Study: Communion on Tongue = More Belief in True Presence

The Real Presence and Eucharistic Reception: Exploring a Study, Its Implications, and the History of Communion Practices

The Eucharist, described in the Catechism of the Catholic Church as the “source and summit of the Christian life” (CCC 1324), holds a central place in Catholic theology. The doctrine of the Real Presence—that Jesus Christ is truly present, body, blood, soul, and divinity in the consecrated bread and wine—has been a cornerstone of Catholic faith since the earliest days of the Church. Yet, recent studies have raised concerns about declining belief in this doctrine among Catholics, particularly in the United States. 

A 2025 study published in the Catholic Social Science Review by Natalie A. Lindemann, a psychology professor at William Paterson University, has sparked discussion by suggesting that Catholics who receive Communion on the tongue exhibit stronger belief in the Real Presence than those who receive in the hand. This blog post examines the study, critiques its limitations, particularly its failure to account for Catholics who prioritize internal faith over external practices, and provides a historical perspective on the development of Communion on the tongue and in the hand. Ultimately, it argues that faith in the Eucharist is rooted not in the mode of reception but in an informed, intentional spiritual life.

 The Study: Traditional Practices and Belief in the Real Presence

Published on September 23, 2025, in the Catholic Social Science Review, Lindemann’s study investigates how liturgical practices influence U.S. Catholics’ belief in the Real Presence. The research surveyed participants on a five-point scale, where 1 represented the belief that the Eucharist is merely a symbol and 5 indicated certainty in the Real Presence. The study found that Catholics who had ever received Communion on the tongue scored higher (M=3.27) than those who had never done so (M=2.79). The effect was more pronounced among those who always received on the tongue, and strongest among those who believed Communion should be received on the tongue (M=4.32) compared to those favoring reception in the hand (M=2.62) or personal choice (M=3.37). Additionally, traditional liturgical elements, such as ringing consecration bells or exposure to the Traditional Latin Mass (TLM), correlated with stronger belief (M=3.63 for parishes offering TLM vs. M=3.04 for those that did not).

The study suggests that traditional practices—Communion on the tongue, kneeling, consecration bells, and TLM attendance—foster a deeper conviction in the Real Presence. Lindemann argues that these practices emphasize reverence, which may reinforce belief in the Eucharist’s sacred reality. The findings align with concerns raised by earlier surveys, such as the 2019 Pew Research study, which reported that only 31% of U.S. Catholics believe in the Real Presence, prompting the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) to launch a Eucharistic Revival initiative.

The study’s methodology involved a quantitative survey of U.S. Catholics, assessing their liturgical experiences and Eucharistic beliefs. It controlled for variables like age, gender, and ethnicity, finding that liturgical context, not demographics, drove differences in belief. For example, participants whose parishes rang bells at the consecration—a practice highlighting the moment of transubstantiation—reported higher belief scores. Similarly, exposure to the TLM, even if not regularly attended, correlated with stronger faith in the Real Presence.

 Critiquing the Study: Overlooking Internal Faith

While Lindemann’s study offers valuable insights into the correlation between liturgical practices and Eucharistic belief, it has significant limitations, particularly in its failure to account for Catholics who prioritize internal faith over external rituals. The study’s focus on measurable practices risks oversimplifying the complex nature of faith, which is deeply personal and shaped by factors beyond liturgy.

 1. Correlation vs. Causation

The study establishes a correlation between receiving Communion on the tongue and stronger belief in the Real Presence but does not prove causation. It assumes that traditional practices cause stronger belief, but the reverse could be true: Catholics with pre-existing strong belief may gravitate toward traditional practices like receiving on the tongue or attending Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite. The study does not explore whether these individuals already held firm convictions before adopting these practices, nor does it examine whether less traditional Catholics might maintain robust faith through other spiritual practices, such as Eucharistic adoration or personal prayer.

