This is an op-ed guest post written by David Fouse, a PR executive and regular competitor in triathlons and iron mans worldwide. He just completed the Himalayan 100 mile stage race this past fall.
Fitness enthusiasts are awash in wearable gadgets that help them train and compete. What started as the simple FitBit has transformed into a multi-million dollar industry that accounted for more than half of the 35 million wearable devices in use around the world at the end of 2014. According to the market research firm NPD Group, one in ten U.S. adults own a fitness tracker. But the fitness market is notorious for its waves – extremely popular devices or equipment that makes a lot of money for the manufacturers but to date have done little for our overall fitness.
Anecdotal evidence aside, we still don’t know if fitness wearables actually work.
As Stephen Intille, the Co-Founder of Northeastern University’s personal health informatics doctoral program, has said, “Few well-designed studies have shown that use of wearable fitness technologies leads to long-term, sustainable health and sustained healthy behavior in the general population.”
Call me a pessimist on this. At least surveying the fitness trackers available today, I don’t believe we’ll see a measurable impact on the general population. Which is not to say future devices won’t succeed – in fact, I think they will. I say this as someone who has a foot in both the hardcore fitness camp and the somewhat regular gym-goer and jogger camp. I run competitively but I also have a large family and day job that take priority in my life. In other words, I spend time a lot of time with the fitness enthusiasts as well as the casual fitness-conscious.
For example, last October I competed (or, honestly, ran) in a 100-mile race in India at the base of the Himalayan Mountains. This experience brought me face-to-face not only with the latest in fitness tech, but also with runners who have a professional interest in tracking the kind of bodily metrics reserved for Olympians. On this score, today’s fitness devices are a God-send because they remove the onerous and complicated work of manually capturing and logging stats, like heart rate, ground contact, and cadence, to say nothing of their ability to count steps and distance.
On the other hand, there’s the guy who just wants to shed a few pounds and has no interest or need to track his vitals at this level of detail. A fitness tracker might help him reach his desired step count for the day – not an insignificant matter – but his wearable hasn’t solved his biggest problem; namely, maintaining a workout routine at a level that leads to actual results. It’s not just getting to the gym or outside; it’s stressing your body to the point where change starts to happen.
It’s unfortunate, because I see this guy every time I go to the gym. He’s at the gym, which is a victory in itself, but the middle-age weight just never seems to fall off no matter how long he spends on the treadmill or using weights. From the equipment fads of yesterday to the fitness wearables of today, nothing has solved this guy’s problem: a lack of routine combined with a shortage of intensity.
So what will?
Competitive runners know the high that can come with beating your previous best time. All their thought is bent on shedding another millisecond – and when it happens, there’s a sense of profound accomplishment. This in turn drives them to keep going. That’s the thing… they see the results of all of our hard work.
Despite the hype, today’s fitness trackers don’t do this any better than in the old days.
Sure, they might provide some amusement and therein motivation via daily step counts, but shedding 10 pounds for a non-obese person is still a huge task that defeats most of us.
Why?
Fitness wearables don’t know how to gauge appropriate levels of intensity.
But could they?
Two developments point to yes.
First, recently, the fitness apparel maker Under Armour announced its acquisition of two fitness-based apps, San Francisco-based MyFitnessPal and European app Endomondo, which combined have about 120 million users. The move promises to thrust Under Armour beyond apparel and into fitness technology. It’s not hard to appreciate why the acquisitions make sense. Social media has helped transform health and fitness because it provides the two elements usually missing from our lone endeavors to get fit: motivation and inspiration from each other’s peers. The point is that as fitness technology becomes ever more closely connected with social-media platforms, which themselves are becoming a more interactive part of our lives, we will see the promises of fitness wearables become reality.
The second development is merely a matter of improving technology. Fitness wearables are great for the enthusiast, but they do little for the guy at the gym. That’s because they aren’t very good yet at personalization; a fitness tracker doesn’t really know you, beyond simple body measurements like weight and goals. The benefit of a personal trainer is that he or she knows your body very well: they know exactly what you need, how much you can take and how hard to push.
This is what tomorrow’s trackers will be able to mimic. They will be able to read all of your body measurements to form an intimate picture of not just your fitness level, but what your body needs to make it to the next level – and how fast or slow you can get there to avoid injury. They will know when you can run another mile or lift five more pounds. In other words, they will add the intensity to your workout that leads to change.
So although I’m a pessimist about what today’s fitness wearables can accomplish, I am a complete optimist about where we’re headed. Yet even though tomorrow’s gadgets should do wonders for the guy at the gym, the guy at the gym will still need to do the work.
David Fouse is a Partner with the Pinkston Group, a public relations firm in Northern Virginia. Follow him on Twitter @CSuiteRunners.
