There's Even More Evidence That Fitness Trackers Don't Work (fortune.com)

Turns out it's really hard to persuade people to exercise -- even when they have access to how many steps they've taken, and even when they get paid for it. A staggering 90 percent of people stop wearing fitness trackers when given the choice. Fortune reports: In the new yearlong study, published in The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology, researchers randomized 800 people in Singapore who had a full-time job into four groups. Some wore a Fitbit Zip and were paid a small amount of money to get moving -- which they were instructed either to keep or to donate to charity -- while others didn't wear Fitbits. Researchers measured their physical activity, weight, blood pressure, the body's ability to use oxygen (called cardiorespiratory fitness) and their self-reported quality of life. For the last six months of the study, all incentives were dropped, and people could choose whether or not to continue wearing their fitness trackers. (About 40% of people had stopped wearing it in the first six months anyway.) The cash seemed to work at first. Those who were rewarded with cash did an extra 13 minutes of moderate-to-vigorous physical activity each week and added 570 steps to their daily counts. Raising money for charity had no effect. But once the monetary rewards stopped, so did the improvements. By the end of the study, just 10% of people were still wearing the trackers.

Comments

Define "work"

[JoeyRox]

The devices' primary purpose is their namesake - to track the physical activity of the owner. Whether or not that encourages the owner to be more active is another story. It would be like saying a new automobile doesn't work simply because it didn't encourage its owner to drive more.

Re:Define "work"

[gumbright]

Rightly said. I have been carrying a Fitbit for about 2-3 years now. Am I wonderfully fit now? Alas, no. Does it help me stay aware that I need to be more active and help me do so? Yep. If I look at the step number and its not close to what I want, then it can be that extra little push to make me go take a walk or something. To me its worth it for just that.

Re:Define "work"

[Daetrin]

And furthermore, fitness, in fact health in general, is one of those things that's hard to get and stay motivated for. Humans have very little incentive to go out of their way to stay in shape for most of their evolutionary history, so there's no one weird trick to the psychology for motivating yourself to stay healthy. Different tactics work for different people. If fitness trackers help 10% of the people stay motivated that's a success for those 10%, and the other 90% just need to try some other method until they hit on something that works for them.

Re:Define "work"

[hey!]

First of all fiber is carbohydrate, but of course that's not what you meant, you meant digestible carbs. But for digestible carbs, it depends. Big slugs of refined carbs are especially bad for sedentary people because you get hungry fast.

On the othe rhand some of my gym rat buddies need to eat almost 4000 calories per day to keep from losing weight. These are people who spend more than a dozen hours a week in the gym. In other words these are very atypical people, which is why I says "it depends". For these people avoiding carbs may actually be bad. The bodybuilders in particular when they're preparing for a competition have to cut their calorie intake, but to keep from losing muscle keep their protein up. That translates into a very low-carb routine. This gets them "cut", but their lifting performance drops dramatically because they aren't eating enough carbs to support their normal, very high level of activity. They're relying on gluconeogensis to provide glucose, but if athletic performance was what they were aiming for (rather than appearance) they should be eating moderate amounts of carbs -- very possibly quantities that would be unhealthy for a sedentary person.

So it's the overall pattern of energy intake and output that matters, not one parameters (such as steps, or grams of carbs). It's a great big "depends". If you're gong to take conscious control of this situation, you've got to be prepared to dive into the data, not just one piece, but everything.

Re:It's hardwired into our brains

[MightyMartian]

My justification for my walking regime comes down "Don't want to have a diabetes, and don't want a heart attack or stroke in the next 10 years." It's not a pleasant motivator, to be sure, but my family's history of heart disease finally convinced me that I needed to change my diet and get my ass out the door. It's often not terribly pleasant, but I do find that during my long walks I actually do a lot of thinking, so I've found there's a bit of a mental payoff as well.

Oh, I did mention numerous studies that suggest being sedentary may contribute to dementia later in life. We may be built to conserve energy, but we're also built to actually do physical activity.

Re:It's hardwired into our brains

[cliffjumper222]

I totally agree. If I'm stressed or aggravated going for a walk really helps. Like you say it gives time to think - sometimes about nothing - sometimes I resolve algorithms. I purposely don't use headphones or play games because it lets my mind wander. Like all exercise, doing it regularly comes down to erasing the barriers to it - that's why I walk outside at lunchtime instead of walking on a treadmill in the gym. It's not that it's better, it's just easier not to go through the hassle of changing clothes, etc. If I can build exercise into my daily routine even more - I'm thinking of riding to work - then that will be even better.