 2. Neglecting Internal Disposition

Faith in the Real Presence is not solely a product of external actions but of an internal disposition cultivated through catechesis, personal reflection, and spiritual growth. The study’s emphasis on physical practices overlooks Catholics who may receive Communion in the hand yet possess a profound belief in the Eucharist due to thorough education or a vibrant prayer life. For example, a Catholic who attends a Novus Ordo Mass, receives in the hand, and participates in regular adoration may have a stronger faith than someone who receives on the tongue but attends Mass irregularly or lacks catechetical grounding. The study’s reliance on a single metric—mode of reception—fails to capture these nuances.

 3. Sampling Bias

The study does not provide detailed information about its sample size or selection process, raising questions about representativeness. If participants were drawn from parishes with strong traditionalist leanings, the results may be skewed toward those already inclined to favor practices like Communion on the tongue. Catholics who prioritize faith through intellectual engagement, such as studying Church teachings or participating in theological discussions, may be underrepresented. The study’s focus on liturgical context may also marginalize Catholics who express their faith through service, community involvement, or other non-liturgical means.

 4. Cultural and Historical Context

The study notes that the COVID-19 pandemic influenced some participants to receive Communion in the hand due to hygiene concerns, yet it does not explore how such external factors might affect belief. For instance, Catholics who switched to receiving in the hand during the pandemic may still maintain strong faith, but the study’s framework might misinterpret their practice as indicative of weaker belief. Similarly, cultural differences within the U.S. Catholic population—such as varying traditions among Hispanic, African American, or Asian communities—are not adequately addressed, potentially oversimplifying the relationship between practice and belief.

 5. Overemphasis on Uniformity

The study suggests that “uniformity of ritual” strengthens belief, but this overlooks the diversity of Catholic spirituality. The Church has long embraced varied expressions of faith, from the contemplative mysticism of St. John of the Cross to the active charity of St. Vincent de Paul. By prioritizing traditional practices, the study risks implying that less traditional Catholics are less faithful, which may alienate those who find spiritual depth in other aspects of the faith, such as Scripture study or social justice work.

In summary, while the study highlights an interesting correlation, it fails to account for the complexity of faith, particularly among Catholics who focus on internal belief and spiritual growth rather than specific liturgical practices. Faith in the Real Presence is not a one-size-fits-all outcome of ritual but a dynamic relationship with Christ, shaped by education, prayer, and personal commitment.

 A Brief History of Communion on the Tongue and in the Hand

To understand the debate surrounding Communion on the tongue versus in the hand, a historical perspective is essential. Contrary to common assumptions, receiving Communion in the hand is the more ancient practice, rooted in the early Church, while Communion on the tongue emerged later as a response to theological and practical concerns.

 Early Church: Communion in the Hand

In the first centuries of Christianity, receiving Communion in the hand was the norm. St. Cyril of Jerusalem, in his 4th-century Mystagogic Catechesis, instructed the faithful to receive the Eucharist in the hand with reverence: “Coming up to receive, therefore, do not approach with your wrists extended or your fingers splayed, but making your left hand a throne for the right… receive the body of Christ, and answer, ‘Amen.’” This practice was highly ritualized, with communicants washing their hands, bowing deeply, and consuming the Host directly from the palm to avoid dropping particles. Early Church Fathers, such as St. Augustine and St. John Chrysostom, also describe Communion in the hand, emphasizing the need for reverence to reflect belief in the Real Presence.

The early Church’s practice was not casual; it was accompanied by strict protocols to ensure respect for the Eucharist. However, as the Church grew and Eucharistic theology developed, concerns about potential abuses—such as dropping fragments or irreverent handling—began to emerge.

 Shift to Communion on the Tongue

By the 6th and 7th centuries, the practice of receiving Communion on the tongue started to gain traction, particularly in the Western Church. Several factors drove this shift:

1. Theological Development: As the doctrine of the Real Presence became more explicitly defined, particularly in response to early heresies questioning Christ’s presence in the Eucharist, the Church sought to emphasize reverence. Receiving on the tongue, often while kneeling, was seen as a way to express humility and adoration.

2. Practical Concerns: The risk of Eucharistic particles being lost or mishandled led to stricter controls. Documents from the Synod of Rouen (650) and the Sixth Ecumenical Council at Constantinople (680-681) condemned Communion in the hand to prevent abuses, with the latter threatening excommunication for those who continued the practice.

