Slashdot Mirror


Health Apps Could Be Doing More Harm Than Good, Warn Scientists (theguardian.com)

According to several scientists, fitness apps might be doing more harm than good because they don't work but force people to focus on ambitious goals that they will never reach. Some are so appalled by these apps that they have called it "snake oil salesmen of the 1860s." From a report on The Guardian: Greg Hager, professor of computer science at Johns Hopkins University, said that in the absence of trials or scientific grounding it was impossible to say whether apps were having the intended effect. "I am sure that these apps are causing problems," he told the American Association for the Advancement of Science annual meeting in Boston. [...] Hager claimed the 10,000 steps target dated back to a 1960s Japanese study that showed there were health benefits for men who burned at least 2,000 calories per week through exercise -- roughly equivalent to 10,000 steps each day. An early pedometer was known as the manpo-kei, which means "10,000-step meter" in Japanese. "But is that the right number for any of you in this room?" Hager asked. "Who knows. It's just a number that's now built into the apps." "We have an incredible number of apps in the wild basically being downloaded by people who may or may not understand what they are actually telling them or what the context for that is," he said. "Until we have evidence-based apps you could amplify issues. I mean, imagine everyone thinks they have to do 10,000 steps but you are not actually physically capable of doing that, you could actually cause harm or damage by doing so."

93 comments

  1. Nagging spouse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    that's what health apps really are.

    1. Re:Nagging spouse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And that's all I really want. My vivofit does a good job reminding me to get up and move around. The accompanying Garmin app is good for keeping track of my daily distance goals and also gives me that extra push to get up and out running in the morning because I participate in competitions with others.

      The one thing I don't like about it is that by default the daily goal keeps increasing forever if you meet the goal the previous day. That's why I disable the auto goal and manually set my daily goal to 15,000 steps. It's worked perfectly this way for the past three years.

  2. Leave it to the scientists.... by cogeek · · Score: 5, Interesting

    "Greg Hager, professor of computer science at Johns Hopkins University, said that in the absence of trials or scientific grounding it was impossible to say whether apps were having the intended effect. "I am sure that these apps are causing problems," he told the American Association for the Advancement of Science annual meeting in Boston."

    Without scientific study we can't say for sure that these apps are working, but we can say for sure that they're causing problems... Makes sense. As to pushing someone to walk 10,000 steps per day, if a person's not physically capable of walking 10,000 steps it's on them and their doctor to determine that. No app is going to force me to do something I'm not capable of just because it says on the screen that I should.

    1. Re:Leave it to the scientists.... by skids · · Score: 0

      No app is going to force me to do something I'm not capable of just because it says on the screen that I should.

      If your liver is not working right, and an app advises you to eat certain amounts of certain foods, you won't know you were not capable of eating those foods until your doctor is telling you you have only 4 days to live unless you luck into a liver transplant.

      You're right though, the claim "I'm sure they are doing harm" would require some evidence.

    2. Re:Leave it to the scientists.... by Gavagai80 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If your doctor hasn't already told you not to eat certain foods because of your liver, how does the app have any more probability of harming you than your own subjectively selected diet? If the doctor has warned you but you weren't listening, then how is the app any more likely to be harmful than your own subjectively selected diet?

      --
      This space intentionally left blank
    3. Re:Leave it to the scientists.... by skids · · Score: 1

      A lot of people don't have any individual to call "my doctor" and an app may ask you to do unusual things or things that push you past limits that you are unaware of.

    4. Re:Leave it to the scientists.... by cogeek · · Score: 2

      And every one of those apps starts with the disclaimer "Consult your doctor before beginning any exercise or dietary regimen" You can't fix stupid. If people decide not to consult a doctor then Darwin is proven right once again.

    5. Re:Leave it to the scientists.... by thegarbz · · Score: 2

      If your liver is not working right, and an app advises you to eat certain amounts of certain foods, you won't know you were not capable of eating those foods until your doctor is telling you you have only 4 days to live unless you luck into a liver transplant.

      If you don't understand which foods to eat because you have a liver problem than that is the fault of the doctor and you, not your app.

      Except for Untapped, the social network for beer drinkers. That app I'm sure has a negative affect on your liver.

    6. Re:Leave it to the scientists.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And every one of those apps starts with the disclaimer "Consult your doctor before beginning any exercise or dietary regimen" You can't fix stupid. If people decide not to consult a doctor then Darwin is proven right once again.

      Aside from you completely missing the GP's point...

