatican archival reports, as referenced in *The Great Façade* by Christopher Ferrara et al.[](https://catholicstand.com/did-vatican-ii-cause-the-catholic-church-to-decline/)

- Vatican II documents, including *Gaudium et Spes* and *Sacrosanctum Concilium*: Second Vatican Council, 1962–1965.[](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Vatican_Council)

 

Sources:

- LifeSiteNews, 2025-07-29[](https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/new-secular-study-finds-vatican-ii-triggered-a-decline-in-catholic-mass-attendance-worldwide/)

- Catholic Stand, 2022-10-07[](https://catholicstand.com/did-vatican-ii-cause-the-catholic-church-to-decline/)

- PrayTellBlog, 2017-03-18[](https://praytellblog.com/index.php/2017/03/18/alternative-facts-on-vatican-ii/)

- Reddit r/Catholicism, 2024-04-14[](https://www.reddit.com/r/Catholicism/comments/1c3nymb/myths_of_lost_latin_and_vatican_ii_as_causes_of/)

- America Magazine, 2019-11-14[](https://www.americamagazine.org/arts-culture/2019/11/14/review-why-did-so-many-catholics-leave-after-vatican-ii)

- National Catholic Reporter, 2011-10-23[](https://www.ncronline.org/news/survey-reveals-generation-shift-catholic-church)

- The Conversation, 2018-10-01[](https://theconversation.com/the-catholic-church-resists-change-but-vatican-ii-shows-its-possible-102543)

- Catholic TL;DR Blog, 2021-05-15[](https://www.catholictldr.com/blog/churchattendancepostvaticanii)

- vaticancatholic.com, 2007-01-19[](https://vaticancatholic.com/figures-post-vatican-ii-decline/)

- reinkat.wordpress.com, 2015-07-08[](https://reinkat.wordpress.com/2015/07/07/before-and-after-vatican-ii/)

Study Links Smartphones and Children's Mental Health Decline

Study Links Smartphones and Children's Mental Health Decline

Introduction

The rapid proliferation of smartphones has transformed the way children and adolescents interact with the world, providing unprecedented access to information, communication, and entertainment. However, alongside these benefits, growing evidence suggests that excessive smartphone use may be linked to adverse mental health outcomes in young populations. Issues such as anxiety, depression, sleep disturbances, and diminished attention spans have been increasingly associated with smartphone overuse, prompting researchers to investigate the mechanisms driving these trends. This post examines the current body of research linking smartphone use to children’s mental health decline, exploring potential causal pathways, mediating factors, and implications for policy and practice. By synthesizing findings from peer-reviewed studies and expert analyses, this discussion aims to provide a comprehensive understanding of this pressing public health concern.

The Scope of Smartphone Use Among Children

Smartphones have become ubiquitous among children and adolescents. According to a 2023 report by Common Sense Media, 95% of U.S. teens aged 13–18 own or have access to a smartphone, and 45% report using their device "almost constantly" (Rideout et al., 2023). Younger children are also increasingly exposed, with 43% of children aged 8–12 owning a smartphone (Common Sense Media, 2023). This widespread adoption is driven by the devices’ multifunctionality, including social media access, gaming, and instant communication, which appeal to developmental needs for social connection and stimulation.

However, the intensity and context of smartphone use vary widely. Social media platforms, such as Instagram, TikTok, and Snapchat, dominate screen time, with adolescents spending an average of 3.5 hours daily on these apps (Twenge et al., 2020). Gaming and video streaming also contribute significantly to screen time, often displacing activities such as physical play, face-to-face interaction, and sleep. The pervasive nature of smartphone use raises questions about its impact on psychological well-being, particularly during critical developmental periods.

Evidence Linking Smartphone Use to Mental Health Decline

A growing body of research has identified associations between excessive smartphone use and mental health challenges in children and adolescents. Twenge et al. (2018) conducted a seminal study using data from the Monitoring the Future survey, which included over 1 million U.S. adolescents. Their findings revealed a significant correlation between increased screen time and higher rates of depressive symptoms and suicidality. Specifically, adolescents who spent more than five hours daily on screens were 71% more likely to report at least one suicide-related outcome (e.g., suicidal ideation or attempts) compared to those spending less than one hour (Twenge et al., 2018).