3. Clerical Authority: The growing distinction between clergy and laity in the medieval Church reinforced the practice of Communion on the tongue. Priests, whose hands were consecrated, were seen as the appropriate ministers to handle the Eucharist, reducing the laity’s direct contact with the Host.

By the 9th century, Communion on the tongue had become the universal norm in the Latin Rite, often received while kneeling at altar rails. This practice remained dominant for over a millennium, reinforced by the Council of Trent (1545-1563), which reaffirmed the Real Presence and emphasized reverence in Eucharistic practices.

 Revival of Communion in the Hand

The 20th century saw a renewed interest in early Church practices, spurred by the liturgical movement and the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965). In 1969, the Holy See issued Memoriale Domini, which acknowledged that Communion in the hand was the ancient practice but noted that Communion on the tongue had become the norm due to concerns about reverence and particle loss. The document permitted bishops’ conferences to request an indult (permission) to allow Communion in the hand, provided it was done with proper catechesis and reverence. The United States received this indult in 1977, and today, the General Instruction of the Roman Missal (GIRM) states that communicants may receive “either on the tongue or, where this is allowed and if the communicant so chooses, in the hand” (No. 161).

The revival of Communion in the hand was not a rejection of reverence but an attempt to reconnect with the early Church’s traditions while ensuring proper instruction. However, critics argue that inadequate catechesis and casual practices in some parishes have undermined reverence, contributing to declining belief in the Real Presence.

 Modern Context

Today, Catholics may choose to receive Communion either on the tongue or in the hand, as both are sanctioned by the Church. The USCCB emphasizes that the decision belongs to the individual, provided it is done reverently. Debates persist, with some, like Cardinal Robert Sarah, arguing that Communion in the hand reflects a “lack of submission to the signs of God,” while others, such as Fr. Josh Johnson, stress that both methods are valid when approached with faith.

This historical overview reveals that Communion in the hand is not a modern innovation but a return to an ancient practice, while Communion on the tongue is a later development rooted in medieval concerns for reverence. Neither practice inherently determines faith, but both require an interior disposition of reverence and belief.

See more: Sacerdotus: Holy Communion: Hand vs Tongue Discussion

 Faith in the Eucharist: Beyond the Mode of Reception

While Lindemann’s study suggests that traditional practices like Communion on the tongue strengthen belief in the Real Presence, the true source of faith lies not in the external act but in an informed, intentional spiritual life. The Church teaches that faith is a gift of grace, nurtured through catechesis, prayer, and active participation in the sacramental life. Several key factors contribute to a robust belief in the Eucharist:

 1. Catechesis and Education

A deep understanding of the Eucharist is foundational to faith in the Real Presence. The Church’s teachings, as articulated in the Catechism (CCC 1374-1375) and Scripture (John 6:27-58), emphasize that the Eucharist is not a symbol but the true presence of Christ. Catholics who engage with these teachings—through homilies, Bible studies, or theological reading—are more likely to develop a conviction that transcends liturgical practices. For example, a Catholic who receives in the hand but has studied the writings of St. Thomas Aquinas on transubstantiation may have a stronger faith than someone who receives on the tongue but lacks such knowledge.

 2. Spiritual Practices

Faith in the Eucharist is deepened through practices like Eucharistic adoration, where Catholics encounter Christ’s presence in a contemplative setting. Adoration, which has seen a resurgence in recent years, fosters a personal relationship with Christ that reinforces belief, regardless of how one receives Communion. Other practices, such as frequent confession, prayer, and meditation on the Passion, also cultivate a Eucharistic spirituality.

 3. Interior Disposition

The Church emphasizes that reverence for the Eucharist begins with the heart. Whether receiving on the tongue or in the hand, the communicant’s interior disposition—marked by humility, faith, and a state of grace—is paramount. St. Paul’s admonition in 1 Corinthians 11:27-29 warns against receiving the Eucharist unworthily, highlighting the importance of spiritual preparation over physical posture.