      They have those disclaimers because of lawsuits. Disclaimers make it easier to deflect responsibility for selling people things that may lead to harm.

      Lawsuits are the way the free marketers say we should handle things instead of having regulations/criminal statutes.

      So,
      1) are you against the free market?
      2) are you in favor of government regulations banning activities with negative externalities (like poisoning your drinking water)

      Because you can't have it both ways.

    7. Re:Leave it to the scientists.... by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      every one of those apps starts with the disclaimer "Consult your doctor before beginning any exercise or dietary regimen"

      Fuck disclaimers. Stand behind your product or don't release it; I don't believe in disclaiming responsibility for harm when someone uses the product as intended.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    8. Re:Leave it to the scientists.... by pastafazou · · Score: 1

      What kind of "unusual" things would an app ask you to do? Drink 8 glasses of water a day? Get 10,000 steps? Move at least once an hour? I haven't seen anything that would be dangerous unless you're seriously out of shape or suffer from some extreme affliction. Considering how lawsuit happy people are, I doubt any of these apps are recommending anything dangerous to 99.99999% of the public.

    9. Re:Leave it to the scientists.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then you have the black and white mentality of a child. Not all products are suitable for all people.

    10. Re:Leave it to the scientists.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uh, 'as intended' means after consulting your doctor...

    11. Re:Leave it to the scientists.... by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      every one of those apps starts with the disclaimer "Consult your doctor before beginning any exercise or dietary regimen"

      Fuck disclaimers. Stand behind your product or don't release it; I don't believe in disclaiming responsibility for harm when someone uses the product as intended.

      If the product tells you to consult a doctor first, then not consulting a doctor is not using the product as intended.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    12. Re:Leave it to the scientists.... by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 1

      If your liver is not working right, and an app advises you to eat certain amounts of certain foods, you won't know you were not capable of eating those foods until your doctor is telling you you have only 4 days to live unless you luck into a liver transplant.

      You'd KNOW you were sick LOOOONG before you had 4 days left. In most cases, your liver would be enlarged due to inflammation (aka hepatitis) at the very least, which would be quite painful and you'd notice, but you'd still be a ways off from liver failure (and indeed your liver is resilient enough to recover from this point so long as you eliminate whatever is causing it harm.) Even if not that (i.e. you developed cirrhosis without painful hepatitis,) you'd have developed jaundice quite a bit before then and would definitely notice that your color doesn't look right.

    13. Re:Leave it to the scientists.... by cogeek · · Score: 1

      I still drink the same amount of beer after signing up for Untapped, I just document it now! =-)

    14. Re:Leave it to the scientists.... by skids · · Score: 1

      Tell that to the 100 to 200 people who die from accidental acetaminophin overdose each year in the U.S.

    15. Re:Leave it to the scientists.... by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      I need to stop at the pub on the way home to level up :-)

  3. They get you off your ass by presidenteloco · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Scientific study of the benefit or harm is good. No doubt.

    But, from a common sense 30,000 foot perspective, if there is even the slightest effect among the majority of these apps of embarrassing you into getting off your ass a little more often, isn't that likely to be a net health positive?

    --

    Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
    1. Re:They get you off your ass by Daetrin · · Score: 3, Funny

      But, from a common sense 30,000 foot perspective, if there is even the slightest effect among the majority of these apps of embarrassing you into getting off your ass a little more often, isn't that likely to be a net health positive?

      Damn it! 10,000 steps a day was hard enough! Now you're saying 30,000 feet is the common sense amount? That's an extra 2000-3000 steps per day!

      --
      This Space Intentionally Left Blank
    2. Re:They get you off your ass by skids · · Score: 1

      isn't that likely to be a net health positive?

      Answering questions like that is why we need scientific study. The answer could quite well vary greatly depending on the individual.

      Also answering whether having an app tell you to get off your ass actually does get you off your ass will vary greatly. Personally I'm so contrarian I go out for a cigarette every time I see an anti-smoking TV ads. Except for the tiny guy in the wife-beater. That one's actually funny and somewhat true.

    3. Re: They get you off your ass by TimMD909 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I smoke and drink as part of my warm up before a 10km or longer run. I don't eat dessert because "it's unhealthy" yet I've even pizza every day for a week. We're all hypocrites in our own ways. Nothing bad about it.