Similarly, a longitudinal study by Riehm et al. (2019) tracked 6,595 adolescents over two years and found that each additional hour of social media use was associated with a 0.64-unit increase in depressive symptoms on a standardized scale. These findings are consistent with meta-analyses, such as those by Keles et al. (2020), which reported small to moderate effect sizes linking social media use to anxiety, depression, and psychological distress in youth.

Sleep disruption is another critical pathway through which smartphones may affect mental health. Hale and Guan (2015) conducted a systematic review of 67 studies and found that screen-based device use before bedtime was consistently associated with reduced sleep duration and quality. Blue light emitted by smartphone screens suppresses melatonin production, delaying sleep onset and reducing restorative sleep (Carter et al., 2016). Poor sleep is a well-established risk factor for mental health issues, including anxiety and depression, particularly in adolescents whose brains are still developing (Owens & Adolescent Sleep Working Group, 2014).

Smartphone use may also exacerbate attention difficulties and cognitive overload. A 2021 study by Wilmer et al. found that frequent smartphone interruptions, such as notifications, were associated with reduced sustained attention and increased symptoms of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in adolescents. This suggests that the constant connectivity afforded by smartphones may impair cognitive control, contributing to stress and mental fatigue.

Mechanisms and Mediating Factors

Several mechanisms may explain the link between smartphone use and mental health decline. First, social comparison plays a significant role, particularly on social media platforms. Adolescents are exposed to curated, idealized images of peers, influencers, and celebrities, which can foster feelings of inadequacy and low self-esteem (Fardouly et al., 2017). A study by Vogel et al. (2015) demonstrated that frequent exposure to upward social comparisons on social media was associated with reduced self-esteem, particularly among girls, who are more likely to engage in appearance-related comparisons.

Second, cyberbullying is a pervasive issue linked to smartphone use. A 2019 study by Hinduja and Patchin found that 36% of adolescents reported experiencing cyberbullying, with victims exhibiting higher rates of anxiety, depression, and suicidal ideation. The anonymity and accessibility of smartphones amplify opportunities for harassment, which can have profound psychological consequences.

Third, displacement of positive activities is a critical factor. Excessive smartphone use often reduces time spent on face-to-face interactions, physical activity, and hobbies, all of which are protective against mental health issues. Przybylski and Weinstein (2017) found that moderate screen use (1–2 hours daily) had minimal negative effects, but beyond this threshold, time spent on smartphones displaced activities associated with well-being, such as exercise and in-person socializing.

Finally, addictive behaviors associated with smartphone use may contribute to mental health decline. Griffiths (2018) argues that smartphones, with their dopamine-driven feedback loops (e.g., likes, notifications), can foster compulsive use patterns resembling behavioral addiction. This is particularly concerning for adolescents, whose impulse control is still developing, making them more susceptible to problematic smartphone use.

Vulnerable Populations and Disparities

Not all children are equally affected by smartphone use. Research indicates that certain groups, such as girls and those from lower socioeconomic backgrounds, may be more vulnerable to negative mental health outcomes. Twenge et al. (2020) found that girls were more likely to experience depressive symptoms associated with social media use, potentially due to their greater engagement with appearance-focused platforms. Similarly, children from lower-income households may face increased risks due to limited access to mental health resources and higher exposure to stressors that compound the effects of problematic smartphone use (Odgers & Jensen, 2020).  The appearance of success and wealth from other accounts may depress those who do not enjoy these things. This may create a form of envy to the point that it becomes a psychological stressor and a measure for one's own success.  

Developmental stage also plays a role. Younger children, whose cognitive and emotional regulation systems are less developed, may be more susceptible to the adverse effects of excessive screen time. A 2022 study by Paulus et al. found that children aged 8–12 who used smartphones excessively showed heightened emotional reactivity and reduced resilience compared to their peers.

Critiques and Limitations of Existing Research

While the evidence linking smartphone use to mental health decline is compelling, several limitations must be acknowledged. First, much of the research is correlational, making it difficult to establish causality. For example, it is unclear whether smartphone use causes depression or whether depressed individuals are more likely to engage in excessive screen time (Orben & Przybylski, 2019). Longitudinal and experimental studies are needed to clarify these relationships.

Second, self-reported measures of screen time, commonly used in studies, are prone to bias and inaccuracy. Objective measures, such as app-tracking data, could improve the reliability of findings. Third, the heterogeneity of smartphone use (e.g., social media vs. educational apps) complicates generalizations. Not all screen time is harmful; for instance, educational or creative uses may have neutral or positive effects (Gottschalk, 2019).

