Thursday, January 29, 2015

Track the Trackers

Knowledge is power; have fitness trackers finally tipped the scales in the weight loss battle in favor of a gadget that might actually work as advertised? The fitness industry is flooded with gadgets, devices, and all kinds of equipment aimed at making the process of getting into shape faster, more effective, efficient, and, hopefully, an enjoyable process. From ab rollers claiming to make crunches more effective to the deplorable and dirty-looking shake weight to the dangerously dehydrating sauna suits, those who engage in exercise have been searching for an edge. At some point, most people have ended up wasting money on at least one gimmick in hopes of finding that magic bullet.

Now trackers are becoming the go to device for anyone interested in monitoring their personal biometrics-literally, measurements of life. These devices can measure a wide variety of physical activities including, but not limited to, daily steps, calories burned, heart rate, and sleep patterns. Sounds good, a small piece of technology that can be conveniently toted around, tracking your life and physical activity. The standard method of wearing an activity tracker is either around the wrist like a watch or on a belt clip.

So what does a health conscious person need to know about this bit of technology? To begin with, this is not new technology. These devices originally started hitting the market during the 1980s in the form of pedometers, or step-counters.  In fact, the technology known as accelerometers is the same technology in smartphones that allows the screen to switch between vertical and horizontal viewing.[i]This technology is not new in and of itself. What is new is the faster computer processing technology and memory capability that makes these fitness trackers capable of tracking more than the number of steps a person takes.

But just how accurate are they? Upon a quick search of Amazon.com, I found more than twenty different manufacturers of fitness trackers offering nearly 100 different models to choose from. With prices ranging from $25 to upwards of $200 how does person pick the right tracker? There is little research to verify the accuracy of these devices.


In fact, there only two published studies examining the accuracy of these devices. The first was done at Iowa State University and published in September 2014.[ii]Of the roughly100 commercially available fitness trackers this study only eight models were tested: Bodymedia FIT, Fitbit Zip and Fitbit One, Jawbone Up, Actigraph, Directlife, Nike Fuel Band, and Basis Band. The second study was conducted by the American Council on Exercise and published on their website this month[iii] this study looked at five different models: Nike + Fuel band, Fitbit Ultra, Jaw Bone Up, Bodymedia Fitcore, and the Adidas MiCoach.

Both studies evaluated the trackers ability to accurately measure steps. The ACE study also looked at calorie expenditure while walking and running. These measurements were then compared to research quality pedometers, NL-200i, and metabolic gas analyzers. When it comes to measuring step, both the BodyMedia and FitBit brands proved to be the most accurate coming within 90-91% accuracy of the research models. The Nike Fuel Bands came in at around 87% while the rest of the models varied between 80-85% accuracy. When it comes to accurately gauging calories burned through exercise The Jawbone model led the way with 87% accuracy while walking. The caveat here is that as an increase in intensity and variety of exercise movements decreased the accuracy of gauging caloric expenditure.

The take away from all of this is pretty simple: the technology is a great step forward in giving people a convenient way of receiving reasonably accurate, but not perfect data, for measuring physical activity. This is especially true for people who do not regularly exercise or only exercise utilizing light activities such as walking. For those who are avid runners, strength training enthusiasts, or high performance athletes, the technology is better than being clueless but still has room for improvement before being considered a gospel of health. The greatest benefit will be in helping sedentary people realize how true inactive they are. Sitting for several hours a day and then engaging in 30 minutes of exercise may not necessarily make a person “active.” In the regard fitness trackers are an excellent educational tool for helping people better understand how to strike a balance between the calories expended through metabolism and physical activity versus calories consumed through diet.

So what would I recommend? I do not personally own one, however, based upon the research I would being looking at a tracker from either Jawbone (who purchased BodyMedia after the ACE study was conducted but before it was published), FitBit, or one of the Nike Fuel Bands. I also would not go cheap, buying the best model I can afford. If the research has indicated anything through this, it is that a person will get what they pay for with this technology. If I was to invest in one of these fitness trackers, I would not skimp on the quality to save a few bucks.




[i] www.grouphealthresearch.org/newsandevents/recent-news/news-2014/heart-rate-sleeve-activity-trackers-aid-research
[ii] Journal of Medicines & Science in Sports & Exercise. September 2014 Vol 96 Issue 9 pages 1840-1848.
[iii] www.acefitness.org/prosource/97/prosource-january-2015

No comments:

Post a Comment