    4. Re:They get you off your ass by daveywest · · Score: 2

      ... and a smallpox vaccine's effectiveness could vary greatly depending on the individual – at least according to the anti-vaxers. I'm all for scientific study, but implying increased general physical activity might be harmful flys in the face of logic and generally agreed upon health standards.

    5. Re:They get you off your ass by skids · · Score: 1

      implying increased general physical activity might be harmful flys in the face of logic

      It flies in the face of American puritan mores, for sure, but not in the face of logic.

      Given some of the recent research questioning whether the point of diminishing returns for general physical activity is lower than generally thought, and pointing out that not all types of physical activity is actually beneficial (housework apparently doesn't help much at all), and the known negative effects of a life of "hard work" it is reasonable to staunch your knee-jerk prejudices and look at evidence rationally... though we have precious little evidence compared to the amount that is assessable.

      There's no question that there is substantial evidence that some people can benefit from more exercise. Most people just assume that means everyone can. Fitbit gadgeteers are only being marginally more responsible than idiots who make fatty jokes on social media... at least there is (I hope) fine print somewhere in the product literature saying to consult your doctor before forcing large changes in your physical activity levels.

    6. Re:They get you off your ass by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 4, Funny

      But, from a common sense 30,000 foot perspective, if there is even the slightest effect among the majority of these apps of embarrassing you into getting off your ass a little more often, isn't that likely to be a net health positive?

      Damn it! 10,000 steps a day was hard enough! Now you're saying 30,000 feet is the common sense amount? That's an extra 2000-3000 steps per day!

      If you start at 30,000 feet, terminal velocity will be reached quite quickly and the word terminal can be interpreted in at least two ways.

      --
      I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
    7. Re:They get you off your ass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not if the "embarrassment" effect is outweighed by the demotivational effect of setting an unachievable goal. Then it's at best a wash, quite likely even a negative (as it adds another source of stress to the user's life).

    8. Re:They get you off your ass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Embarrassment, judgement, and humiliation rarely motivate anyone. Usually they do the exact opposite. Why do you think everyone hates the gym even though it is one of the best ways to exercise and train for general health and beyond?

    9. Re:They get you off your ass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're right, but his point was the method of execution. How many people do you think will actually listen to their phone trying to "motivate" them into exercise? More likely they'll uninstall and eat a tub of ice cream just to spite the inanimate device. If I didn't have a personal drive to exercise and stay healthy on my own I would very likely be one of those people.

      After all, I'm a creature that believes I'm logical. Sadly, my beliefs don't make it true.

    10. Re:They get you off your ass by thegarbz · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Answering questions like that is why we need scientific study. The answer could quite well vary greatly depending on the individual.

      Let me help you with that. The science has been settled on that study long ago. Exercise and movement = good. It's right up there with the climate is changing, gravity exists, and the air is breathable. There's not been a single scientific study that says exercise and movement is bad and it isn't back by any medical principles either.

      Now the amount of benefit will likely vary but that's not what was being discussed, what was being discussed is that health apps come with a default setting and that setting is bad and we need science to determine a solution to suit everyone. That, my friend, is absurd.

      Also answering whether having an app tell you to get off your ass actually does get you off your ass will vary greatly.

      Science can not help you there. But having the app certainly doesn't produce a negative result there either, and if you are really contrarian you probably wouldn't have the app in the first place.

    11. Re:They get you off your ass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Having the app might produce a negative result there. You really don't know, you're just assuming that it can't.

      Perhaps the app makes exercise feel like a chore. Perhaps it makes users ashamed if they miss their targets for a few days. Perhaps it increases stress for the user, by giving them yet another "goal" they have to shoot for in everyday life. Absent studies, you can't be certain that these effects don't outweigh the positives.

    12. Re:They get you off your ass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here's how a poorly designed app can lead to negative consequences (for example):

      Suppose an app by default sets a goal that only a fit person could stick to, but doesn't label it as such. Average slob downloads app, maybe reaches goal once or twice and then gets exhausted and stops trying after maybe a week or so. Feels depressed that they failed, hence binges on favourite make-me-feel-good-food (remember that this is what many overweight/obese people often do: they eat to make themselves feel better in the short term when they feel down) and ends up worse off than when they started.

      Yes exercise and movement are good, but remember that you're dealing with people, and people are utterly illogical when it comes to this stuff (if they were logical about it (a) they wouldn't let themselves become obese in the first place and (b) if they did they would just do the exercise/diet that they know they should without needing the app).

    13. Re:They get you off your ass by ckatko · · Score: 2

      You missed the point entirely.