 4. Community and Witness

Faith is also shaped by the witness of others. Catholics who belong to vibrant parishes, participate in faith-sharing groups, or see examples of Eucharistic devotion in their families are more likely to internalize belief in the Real Presence. This communal aspect transcends the mode of reception and emphasizes the role of the Church as a living body.

 5. Response to Modern Challenges

The decline in belief noted in studies like Pew’s 2019 survey reflects broader challenges, including secularization, poor catechesis, and cultural shifts. The USCCB’s Eucharistic Revival seeks to address these by promoting education, adoration, and renewed liturgical focus. While traditional practices may help, they are not a panacea; faith requires a holistic approach that engages both heart and mind.

In contrast to the study’s focus on external practices, these factors highlight that faith in the Real Presence is a dynamic process, rooted in an informed, intentional relationship with Christ. A Catholic who receives in the hand but actively pursues spiritual growth may exhibit greater faith than one who receives on the tongue out of habit or cultural preference.

 Conclusion

Lindemann’s study offers a thought-provoking perspective on the correlation between traditional liturgical practices and belief in the Real Presence. However, its limitations—particularly its failure to account for Catholics who prioritize internal faith over external rituals—underscore the complexity of Eucharistic belief. The history of Communion practices reveals that receiving in the hand is an ancient tradition, while Communion on the tongue emerged later to emphasize reverence. Neither method inherently determines faith; instead, belief in the Real Presence is cultivated through catechesis, spiritual practices, and an interior disposition of reverence.

As the Church navigates declining belief in the Eucharist, the focus should not be on mandating one form of reception but on fostering a deeper understanding of the sacrament. Catholics who are informed about Church teachings, engage in prayer and adoration, and approach the Eucharist with humility—whether receiving on the tongue or in the hand—are the ones who truly embody faith in the Real Presence. The Eucharistic Revival offers an opportunity to renew this faith, not by privileging one practice over another but by inviting all Catholics to encounter Christ in the Eucharist with open hearts.

---

 References and News

1. Lindemann, N. A. (2025). “Traditional Liturgical Experiences Predict Stronger Belief in the Real Presence.” Catholic Social Science Review, Volume 30. [Study Link]

2. ZENIT News. (2025, September 23). “Study Links Traditional Eucharistic Practices to Stronger Belief in Christ’s Presence.” ZENIT - English.[](https://zenit.org/2025/09/23/study-links-traditional-eucharistic-practices-to-stronger-belief-in-christs-presence)

3. Catholic News Agency. (2025, September 22). “New study: ‘Traditional liturgical experiences predict stronger belief in the Real Presence’.” catholicnewsagency.com.[](https://catholicnewsagency.com/news/266685/new-study-traditional-liturgical-experiences-predict-stronger-belief-in-the-real-presence)

4. Catholicism.org. (2025, September 18). “Traditional Liturgical Practices Predict Belief in the Real Presence.” catholicism.org.[](https://catholicism.org/traditional-liturgical-practices-predict-belief-in-the-real-presence.html)

5. Catholic News Agency. (2023, September 29). “New study shows that now almost two-thirds of US Catholics believe in Real Presence.” catholicnewsagency.com.[](https://catholicnewsagency.com/news/255526/new-study-show-that-now-almost-two-thirds-of-us-catholics-believe-in-real-presence)

6. Catholicus.eu. (2025, April 12). “Devotion or Disrespect? The Truth About Receiving Communion in the Hand According to Catholic Tradition.” catholicus.eu.[](https://catholicus.eu/en/devotion-or-disrespect-the-truth-about-receiving-communion-in-the-hand-according-to-catholic-tradition)

7. America Magazine. (2018, February 23). “Cardinal Sarah: Receiving Communion in the hand part of a ‘diabolical attack’ on the faith.” www.americamagazine.org.[](https://www.americamagazine.org/faith/2018/02/23/cardinal-sarah-receiving-communion-hand-part-diabolical-attack-faith)

8. Ascension Press. (2024, December 16). “Should We Receive Holy Communion on the Tongue or in the Hand?” ascensionpress.com.[](https://ascensionpress.com/blogs/podcasts/should-we-receive-holy-communion-on-the-tongue-or-in-the-hand)