Finally, cultural and contextual factors are often underexplored. The impact of smartphone use may vary across countries with different social norms, parenting practices, and access to technology. Future research should adopt a more global perspective to understand these nuances.

Implications for Policy and Practice

The evidence linking smartphone use to children’s mental health decline has significant implications for parents, educators, policymakers, and technology companies. Parental guidance is critical, as consistent monitoring and setting boundaries on screen time can mitigate negative effects. The American Academy of Pediatrics (2016) recommends limiting recreational screen time to 1–2 hours daily for children and establishing "screen-free" zones, such as during meals and before bedtime.

Schools can play a role by integrating digital literacy programs that teach children to navigate social media critically and recognize the risks of cyberbullying and social comparison. Educator-led initiatives, such as those promoting mindfulness and offline activities, can also counteract the effects of excessive smartphone use.

Policymakers should consider regulations to protect young users, such as stricter privacy protections and measures to curb addictive design features in apps. The European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) includes provisions for protecting children online, which could serve as a model for other regions (Livingstone et al., 2018).

Technology companies have a responsibility to design platforms that prioritize user well-being. Features such as time-limit reminders, notification controls, and parental oversight tools can help reduce problematic use. Some companies, like Apple and Google, have introduced screen-time management features, but their effectiveness remains understudied.

Conclusion

The relationship between smartphone use and children’s mental health decline is complex and multifaceted, with evidence suggesting both direct and indirect effects through mechanisms such as social comparison, cyberbullying, sleep disruption, and displacement of positive activities. While correlational studies provide valuable insights, further research is needed to establish causality and explore cultural variations. Vulnerable populations, including girls and younger children, may require targeted interventions to mitigate risks. Parents, schools, policymakers, and technology companies all have roles to play in fostering healthy smartphone use and protecting young people’s mental health. By balancing the benefits of digital technology with proactive strategies to address its risks, society can support the well-being of the next generation in an increasingly connected world.

References

American Academy of Pediatrics. (2016). Media and young minds. Pediatrics, 138(5), e20162591.  

Carter, B., Rees, P., Hale, L., Bhattacharjee, D., & Paradkar, M. S. (2016). Association between portable screen-based media device access or use and sleep outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Pediatrics, 170(12), 1202–1208.  

Common Sense Media. (2023). The Common Sense Census: Media use by tweens and teens.  

Fardouly, J., Diedrichs, P. C., Vartanian, L. R., & Halliwell, E. (2017). Social comparisons on social media: The impact of Facebook on young women’s body image concerns and mood. Body Image, 20, 38–45.  

Gottschalk, F. (2019). Impacts of technology use on children: Exploring literature on the brain, cognition, and well-being. OECD Education Working Papers, 195.  

Griffiths, M. D. (2018). Adolescent mobile phone addiction: A cause for concern? Education and Health, 36(3), 66–68.  

Hale, L., & Guan, S. (2015). Screen time and sleep among school-aged children and adolescents: A systematic literature review. Sleep Medicine Reviews, 22, 50–58.  

Hinduja, S., & Patchin, J. W. (2019). Connecting adolescent suicide to the severity of bullying and cyberbullying. Journal of School Violence, 18(3), 333–346.  

Keles, B., McCrae, N., & Grealish, A. (2020). A systematic review: The influence of social media on depression, anxiety, and psychological distress in adolescents. International Journal of Adolescence and Youth, 25(1), 79–93.  

Livingstone, S., Stoilova, M., & Nandagiri, R. (2018). Children’s data and privacy online: Growing up in a digital age. LSE Research Online.  

Odgers, C. L., & Jensen, M. R. (2020). Annual research review: Adolescent mental health in the digital age: Facts, fears, and future directions. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 61(3), 336–348.  

Orben, A., & Przybylski, A. K. (2019). The association between adolescent well-being and digital technology use. Nature Human Behaviour, 3(2), 173–182.  

Owens, J. A., & Adolescent Sleep Working Group. (2014). Insufficient sleep in adolescents and young adults: An update on causes and consequences. Pediatrics, 134(3), e921–e932.  