      10,000 steps is a huge amount for some people. I'm disabled, I can't make it most days.

      Setting the number at 10,000 _implies_ that everyone should be doing it, which implies that everyone should be ABLE to do it.

      To cut to the core of what I'm saying here: Many people see that number, see they NEVER meet it, and feel LESS motivated. People don't like failure--even if it's just a lack of "star" icon appearing on their app to remind them of their perceived failure.

      Applications should stress IMPROVEMENT over previous results NOT achieving an arbitrary number. (And what if you achieve that number? Now you don't feel motivated to SURPASS that number.)

      It's the damn GPA grading system all over again. (And everyone has glowing reviews of the education system, right?) Once people get an "A" on a test, _they_ _stop_ _learning_. Kids who don't have that arbitrary system never know when to stop learning (because there's nobody telling them they're "done") so they just keep going. Also, kids who never meet that "A" on the test feel demotivated into not even trying. "I've never made an A before, why should I even try?"

      We're dealing with people's most subconscious habits. You can't treat this problem like a logical problem. You have to treat this like a PEOPLE problem, where people often don't make choices that are in their short or long-term best interest.

      p.s. Another related topic to read up on is "point systems" for driving infractions. Researchers have shown that when people have the "count down" system (You have X points and lose them for infractions), they feel like they have "Free points" and only worry when they get close to zero points (suspension of your license). However, IIRC (it's been years), with the "rising points" system people feel better about being at, "Zero failures." And when they add points there is no "ceiling". Just like how kids at schools with fences will play AT the fence, but schools without fences, the kids play much further inland / away from the street. Working out is a psychological, motivational problem. Don't try to reduce it to mere logic.

    14. Re:They get you off your ass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      20,000 additional steps equates to an extra 2000 steps for you? How long are your legs that your stride length is 10 feet?

    15. Re:They get you off your ass by Kazoo+the+Clown · · Score: 1

      What it does do is allow your health insurance to charge you more if you ignore your monitoring device's encouragement to exercise.

    16. Re:They get you off your ass by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      What it does do is allow your health insurance to charge you more if you ignore your monitoring device's encouragement to exercise.

      Not in any sane medical system.

    17. Re:They get you off your ass by Kazoo+the+Clown · · Score: 1

      Not in any sane medical system

      I wouldn't argue that point. However, they're already doing it-- my major carrier employer healthcare plan for example, offers a discount if you buy a FitBit and meet certain goals with it. Goals that, according to some fellow employees who've attempted to meet them, are next to impossible to achieve. No one ever said it was going to be "sane."

    18. Re:They get you off your ass by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      I know they are doing it. I'm just saying that tackling the root cause of the problem (greedy shits skimming money from people needing medical treatment) would be a better solution.

    19. Re:They get you off your ass by Trailer+Trash · · Score: 1

      Scientific study of the benefit or harm is good. No doubt.

      But, from a common sense 30,000 foot perspective, if there is even the slightest effect among the majority of these apps of embarrassing you into getting off your ass a little more often, isn't that likely to be a net health positive?

      I agree. This guy's questioning the 10,000 steps metric. Fine. Maybe it isn't "best" for everybody. But I'm sure it's a hell of a lot better than sitting on your ass all day.

      This is known as allowing the perfect to be the enemy of the good.

  4. Not built into app - built into HR's health plan by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 2, Interesting

    >> is that the right number (of steps) for any of you?...It's just a number that's now built into the apps

    It's worse that being built into a crappy little "health app" - it can actually cost you hundreds of dollars a month.

    I was recently at a company where you got a discount on your health care plan if you walked 3,500 steps a day. With that in mind, I downloaded the related health-care app so I could reverse-engineer the web services and feed them the appropriate numbers each day to avoid paying more.

  5. They do lots of good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The best of these companies can be really good investments. The only problem is picking the right horses because so many are now doing health gadgets.

    About the gadget themselves? Who cares if they work or not.. It's not what they are designed for!

  6. I would rather by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I would rather people get their ass off the couch rather than continue to mold their cheeto-stained impression into it.

    Even if the app is setting 10,000 steps as the goal, that doesn't mean you have to reach it literally today. That's why it's a goal.

    Derp.

    1. Re: I would rather by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've had my Fitbit for a little over a year; Xmas 2015 present. I've reached the 10k steps mark ONE time. I average about 5k steps a day though. The one day I did reach 10k I ran two miles on a treadmill.