9. America Magazine. (2023, November 17). “Hands or tongue, kneeling or standing: There’s no ‘best way’ to receive Communion.” www.americamagazine.org.[](https://www.americamagazine.org/faith/2023/11/17/communion-eucharist-hands-tongue-kneeling-246518/)

10. Corpus Christi for Unity and Peace. (2024, October 16). “Massive Survey Shows Receiving Communion in Hand IS THE CAUSE for LOSS OF FAITH.” www.corpuschristiforunityandpeace.org.[](https://www.corpuschristiforunityandpeace.org/massive-survey-shows-receiving-communion-in-hand-is-the-cause-for-loss-of-faith/)

11. Ron Conte. (2020, July 29). “Proof that Communion on the Tongue does not Preserve Orthodoxy.” ronconte.com.[](https://ronconte.com/2020/07/29/proof-that-communion-on-the-tongue-does-not-preserve-orthodoxy/)

12. Mater Dei Catholic Parish. (2014, November 16). “Receiving Communion on the tongue at the altar rail.” materdeiparish.com.[](https://materdeiparish.com/new-to-latin-mass/receiving-communion-tongue-altar-rail/)

13. California Catholic Daily. (2020, March 6). “Communion on tongue is more hygienic, say priests and bishop.” cal-catholic.com.[](https://cal-catholic.com/44217-2/)

14. Catholic365.com. (2019, August 26). “Why don’t Catholics Believe in the Real Presence?” catholic365.com.[](https://catholic365.com/article/10540/why-dont-catholics-believe-in-the-real-presence.html)

15. Liturgy Guy. (2015, April 11). “The Affirmative Argument for Receiving Communion on the Tongue.” liturgyguy.com.[](https://liturgyguy.com/2015/04/11/the-affirmative-argument-for-receiving-communion-on-the-tongue/)

16. The Boston Pilot. (2021, December 1). “Communion in hand or tongue?” www.thebostonpilot.com.[](https://www.thebostonpilot.com/article.php?ID=191192)

17. Reasonable Catholic. (2016, January 4). “Communion In The Hand?” www.reasonablecatholic.com.[](https://www.reasonablecatholic.com/communion-in-the-hand/)

18. Catholic365.com. (2022, July 17). “Communion on the Tongue is an Apostolic Tradition, and Should Be the Only Way to Receive the Eucharist.” www.catholic365.com.[](https://www.catholic365.com/article/19342/communion-on-the-tongue-is-an-apostolic-tradition-and-should-be-the-only-way-to-receive-the-eucharist.html)

19. Know Your Catholic Faith. (2017, November 16). “COMMUNION BY THE HAND OR BY THE TONGUE?” knowyourcatholicfaith.wordpress.com.[](https://knowyourcatholicfaith.wordpress.com/2017/11/17/%25E2%2580%258Bcommunion-by-the-hand-or-by-the-tongue/)

20. The Catholic Messenger. (2023, November 30). “Question on Communion on the tongue or hand.” catholicmessenger.net.[](https://catholicmessenger.net/2023/11/question-on-communion-on-the-tongue-or-hand/)

21. Catholic Times. (2024, February 6). “Receiving Holy Communion on the tongue.” catholictimescolumbus.org.[](https://catholictimescolumbus.org/news/father-paul-keller-op-s-t-d/receiving-holy-communion-on-the-tongue)

22. FSSP Joliet. (2020, June 27). “Holy Communion on the tongue or in the hand? (Revised June 27, 2020).” fsspjoliet.wordpress.com.[](https://fsspjoliet.wordpress.com/2020/06/27/holy-communion-on-the-tongue-or-in-the-hand/)

23. Integrated Catholic Life. (2011, October 21). “How to Receive Holy Communion on the Tongue.” integratedcatholiclife.org.[](https://integratedcatholiclife.org/2011/10/deacon-bickerstaff-how-to-receive-holy-communion-on-the-tongue/)

24. Bismarck Diocese. (2018, November 4). “Is it best to receive Holy Communion in the hand or on the tongue?” bismarckdiocese.com.[](https://bismarckdiocese.com/news/is-it-best-to-receive-holy-communion-in-the-hand-or-on-the-tongue)

