We, as a species, love counting. We, as a fitness-loving and fitness-pursuing species, really love counting. We count:
- workouts per day/week/month/year/decade
- reps/sets of reps
- max/avg heartrate
- how far/how much/how fast/how high
among other things.
The issues of 1) what to count and 2) what the counted numbers mean are a subject of lively debate and even some controversy in research and popular discussions about the efficacy of fitness tracking. We’ve written a good bit about fitness tracking, both pro and con. Christine recently posted about her accidental FitBit vacation: An accidental (and happy) vacation from my FitBit.
The New York Times just published an article suggesting that maybe we don’t need all the data that our wearable devices and smart phones eagerly gather for us.
Yep, that’s what they’re reporting. Here’s the summary:
Not all data is good or helpful, doctors, exercise physiologists and coaches say, and having more data does not mean having a more effective workout. The real questions surround not the wearable, but the wearer.
Hmmm. That last sentence sounds intriguing, but as yet unhelpful. What’s up here?
First, there’s the issue of accuracy: not all features of human functioning are equally easy to measure, much less easy to measure using a phone or watch-like device. Distance traveled: easy-peasy. VO2 max: uh, not so much. That is best done in a lab, with loads of equipment that doesn’t fit around your wrist.
Second, there’s the issue of motivation: more data collection doesn’t necessarily translate into e.g. more workouts:
“Wearables are very good at changing behavior if they are done in the context of a physical activity intervention study,” said Dr. Bassett, who has long studied wearables.
But outside a clinical or lab setting, researchers find that accountability, company, and old-fashioned competition help people set and maintain exercise regimens. Fitness trackers and phones and wearables are a part of that– what we in the philosophy biz might call necessary but not sufficient conditions. We need them to connect with others, but it’s those connections that provide motivation and encouragement to help us establish our workout as a habit.
Third, there’s the issue of excellence: do wearables and fitness trackers make us better athletes? The short answer is no. The Times article said this:
“A beginner and a professional athlete oftentimes use the devices incredibly similarly,” said Darian Allberry, head of user engagement at Coros, a GPS watch company. They want to know how far they’ve gone and how fast they’ve traveled. Beyond that, extra data can be distracting, he added.
If you’re looking to improve some specific aspect of your fitness, more specific data can be helpful. But the article ends with this (which includes one of my new favorite fitness quotes from a researcher):
But if you are just trying to get out the door more, a device’s data dump probably isn’t entirely necessary, Dr. Ethan Weiss, a physician at the University of California, San Francisco, said.
“We have this attachment to data, we all love data,” Dr. Weiss said. “We love to measure things for the sake of measuring things.”
Sometimes he tells his patients that a different item attached at your wrist could better pull you toward more activity.
“Have you considered getting a dog?” he said.
There you have it, folks. Science says get a dog.