    2. Re: I would rather by sexconker · · Score: 1

      How do they count "steps"? If they count left, right, left, right as 4 (as opposed to 2), then I can't imagine not hitting 10,000 in a day, and I sit on my ass for 14+ hours a day. I walk at a normal speed of about 2 steps (left, right) per second. That's less than an hour and a half of walking, total, throughout the day. I get about a third of that just walking to and from my car at various points in the day. If I go out to catch Pokemon, 10,000 ain't shit.

  7. No change by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    I was fat before fitbit. Now I'm stylishly fat.

  8. Get off your ass and you won't need an app by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Quit blaming your "slow metabolism" for your fat ass when you do shit like vulture in a parking lot for a close parking space just so you don't have to walk another 50 fucking yards.

  9. Tech too often a veneer for Snake Oil by skids · · Score: 2

    Of course there's no science behind 95% (guess) of apps that really need science behind them. Science does not fit well into a devops release schedule.

    I don't know whether to view this as the inevitable creep of snake oil into every market orifice, or tech giving snake oil a shot in the arm by virtue of people thinking "well, it took smart tech people to make this sniny modern 'app' so it must have the blessing of smart people."

    1. Re:Tech too often a veneer for Snake Oil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's no science behind them because science is expensive. (Cue people whining about FDA regulations and how proving your stuff is both safe AND effective is just sooo expensive)

    2. Re:Tech too often a veneer for Snake Oil by thegarbz · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Of course there's no science behind 95% (guess) of apps that really need science behind them.

      I want you to define what apps need science behind them. Based on the universal concensus of exercise / movement / not sitting on your fat arse at the TV all day = good for you I would say every single fitness app has science behind it.

      The actual science itself is already done. Most fitness apps that I've seen ask for weight, and age, and then use generally medically accepted figures to determine target heart rates for exercise etc. Every other fitness app is nothing more than a tracker and is completely at the control of the person using it: i.e. no science needed by the developer. They don't care if you run 1km or 5km.

      Quite frankly the entire premise of science hasn't determined a one size fits all approach so you shouldn't use apps is simply stupid.

    3. Re:Tech too often a veneer for Snake Oil by mjwx · · Score: 1

      Of course there's no science behind 95% (guess) of apps that really need science behind them.

      I want you to define what apps need science behind them. Based on the universal concensus of exercise / movement / not sitting on your fat arse at the TV all day = good for you I would say every single fitness app has science behind it.

      >

      I think the GP used the wrong word, I think he meant apps that claim or directly imply that there is science behind them (when more often than not, there's none).

      Most fitness apps are not even loosely based on science, even when they are its almost always using assumptions that are impossible to apply to most people, let alone everyone due to a large range of heights, builds, diets, habits, metabolic rates, environmental conditions and what not. Most of them are based on measurements that are turning out to be increasingly inaccurate to most people like BMI.

      The thing that fitness apps are doing is gamification. Gamification is a short term only thing and in many way counter productive. It has to be designed to reward people on a plateau so people think they're making progress rather than actually making progress. Further more, people are only doing it for gratification, so when people stop getting likes on Facebook (because everyone and their dog has blocked the AttentionWhore(TM) fitness app ) they'll give up and move onto the next thing.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    4. Re:Tech too often a veneer for Snake Oil by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Most fitness apps are not even loosely based on science

      I repeat, define this. What science do you want? I see no fitness apps mention anything about targeting something through something else (e.g. weight loss through calorie drop) I see all of the do nothing more than allow you to track, provide you the opportunity to set goals, and provide indication that you reach a new best / personal goal. The vast majority of them will offer a wide array of different options for what to do, and few if any need "science" behind them since they don't specify targets for you but rather let you set them yourself.

      Like you mention BMI. Interestingly that is based on a science. My fitness app says I'm overweight based on my BMI. I am according to the science. That's not the app's fault.

      The thing that fitness apps are doing is gamification. Gamification is a short term only thing and in many way counter productive.

      That's not the only thing they are doing. They are also providing stats for people who do track them as part of an exercise regime such as cadence targeting training. They provide gamification for those people turning it into a game, and data to those people who are using the data (e.g. following a training regime). That's not a bad thing and not proven to be counter productive either.

      It has to be designed to reward people on a plateau

      Rewards from fitness apps are not given on a plateau. Likes and pats on the back are given by social media. That's not the same thing. Every week I can run a perfect 10km and I can continue to get likes on Facebook (if I were mentally challenged enough to think that this was a good idea), but my fitness app will only tell me I set a 10km weekly record once.