25. Catholic Herald. (2020, May 28). “Prohibiting Communion on the Tongue: A Canonical View.” catholicherald.org.[](https://catholicherald.org/catholic-herald/prohibiting-communion-on-the-tongue-a-canonical-view/)

26. Catholic Arena. (2023, August 15). “Receiving the Holy Eucharist: tongue, or hand?” www.catholicarena.com.[](https://www.catholicarena.com/latest/2023/8/11/receiving-the-holy-eucharist-on-the-tongue-or-in-the-hand)

 

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)

 

Dark Energy’s Waning? The Big Crunch Hype and Why It’s Probably Not Happening

Below is a blog-style post about the recent study on dark energy suggesting a potential slowing of the universe’s expansion and a possible “Big Crunch,” followed by an explanation of why this scenario remains implausible based on current evidence and scientific consensus. 

The piece draws on recent findings from the Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument (DESI) collaboration, as reported in 2024 and 2025, and critiques the interpretation using established cosmological understanding.

---

Dark Energy’s Waning? The Big Crunch Hype and Why It’s Probably Not Happening

In March 2025, headlines buzzed with a cosmic twist: dark energy, the mysterious force driving the universe’s accelerating expansion, might be weakening. According to the Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument (DESI) team at Arizona’s Kitt Peak National Observatory, their latest data—mapping 6.4 million galaxies—hints that this enigmatic energy peaked billions of years ago and is now fading. Some cosmologists, like Carlos Frenk from Durham University, speculate this could flip the universe’s fate from endless expansion to a dramatic collapse—a “Big Crunch,” where everything implodes back into a hot, dense point, reversing the Big Bang. It’s a wild idea, stirring visions of cosmic Ragnarök. But hold the doomsday headlines—here’s why the Big Crunch remains a long shot, despite the buzz.

The DESI Discovery: What’s New?

DESI’s been peering into the universe’s past with its 5,000 robotic eyes, building the largest 3D map of galaxies ever. By analyzing light from objects 8 to 11 billion years old, they’ve tracked how fast the universe expanded over time via “redshift”—the stretching of light as space grows. The standard model, Lambda Cold Dark Matter (LCDM), assumes dark energy is a constant force (the cosmological constant, or “lambda”), pushing galaxies apart at an ever-faster clip. But DESI’s first-year data, released in 2024 and refined by early 2025, suggests dark energy might not be steady. Instead, it could be “quintessence”—a dynamic field that changes over time.

The numbers are intriguing: DESI claims dark energy hit a peak when the universe was about 70% of its current age (roughly 9.6 billion years ago) and has since dropped by about 10%. If true, the expansion rate, while still accelerating, might be easing off. Extrapolate further, some say, and if dark energy dips below zero into “phantom” territory (a negative, attractive force), gravity could take over, pulling the universe back into a crunch. A Guardian piece from March 19, 2025, quotes Frenk: “I’m much more at ease with the possibility of new universes emerging in due course” via a crunch-and-rebirth cycle. It’s bold, but the data’s not a slam dunk.

The Big Crunch: A Cosmic Comeback?

The Big Crunch isn’t new—it was a contender before 1998, when scientists thought gravity might eventually halt and reverse the universe’s expansion. That changed when supernova observations (led by Perlmutter, Schmidt, and Riess, Nobel Prize 2011) showed the expansion speeding up, pinning the blame on dark energy. The LCDM model took hold: 70% dark energy, 25% dark matter, 5% normal stuff, with dark energy as a constant pushing forever outward. A Big Crunch would need dark energy to fade dramatically—or turn negative—letting gravity win the tug-of-war. DESI’s findings tease that possibility, but let’s unpack why it’s likely overhyped.

