Do fitness trackers result in healthier Canadians?
If there was a fitness tracker under the tree with your name on it, you’re in good company. It’s estimated that one in six consumers (in the U.S.) currently use wearable technology (smartwatches and fitness bands) and the number of units sold in 2017 were projected to ring in at 19 million. Yet despite the boom in sales, there’s little research suggesting a matching boom in exercise activity.
Designed to monitor physical activity, fitness trackers have come a long way from the first generation of mass marketed pedometers that clipped to a waistband. Beyond counting steps, the latest devices use embedded sensors to track calories burned, distance and speed travelled, heart rate, sleep habits and much more. But their biggest selling feature is the belief that they’ll lead to a healthier, more active lifestyle.
Offering real time feedback on the amount of physical activity performed daily, these wearable devices boast of keeping a pulse on your lifestyle. The feedback comes in a variety of formats with most models delivering a scrolling list of stats, displayed on a compact screen attached to a wristband, along with gentle reminders to get up and move, as well as the ability to set activity goals.
Based on the premise that all movement counts, the first wave of fitness trackers translated all activity into a step count, playing on the popular belief that 10,000 steps a day leads to better overall health. Everything was tallied – climbing stairs, pacing around the office, workouts at the gym, with early adapters tending to be already active individuals interested in quantifying their exercise habits.
Yet those initial models left a lot to be desired in terms of design, esthetics, comfort and user experience. Battery life was poor and there were persistent questions about their accuracy. They also failed to deliver the type of sophisticated stats that performance-based athletes (runners, cyclists, swimmers) were looking for. So despite lots of interest in the potential of fitness trackers to increase physical activity, they were often abandoned within weeks or months of purchase.
The addition of a GPS and heartrate monitor added to the devices’ appeal, offering a more comprehensive selection of stats. Run, cycle, swim and gym workouts were now quantified and incorporated into the day’s activities allowing users to get a fuller picture of their exercise habits. Wearables were getting smarter and sleeker. Consumers could now purchase a single piece of technology to tell time, monitor daily activity and workouts, receive phone alerts and play music.
But it’s not just the ability to track physical activity that has put fitness trackers on so many wrists. The capacity to go from making users accountable only to themselves to sharing their activity through social networks has added yet another layer to the user experience. Building active communities that compete in friendly exercise challenges fosters positive peer pressure. Plus the addition of gentle reminders when daily activity is low, rewards and encouragement when activity is high keeps goals in sight.
Yet despite all that fitness trackers/wearables have to offer, a recent study reported that 30 per cent of users stop wearing their devices after six months and 50 per cent eventually stop using theirs altogether. Some feel unwanted pressure to reach daily targets and end up removing the device if they underachieve. Others don’t like feeling as though the device is controlling their lives. And some find the information a repetitive reminder of their daily routine.
Ultimately, compliance is based on the belief that fitness trackers will lead to a healthier lifestyle. But to date, there’s little evidence to prove they’re effective. Anecdotally, consumers report being initially motivated to raise their step count and daily activity, pleased to see their stats improve. But over the long haul, do fitness trackers motivate people to move more, sleep better and live a healthier life? And while manufacturers are striving to make the devices do more, there are words of caution about the privacy of the information gathered.
Insurance companies and some employers have been known to offer incentives to those who maintain a healthy level of activity as reported by their fitness tracker. Most units store your personal information in the cloud, which makes it easy to share. But there are questions about the security of the data and what else employers and insurance companies will do with the information. The quality of your sleep, the peaks and valleys of your heart rate and your activity profile can provide a basic picture of your overall health and lifestyle, which to date has been shared with few beyond personal physicians.
Then there’s the question about the accuracy of the data. The rush to join the competitive wearable tech market has caused manufacturers to push their product out at a rate that calls to question their reliability.
Who evaluates whether the information that appears on your fitness tracker is a fair representative of your heat rate, number of calories burned, distance travelled, steps taken and stairs climbed? The data varies considerably between the various models on the market.
Does all of this mean your new gadget is a waste of money? Not at all. Fitness trackers are a tool designed to bridge the gap between how much exercise you think you’re doing and how much you’re really doing. They also try to be that gentle push so many people need to get moving. But at the end of the day, the real work still needs to be done by the wearer not the wearable.