Paulus, M. P., Squeglia, L. M., Bagot, K., Jacobus, J., Kuplicki, R., Breslin, F. J., ... & Tapert, S. F. (2022). Screen media activity and brain structure in youth: Evidence for diverse effects across development. Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience, 53, 101046.  

Przybylski, A. K., & Weinstein, N. (2017). A large-scale test of the Goldilocks hypothesis: Quantifying the relations between digital-screen use and the mental well-being of adolescents. Psychological Science, 28(2), 204–215.  

Rideout, V., Peebles, A., Mann, S., & Robb, M. B. (2023). Common Sense Census: Media use by tweens and teens, 2021. Common Sense Media.  

Riehm, K. E., Feder, K. A., Tormohlen, K. N., Crum, R. M., Young, A. S., Green, K. M., ... & Mojtabai, R. (2019). Associations between time spent using social media and internalizing and externalizing problems among US youth. JAMA Psychiatry, 76(12), 1266–1273.  

Twenge, J. M., Joiner, T. E., Rogers, M. L., & Martin, G. N. (2018). Increases in depressive symptoms, suicide-related outcomes, and suicide rates among U.S. adolescents after 2010 and links to increased new media screen time. Clinical Psychological Science, 6(1), 3–17.  

Twenge, J. M., Martin, G. N., & Campbell, W. K. (2020). Decreases in psychological well-being among American adolescents after 2012 and links to screen time during the rise of smartphone technology. Emotion, 18(6), 765–780.  

Vogel, E. A., Rose, J. P., Okdie, B. M., Eckles, K., & Franz, B. (2015). Who compares and despairs? The effect of social comparison orientation on social media use and its outcomes. Personality and Individual Differences, 86, 249–256.  

Wilmer, H. H., Sherman, L. E., & Chein, J. M. (2021). Smartphones and cognition: A review of research exploring the links between mobile technology habits and cognitive functioning. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 665–678.

---

7,000 Steps Not 10,000

Walking 7,000 Steps a Day: A New Benchmark for Health

For decades, the goal of walking 10,000 steps per day has been widely promoted as the gold standard for maintaining optimal health. This target, embedded in fitness trackers and popular culture, has driven countless individuals to strive for this daily milestone. 

However, a groundbreaking study published in The Lancet Public Health in 2025 challenges this long-standing notion, suggesting that 7,000 steps per day may be sufficient to achieve significant health benefits, debunking the myth that 10,000 steps is necessary for everyone. 

This new research offers a more achievable target for many, potentially encouraging greater adherence to physical activity recommendations and reshaping public health guidelines. This article explores the findings of this study, the origins of the 10,000-step goal, the health benefits associated with 7,000 steps, and the implications for individuals and public health policy.

The Origins of the 10,000-Step Myth

The 10,000-step goal did not originate from rigorous scientific research but rather from a marketing campaign in Japan during the 1960s. Ahead of the 1964 Tokyo Olympics, a company named Yamasa Clock and Instrument Company introduced a pedometer called the "Manpo-kei," which translates to "10,000-step meter." The number 10,000 was chosen partly because its Japanese character resembles a walking figure, making it a memorable and marketable figure. At the time, research suggested that the average Japanese person took between 3,500 and 5,000 steps daily, and increasing to 10,000 could reduce the risk of coronary artery disease. This arbitrary figure gained traction globally, adopted by health organizations, fitness tracker manufacturers, and the general public, despite lacking robust scientific backing.[](https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2018/sep/03/watch-your-step-why-the-10000-daily-goal-is-built-on-bad-science)

Over time, the 10,000-step target became a cultural phenomenon, reinforced by wearable fitness devices that gamified step counts and workplace challenges. However, experts like Dr. I-Min Lee, a professor of epidemiology at Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, have long questioned its validity, noting that it was not based on comprehensive evidence. Recent studies have begun to unravel this myth, showing that significant health benefits can be achieved with fewer steps, making physical activity more accessible to those who find 10,000 steps daunting.[](https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/06/well/move/10000-steps-health.html)

The 2025 Lancet Study: Key Findings

The pivotal study, published on July 23, 2025, in The Lancet Public Health, conducted a systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis of 57 studies involving over 160,000 adults from various countries, including the United States, the United Kingdom, Japan, and Australia. Led by Dr. Melody Ding, a professor of public health at the University of Sydney, the research team examined the relationship between daily step counts and a wide range of health outcomes, including all-cause mortality, cardiovascular disease, cancer, type 2 diabetes, dementia, depression, and falls. Unlike previous studies that primarily focused on heart health or mortality, this analysis explored a broader spectrum of conditions, providing a more comprehensive understanding of the benefits of walking.[](https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanpub/article/PIIS2468-2667%2825%2900164-1/fulltext)

