My, some assumptions about me.

Actually, I do know correlation does not equal causation (it still might imply it however, it just doesn't necessarily prove it).

And I am also very much aware that not all studies are created equal.

Actually, I don't think I ever suggested in my response that it was proven--just that it had more going for it than the article stated.

I merely pointed out that the 10,000 steps being touted today is not actually the result of a 1960s marketing ploy but was based on other studies and the Blue Zones (and, side note: the Blue Zones promoters would most likely actually agree with the gist of the article that diet along with physical activity is essential to health and weight management).

So, to completely write it off the "10,000 steps" as just some myth created in the 1960s is an unfair characterization--a mischaracterization: i.e., "Oh it's just some draw back from 60 years ago, there are no current studies suggest otherwise."

My point: the article paints with too broad a brush and mischaracterizes the contemporary interest in the 10,000 steps+ thereby creating a bit of a straw man.