FitBits, or an activity tracker by any other name, are great motivators because, as the term states, they track your activity, and what gets measured improves. My wife enjoys competing in challenges with her friends for the most steps. In fact, many evenings before going to bed, she may be seen walking in place just to get that little edge on the competition. But it is not just about the competition. That community factor is proving to be one of the greatest motivators to keep people active with their fitness goals.
However, there remain major drawbacks to these devices that have yet to be corrected. One of these is that they cannot track volume of work accomplished. They can measure the number of steps my wife takes into the mall, but they cannot measure the amount of work she does walking the same number of steps out of the mall carrying 50 lbs of treasure.
When it comes to fitness, this is actually a big deal. A brisk walk is an aerobic activity. A slower walk while burdened with a load is an anaerobic activity. Aerobic activity is good for increasing one’s heart rate and caloric expenditure. Increasing one’s heart rate (through controlled exercise) increases heart health. Increasing caloric expenditure is associated with weight loss. This is the primary reason that sells fitness trackers, since people see burning calories as an answer to their weight loss woes. But burning calories is both good and bad. It is good because most of those calories come from stored fat. But it is bad because some of those calories come from muscle, which decreases metabolism. This problem is compounded if the individual is combining an increase caloric expenditure with a decreased caloric intake (a topic for another article, perhaps).
So, at first, the results of aerobic training can be measured by a welcomed decrease in overall body weight; but over time, the accumulated muscle loss (due to the calories that come from muscle) leads to an overall metabolic slow down, which decreases the overall ability of the body to utilize calories. The result is the dreaded plateau at best, or sickness, burnout, injury, and even a damaged metabolism at worse. If you have ever seen someone who lost weight but is now skinny, flabby, and sickly, then you have an image of a classic case.
Contrariwise, anaerobic activity builds muscle, which increases overall metabolic efficiency, resulting in a body that is better adept at utilizing calories for energy. Over the long haul, this creates a healthier, fitter body.
If fitness trackers were better at encouraging anaerobic activity as they are at encouraging aerobic activity, they might be on to something. Of course, that might lead to my wife buying more treasures at the mall, but at least she would be increasing her fitness level during the process.
At present, the closest thing fitness trackers have to assessing anaerobic activity is calorie counters. First of all, there is nothing about a calorie counter that ensures one’s exercise is actually anaerobic. Secondly, calorie counters use a formula to estimate one’s resting metabolic rate (e.g., the number of calories you burn while at rest) using one’s age, gender, height, and weight. From this number, it further estimates caloric expenditure while active by factoring in information from its sensors using algorithms. Some trackers are able to sense changes in movement, sweat production, body temperature, and heart rate. However, the methods for calculating resting and active caloric expenditure are far from accurate, but unless you want your wearable device to weigh five pounds, include a facemask, and cost $50,000, you are going to have to do with a rough estimate.
Like step counters, wearable calorie trackers are best at indicating trends that help you pinpoint sedentary moments in your day and to alert you when you have generally fallen off the fitness wagon. But here we go again—if the motivation you receive from this information lands you on the treadmill so that you can increase your steps and calorie count, it is really not the motivation you need. If it, on the other hand, motivates you to engage in activities that build muscle, then it is a worthwhile investment. But this just isn’t the way we see it play out. My wife, for instance, can still be seen putting in her extra steps at night. Fortunately, she relies on intrinsic motivators to keep strength training an integral part of her lifestyle. However, intrinsic motivators cannot be programmed into a wearable device.
The solution, or at least a step in the right direction (no pun intended), is to, if not measure, at least calculate through both manually entered and sensory mined data the volume of work accomplished for a variety of exercises. At the very least, it should consider the amount of weight moved for so many repetitions within a set period of time. When considering reps over time, the number of sets is irrelevant to me. The number of repetitions of a specific weight within a given timeframe is what will determine volume. This won’t prevent overtraining or the use of improper form, but it will meet the communal need and, most importantly, provide a way to quantify the type of workout that best supports a healthy fitness goal.
However, there remain major drawbacks to these devices that have yet to be corrected. One of these is that they cannot track volume of work accomplished. They can measure the number of steps my wife takes into the mall, but they cannot measure the amount of work she does walking the same number of steps out of the mall carrying 50 lbs of treasure.
When it comes to fitness, this is actually a big deal. A brisk walk is an aerobic activity. A slower walk while burdened with a load is an anaerobic activity. Aerobic activity is good for increasing one’s heart rate and caloric expenditure. Increasing one’s heart rate (through controlled exercise) increases heart health. Increasing caloric expenditure is associated with weight loss. This is the primary reason that sells fitness trackers, since people see burning calories as an answer to their weight loss woes. But burning calories is both good and bad. It is good because most of those calories come from stored fat. But it is bad because some of those calories come from muscle, which decreases metabolism. This problem is compounded if the individual is combining an increase caloric expenditure with a decreased caloric intake (a topic for another article, perhaps).
So, at first, the results of aerobic training can be measured by a welcomed decrease in overall body weight; but over time, the accumulated muscle loss (due to the calories that come from muscle) leads to an overall metabolic slow down, which decreases the overall ability of the body to utilize calories. The result is the dreaded plateau at best, or sickness, burnout, injury, and even a damaged metabolism at worse. If you have ever seen someone who lost weight but is now skinny, flabby, and sickly, then you have an image of a classic case.
Contrariwise, anaerobic activity builds muscle, which increases overall metabolic efficiency, resulting in a body that is better adept at utilizing calories for energy. Over the long haul, this creates a healthier, fitter body.
If fitness trackers were better at encouraging anaerobic activity as they are at encouraging aerobic activity, they might be on to something. Of course, that might lead to my wife buying more treasures at the mall, but at least she would be increasing her fitness level during the process.
At present, the closest thing fitness trackers have to assessing anaerobic activity is calorie counters. First of all, there is nothing about a calorie counter that ensures one’s exercise is actually anaerobic. Secondly, calorie counters use a formula to estimate one’s resting metabolic rate (e.g., the number of calories you burn while at rest) using one’s age, gender, height, and weight. From this number, it further estimates caloric expenditure while active by factoring in information from its sensors using algorithms. Some trackers are able to sense changes in movement, sweat production, body temperature, and heart rate. However, the methods for calculating resting and active caloric expenditure are far from accurate, but unless you want your wearable device to weigh five pounds, include a facemask, and cost $50,000, you are going to have to do with a rough estimate.
Like step counters, wearable calorie trackers are best at indicating trends that help you pinpoint sedentary moments in your day and to alert you when you have generally fallen off the fitness wagon. But here we go again—if the motivation you receive from this information lands you on the treadmill so that you can increase your steps and calorie count, it is really not the motivation you need. If it, on the other hand, motivates you to engage in activities that build muscle, then it is a worthwhile investment. But this just isn’t the way we see it play out. My wife, for instance, can still be seen putting in her extra steps at night. Fortunately, she relies on intrinsic motivators to keep strength training an integral part of her lifestyle. However, intrinsic motivators cannot be programmed into a wearable device.
The solution, or at least a step in the right direction (no pun intended), is to, if not measure, at least calculate through both manually entered and sensory mined data the volume of work accomplished for a variety of exercises. At the very least, it should consider the amount of weight moved for so many repetitions within a set period of time. When considering reps over time, the number of sets is irrelevant to me. The number of repetitions of a specific weight within a given timeframe is what will determine volume. This won’t prevent overtraining or the use of improper form, but it will meet the communal need and, most importantly, provide a way to quantify the type of workout that best supports a healthy fitness goal.
RSS Feed