The study found that walking approximately 7,000 steps per day was associated with substantial reductions in health risks compared to a baseline of 2,000 steps, which the researchers considered the minimal activity level for adults. Specifically, the findings include:

- All-Cause Mortality: A 47% lower risk of death from any cause for those walking 7,000 steps compared to 2,000 steps.[](https://www.cnn.com/2025/07/23/health/daily-steps-how-many-wellness)

- Cardiovascular Disease: A 25% reduction in the incidence of cardiovascular disease and a 47% lower risk of death from cardiovascular causes.[](https://www.newscientist.com/article/2489453-walking-7000-steps-a-day-seems-to-be-enough-to-keep-us-healthy/)

- Cancer: A 37% reduction in cancer mortality.[](https://www.theguardian.com/science/2025/jul/23/7000-steps-a-day-could-be-enough-to-improve-health-say-researchers)

- Dementia: A 38% lower risk of developing dementia.[](https://www.nationalgeographic.com/health/article/step-count-cardiovascular-disease-diabetes-dementia)

- Type 2 Diabetes: A 14% reduction in the incidence of type 2 diabetes.[](https://www.newsweek.com/health-exercise-steps-per-day-recommendation-7000-2102865)

- Depression: A 22% lower risk of depressive symptoms.[](https://www.newsweek.com/health-exercise-steps-per-day-recommendation-7000-2102865)

- Falls: A 28% reduction in the risk of falls, particularly significant for older adults.[](https://www.nationalgeographic.com/health/article/step-count-cardiovascular-disease-diabetes-dementia)

While 10,000 steps per day was associated with slightly greater reductions in some outcomes—such as a 7% additional reduction in dementia risk and an 8% further decrease in type 2 diabetes risk—the incremental benefits beyond 7,000 steps were minimal and often not statistically significant for most health outcomes. The researchers noted that health benefits began to plateau around 7,000 steps, suggesting that this level captures most of the protective effects of walking. Even modest increases, such as 4,000 steps per day, were linked to a 36% lower risk of all-cause mortality compared to 2,000 steps, highlighting that any increase in activity is beneficial.[](https://www.newsweek.com/health-exercise-steps-per-day-recommendation-7000-2102865)

Why 7,000 Steps?

The finding that 7,000 steps may be sufficient for optimal health is significant for several reasons. First, it is a more achievable target for many individuals, particularly those who are less active, older, or have mobility limitations. The 10,000-step goal, equivalent to roughly five miles or eight kilometers depending on stride length, can feel overwhelming, leading some to abandon their efforts altogether. In contrast, 7,000 steps—approximately three miles—is a more manageable distance that can be accumulated through daily activities like walking to work, taking stairs, or strolling with a pet.[](https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/23/well/how-many-steps-per-day-health.html)

Dr. Ding emphasized that the 7,000-step target is not meant to discourage those already achieving 10,000 steps but to encourage those who are inactive to aim for a realistic goal. “For those who are currently active and achieving the 10,000 steps a day, keep up the good work—there is no need to modify your step counts,” she said. “However, for those of us who are far from achieving the 10,000 targets, getting to 7,000 steps/day offers almost comparable health benefits for the outcomes we examined.”[](https://www.theguardian.com/science/2025/jul/23/7000-steps-a-day-could-be-enough-to-improve-health-say-researchers)

The study also highlighted that step counts are a practical metric for tracking physical activity. Unlike time-based guidelines, such as the World Health Organization’s recommendation of 150–300 minutes of moderate aerobic activity per week, step counts are easily measured with smartphones or wearable devices, making them accessible and understandable to the general public.[](https://www.newscientist.com/article/2489453-walking-7000-steps-a-day-seems-to-be-enough-to-keep-us-healthy/)

