The study exists, is peer reviewed, and is accurately identified by the post. It is a real BJSM paper from Monash University and University of Sydney researchers using UK Biobank accelerometer data.

The core finding is about combinations, not a hierarchy. The research found that different combinations of step counts and walking intensity were associated with a lower risk of death from cardiovascular disease or any cause.

The risk was substantially lower among those achieving a higher stepping pace of at least 80 steps per minute but fewer than 5,000 daily steps, which was on a par with the risk reduction observed among those clocking up 5,000 to 7,500 daily steps at a lower stepping pace of about 60 steps per minute. The researchers describe this as higher intensity at lower volume providing health benefits comparable to lower intensity at higher volume.

Critically, the study did not find that pace beats volume. Maintaining a higher pace for at least 30 minutes a day was associated with a progressively lower risk of death from any cause among those accumulating fewer than 7,500 steps a day, while achieving 7,500 to 10,000 daily steps was associated with the lowest risk of an early death, irrespective of the pace. National Geographic's own article states this directly: people who walked fewer than 5,000 steps a day but moved more briskly had a risk comparable to that of people who walked 5,000 to 7,500 steps a day more slowly, but overall, people who walked 7,500 to 10,000 steps a day had the lowest mortality risk.

The corresponding author explicitly limited the interpretation: "This is observational work, so it should be read as an association rather than proof that changing peak-30 cadence, the indicator of stepping intensity we used, lowers mortality," and the wider message described is behavioral flexibility, with step targets not needing to look identical for everyone.