Fitness Trackers Not Tracking What You Think

Fitness Trackers Not Tracking What You Think Photo Via: http://techfaqs.net With the Fitbit and Bellabeat LEAF available for consumers at reasonably expensive prices, it’s safe to say that we expect them to do exactly what they say they’re going to do: track our fitness. However, a recent study has revealed that this isn’t exactly the case. In fact, fitness trackers are actually glorified pedometers. This new study suggests that rather than tracking the energy we burn, fitness trackers are actually only good at counting the steps we take throughout the day. In the study, according to NBC, scientists pitted these fitness devices (12 in total including the Fitbit Flex and Jawbone UP24) against “proven methods of monitoring energy expenditure locking people in a room to assess every calorie consumed and burned, or asking people at home to drink specially treated water that makes it possible to detect energy output with a urine test.” The first experiment (locking people in a room) showed that fitness trackers were deviating from lab results by both underestimating and overestimating the amount of energy expenditure. The fitness trackers would underestimate by as much as 278 calories and overestimate by as much as 204 calories. In the second experiment (the urine tests) the fitness trackers ranged from 69 to 590 calories lower than the urine tests. While neither of these deviations seem all that threatening, they are at the very least troubling figures. For one thing, when fitness trackers are overestimating the amount of calories burned, those in need of more exercise run the risk of not getting enough because their tracker is misrepresenting what they’ve already done. This also could cause problems down the road, as this could increase the risk for obesity and other health problems, as their daily exercise routine isn’t quite up to par with what they should be doing. On the other hand, underestimating exercise can be just as dangerous. According to Dr. Adam Schoenfeld, a researcher at the University of California, San Francisco, “It could be quite dangerous if someone with heart disease had inaccurate recordings of their activity and exercise that was being used to make medical decisions.” Both over and underestimating have repercussions that depend upon the user, and the gravity of these results vary, but at the very least, it means that users aren’t exercising the way they think they are. While healthy people that use fitness trackers probably aren’t at risk if the information is a little off, those that are unhealthy and using it to change their way of living aren’t getting the information critical to their health. Still, according to Schoenfeld, “Even for healthy users, it may be difficult to promote health and wellness if these devices are proving inaccurate or variable feedback.” In another test on the accuracy of fitness trackers, scientists asked nine men and 10 women ages 21 to 50 to wear twelve different fitness tracking devices while participating in the two aforementioned experiments. These devices included: Fitbit Flex, Jawbone UP24, Misfit Shine, Epson Pulsense PS-100, Garmin Vivofit, Tanita AM-160, Omron CalorieScan HJA-403C, Withings Pulse 02 and the previously tested Panasonic Actimarker EW 4800, Suzuken Lifecorder EX, Omron Active style Pro JKA-350IT, and ActiGraph GT3X. In experiment one, the participants entered a metabolic chamber (or room designed to monitor calories consumed/burned over a 24 hour period). There, they were fed three meals, worked at a desk, exercised on a treadmill, watched TV, did housework and slept. To measure energy expenditure, scientists used indirect calorimetry (which measures the carbon dioxide production and oxygen consumption). When compared with the measurements taken by the fitness trackers, it was revealed that half of the trackers were underestimating energy expenditure. The rest overestimated it. In experiment two, the participants wore the devices for 15 days and collected urine samples eight of those days. In this experiment, each fitness tracker underestimated the energy expenditure. While there’s of course room for error, such as people taking off the devices (whether to charge the battery or to bathe) as well as the chosen participants, who weren’t obese/didn’t have health problems (so that their ability to exercise wasn’t inhibited), the findings are still pretty concrete. But that also means that the fitness trackers currently out there aren’t as accurate as we’d like to believe, and are probably giving us false information. In other words: there isn’t a reliable fitness tracker at the moment. According to Schoenfeld: “It is currently quite challenging to tell which fitness trackers are accurate and reliable and which are not since there aren’t much data available. These studies demonstrate that even the most popular applications and devices may be inaccurate or highly variable.”