Limitations of the Study

While the Lancet study provides compelling evidence, it has limitations that warrant consideration. The analysis relied on observational data, meaning it can establish correlations but not causation. Factors such as diet, socioeconomic status, or underlying health conditions may influence both step counts and health outcomes, potentially confounding results. Additionally, the number of studies examining certain outcomes, such as dementia and cancer, was limited, reducing the certainty of findings for these conditions.[](https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanpub/article/PIIS2468-2667%2825%2900164-1/fulltext)

The study also did not fully account for walking intensity or cadence, which may play a role in health benefits. Some experts, like Dr. Steven Harridge from King’s College London, note that step counts alone do not capture exercice intensity, which is critical for overall well-being. For instance, brisk walking or incorporating hills may enhance benefits compared to leisurely strolling. Finally, the lack of age-specific analyses means that the 7,000-step target may not apply uniformly across all age groups, particularly for older adults who may benefit from even fewer steps.[](https://www.euronews.com/health/2025/07/24/how-many-daily-steps-do-you-need-to-boost-health-its-not-10000-new-study-says)[](https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanpub/article/PIIS2468-2667%2825%2900164-1/fulltext)

Implications for Individuals and Public Health

The findings have significant implications for individuals and public health policy. For individuals, the 7,000-step goal is more attainable, potentially reducing the psychological barrier associated with the 10,000-step target. Dr. Daniel Bailey from Brunel University London noted that the study “debunks the myth that 10,000 steps per day should be the target for optimal health,” emphasizing that small increases, such as adding 1,000 steps daily, can yield meaningful benefits. This is particularly encouraging for sedentary individuals or those with chronic conditions, as even modest activity levels (e.g., 4,000 steps) offer health improvements.[](https://www.theguardian.com/science/2025/jul/23/7000-steps-a-day-could-be-enough-to-improve-health-say-researchers)[](https://www.abc.net.au/news/health/2025-07-25/step-count-7000-health-benefit/105571904)

For public health, the study’s findings could inform updates to national exercise guidelines. In Australia, for example, the research team is collaborating with the federal government to incorporate step-based recommendations into physical activity guidelines. Step counts provide a tangible and measurable target that complements existing time-based recommendations, potentially increasing public engagement with physical activity. Dr. Ding suggests that steps could be included as an “addition” to guidelines, acknowledging that not all activities, such as cycling or swimming, are captured by step counts.[](https://www.abc.net.au/news/health/2025-07-25/step-count-7000-health-benefit/105571904)[](https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cx238lgy3pwo)

Practical Tips for Achieving 7,000 Steps

Achieving 7,000 steps per day is feasible with small lifestyle changes. Here are practical strategies to incorporate more steps into daily life:

- Walk During Commutes: Get off public transport one or two stops early or park farther from your destination to add steps.[](https://www.cnn.com/2025/07/23/health/daily-steps-how-many-wellness)

- Take Active Breaks: Stand up and walk for five minutes every hour during work to accumulate steps.[](https://www.cnn.com/2025/07/23/health/daily-steps-how-many-wellness)

- Incorporate Daily Activities: Walk while talking on the phone, take stairs instead of elevators, or walk the dog multiple times daily.[](https://www.abc.net.au/news/health/2025-07-25/step-count-7000-health-benefit/105571904)

- Use Technology: Smartphones and fitness trackers can monitor steps, providing motivation and accountability.[](https://www.nuffieldhealth.com/article/walking-10k-steps-a-day-fact-fiction)

- Make It Enjoyable: Walk with friends, listen to music, or explore new routes to make walking a pleasant habit.[](https://www.cnn.com/2025/07/23/health/daily-steps-how-many-wellness)

For those already exceeding 7,000 steps, continuing to aim for 10,000 or more is beneficial, particularly for specific outcomes like dementia and diabetes prevention, where slight additional benefits were observed.[](https://www.abc.net.au/news/health/2025-07-25/step-count-7000-health-benefit/105571904)

Broader Context: The Benefits of Walking

Walking is a low-impact, accessible form of exercise that offers numerous physical and mental health benefits. It strengthens the heart, reduces blood pressure and cholesterol, improves blood sugar control, and promotes weight management. Mentally, walking releases feel-good neurotransmitters like dopamine and serotonin, combating depression and enhancing mood. Regular walking also reduces inflammation, a key factor in chronic diseases like cancer and cardiovascular issues.[](https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/23/well/how-many-steps-per-day-health.html)[](https://www.self.com/story/10000-steps-study)[](https://www.self.com/story/10000-steps-study)