Why the Big Crunch Is Implausible

1. Statistical Weakness
   • DESI’s results don’t hit the “five-sigma” threshold—the gold standard for a physics discovery. As The Guardian notes, it’s a “deeply intriguing” signal, not a confirmed shift. Alexie Leauthaud-Harnett from UC Santa Cruz calls it exciting but preliminary. With only one year of a five-year survey analyzed, the data’s robust (1% precision for 8-11 billion years ago), but combining it with older datasets (e.g., supernovae) to suggest waning dark energy is statistically shaky. Cosmologist Paul Steinhardt, in a May 2024 Quanta Magazine piece, argues a quintessence model fits without needing phantom energy—a simpler tweak that doesn’t demand a crunch.
2. Dark Energy’s Dominance
   • Dark energy makes up ~70% of the universe’s mass-energy density, dwarfing matter’s pull. Even if it’s weakened 10%, it’s still driving acceleration—DESI doesn’t dispute that. For a Big Crunch, it’d need to drop far below zero, flipping to an attractive force. No known mechanism supports this. The cosmological constant, backed by decades of supernova and cosmic microwave background (CMB) data from NASA’s WMAP and Planck missions, holds steady. A Big Think article from 2022 stresses: “The reverse, a Big Crunch, isn’t how it’ll end” unless dark energy’s nature radically changes—something DESI doesn’t prove.
3. Quintessence vs. Phantom Energy
   • DESI floats quintessence—a fluctuating dark energy—as a better fit than a constant. But phantom energy (negative density) is a leap beyond that, and theorists like Marina Cortês in Quanta (August 2024) call it “weird” and unlikely. Alternative models by Kim Berghaus and others fit DESI’s data without crossing into collapse territory. The universe could slow its acceleration without reversing—ending in a “Big Freeze” (expansion forever) or a steady state, not a crunch.
4. Cosmic History Says No
   • The universe expanded slower early on, dominated by matter’s gravity, then sped up ~6 billion years ago as dark energy took over (per NASA’s Science site, 2024). DESI’s hint of a 10% dip doesn’t undo this trend—expansion’s still outpacing gravity. A Big Crunch needs a total reversal, but 13.8 billion years of data (CMB, supernovae, galaxy clusters) align with LCDM’s outward push. A Space.com piece (April 2024) notes DESI’s shift would be “revolutionary if confirmed,” but four more years of data are needed to settle it.
5. Testing Troubles
   • Gary Hinshaw, in a 2022 ScienceAlert interview, says quintessence theories are “impossible to test” directly now. We’d need to watch dark energy evolve over eons—beyond our lifespan. DESI’s map is a snapshot, not a movie. Without a clear mechanism for dark energy to nosedive, the Big Crunch stays speculative. Sean Carroll told Nature in 2020: “If dark energy is quintessence, its push could wither,” but could is not will.

The Real Story: Caution, Not Crunch

DESI’s work is groundbreaking—its precision and scale are unmatched, and it’s shaking up LCDM’s edges. A waning dark energy would be huge, as The Guardian suggests, potentially “the first substantial change in decades” to our cosmic model. But implausible doesn’t mean impossible—just unlikely. The Big Crunch grabs headlines (who doesn’t love an end-of-the-world twist?), but the data leans toward subtler shifts: maybe a slower acceleration, not a collapse. Future DESI results, plus NASA’s upcoming Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope (launching 2027), will refine this picture.

For now, the universe isn’t folding up shop. It’s more likely to stretch on, cooling into a sparse, dark expanse—the Big Freeze—than to slam shut. The St. Joseph Staircase isn’t a miracle; neither is DESI’s hint a crunch guarantee. It’s a marvel of science, not a sign of doom. So, enjoy the cosmic dance—it’s still got a lot of steps left.

---

Sources

• Space.com, “Dark Energy Could Be Getting Weaker,” April 16, 2024.
• The Guardian, “Dark Energy Mysterious Cosmic Force Appears to Be Weakening,” March 19, 2025.
• Big Think, “Dark Energy Is Here to Stay, and a ‘Big Crunch’ Isn’t Coming,” May 25, 2022.
• Quanta Magazine, “Waning Dark Energy May Evade ‘Swampland,’” August 19, 2024.
• NASA Science.nasa.gov, “What Is Dark Energy?” February 5, 2024.
• ScienceAlert, “Universe Could Start Shrinking ‘Remarkably’ Soon,” May 2, 2022.
• Nature (via Carroll quote), 2020.