The Lancet study aligns with prior research, such as a 2019 study by Dr. I-Min Lee, which found that 7,500 steps per day reduced mortality risk in older women, with benefits plateauing beyond this point. Similarly, a 2023 meta-analysis in the European Journal of Preventive Cardiology showed that as few as 3,900 steps daily reduced mortality risk, with incremental benefits up to 7,000–9,000 steps. These findings collectively underscore that “some movement is good, and more is better,” but the 10,000-step goal is not a universal necessity.[](https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/10000-steps-a-day-or-fewer-2019071117305)[](https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/large-study-finds-the-sweet-spot-for-daily-step-goals)[](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/you-dont-really-need-10-000-daily-steps-to-stay-healthy/)

 Conclusion

The 2025 Lancet Public Health study marks a significant shift in how we view daily step goals, demonstrating that 7,000 steps per day can deliver substantial health benefits, challenging the long-standing 10,000-step benchmark. By offering a more achievable target, this research encourages broader participation in physical activity, particularly among those who find higher goals intimidating. While limitations exist, such as the need for more data on specific outcomes and intensity, the study provides a robust foundation for rethinking public health recommendations. As wearable devices continue to make step counting accessible, the 7,000-step goal could become a practical tool for improving health outcomes worldwide, proving that small steps can lead to significant strides in well-being.[](https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanpub/article/PIIS2468-2667%2825%2900164-1/fulltext)

References  

 Just 7,000 steps a day could cut health risks, study says - www.bbc.com  [](https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cx238lgy3pwo)

 7,000 steps a day could be enough to improve health, say researchers | Medical research | The Guardian  [](https://www.theguardian.com/science/2025/jul/23/7000-steps-a-day-could-be-enough-to-improve-health-say-researchers)

 10,000 steps a day — or fewer? - Harvard Health - www.health.harvard.edu  [](https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/10000-steps-a-day-or-fewer-2019071117305)

 7,000 steps a day linked to reduced risk of chronic disease and death, study finds - ABC News - www.abc.net.au  [](https://www.abc.net.au/news/health/2025-07-25/step-count-7000-health-benefit/105571904)

 Do We Really Need to Take 10,000 Steps a Day for Our Health? - The New York Times - www.nytimes.com  [](https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/06/well/move/10000-steps-health.html)

 Walking 7000 steps a day seems to be enough to keep us healthy | New Scientist - www.newscientist.com  [](https://www.newscientist.com/article/2489453-walking-7000-steps-a-day-seems-to-be-enough-to-keep-us-healthy/)

 Don’t get overwhelmed by 10,000 steps. Here’s how many you may really need | CNN - www.cnn.com  [](https://www.cnn.com/2025/07/23/health/daily-steps-how-many-wellness)

 Why 7,000 steps a day is all you really need to boost your health | National Geographic - www.nationalgeographic.com  [](https://www.nationalgeographic.com/health/article/step-count-cardiovascular-disease-diabetes-dementia)

 How Many Steps Do You Really Need in a Day? - The New York Times - www.nytimes.com  [](https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/23/well/how-many-steps-per-day-health.html)

 Turns Out Fewer Than 10,000 Steps Are Enough for Better Health - Newsweek - www.newsweek.com  [](https://www.newsweek.com/health-exercise-steps-per-day-recommendation-7000-2102865)

 New Study: You Don’t Need to Hit 10,000 Steps a Day to Be ‘Healthy’ | SELF - www.self.com  [](https://www.self.com/story/10000-steps-study)

 Daily steps and health outcomes in adults: a systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis - The Lancet Public Health - www.thelancet.com  [](https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanpub/article/PIIS2468-2667%2825%2900164-1/fulltext)

 How many daily steps do you need to boost health? It’s not 10,000, new study says | Euronews - www.euronews.com  [](https://www.euronews.com/health/2025/07/24/how-many-daily-steps-do-you-need-to-boost-health-its-not-10000-new-study-says)

 Watch your step: why the 10,000 daily goal is built on bad science | Health & wellbeing | The Guardian - www.theguardian.com  [](https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2018/sep/03/watch-your-step-why-the-10000-daily-goal-is-built-on-bad-science)

 Large study finds the sweet spot for daily step goals - Harvard Health - www.health.harvard.edu  [](https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/large-study-finds-the-sweet-spot-for-daily-step-goals)