      If people are doing it for likes then they weren't doing it for fitness. That's not the app's fault.

  10. "snake oil salesmen of the 1860s." by frovingslosh · · Score: 1

    I'm pretty sure that the snake oil salesmen of the 1860s didn't have any apps. Should they be calling those that promote this "snake oil salesmen of the 2010s"?

    --
    I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
    1. Re:"snake oil salesmen of the 1860s." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      At first I thought similarly since the snake oil salesmen of the 1860s had snake oil and not apps, but then I RTFA and found the quote, "This field is currently in its infancy and can be likened to the snake oil salesmen of the 1860s,” he added. “Originally, snake oil was an effective Chinese remedy for aching joints and inflammation. Then it was ripped off by unscrupulous fraudsters.".
      This raises the question of which snakes produce the most effective anti-inflammatory.

    2. Re:"snake oil salesmen of the 1860s." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At first I thought similarly since the snake oil salesmen of the 1860s had snake oil and not apps, but then I RTFA and found the quote, "This field is currently in its infancy and can be likened to the snake oil salesmen of the 1860s,” he added. “Originally, snake oil was an effective Chinese remedy for aching joints and inflammation. Then it was ripped off by unscrupulous fraudsters.".
      This raises the question of which snakes produce the most effective anti-inflammatory.

      Obviously coral snakes. Unfortunately milk snakes are the worst, so you have to actually check the stripes, and stress cause them to release a hormone the ruins it all so you have to make sure not you use those neck-grabbers that make it hard for the snake to bite you,

      Best of luck.

  11. Overstated by xeos · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The example of 10,000 steps being too much for some people seems like a silly criticism. It's like saying just because some people are missing a finger, (5-fingered) gloves are bad.

    Not to say that research isn't needed, just that decrying something for not being a universal solution is pretty weak.

    1. Re:Overstated by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Except it is a solution. I have yet to find a fitness tracker that won't let you adjust your goals. What next, we shouldn't have defaults at all and leave people completely in the blind?

    2. Re:Overstated by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The example of 10,000 steps being too much for some people seems like a silly criticism. It's like saying just because some people are missing a finger, (5-fingered) gloves are bad.

      Its nothing like that, because 5-fingered gloves are not harmful to people who are missing fingers.

      Basing health feedback on false premises introduces all kinds of potential harms, ranging from damage created by an inappropriate application of of the "rules" to the opportunity cost of pursuing bogus metrics.

      IMO, a better analogy is saving money. There are many "rules of thumb" that recommend "save/invest x% of your salary each month". But a large percentage of Americans are carrying personal debt at interest rates far above even the most optimistic return on savings or investments. Above a baseline emergency fund, these people are far better off paying down debt than "saving" money.

      There are people who should not be attempting to walk more, and would be better off pursuing other means of improving their health.

    3. Re:Overstated by aaarrrgggh · · Score: 1

      I know it is goofy, but I like the Apple Watch approach - Ensure you aren't sitting down for hours on end; ensure you actually get your heart rate up for a half-hour a day; and set an active calorie burn goal that the user can manage.

      For me, I learned how I can "game" the numbers. My key is to go for a 20-minute walk in the morning, and another in the evening. Just so happens that these would otherwise be times where I am sedentary. And, I have somehow made it 45 days of meeting my active calorie goal (while increasing the goal 10-15%).

      All else being equal, I am at least (theoretically) burning an extra 450 calories per day average, and avoiding some bad habits...

    4. Re:Overstated by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Heh cuntworthy ... I drop dead if my heart-rate increases ... IHSS ya know. So avoid iron bootheels smashing yo pussy face.

    5. Re:Overstated by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      > Except it is a solution. I have yet to find a fitness tracker that won't let you adjust your goals.

      Try harder.

      This feature was in the very first one I tried.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    6. Re:Overstated by nealric · · Score: 1

      Right, clearly imposing a goal of 10,000 steps is absurd for someone paralyzed from the waist down or someone with a degenerative muscular disease. But for an otherwise healthy person, it's hardly an extreme target. No, there's no scientific magic to it. But why does there need to be? Science does support exercise being vastly beneficial, and all the 10,000 steps really amounts to is an admonition to move more than most people probably do already.

    7. Re:Overstated by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      And you settled on one to form your consensus opinion? I have several they all allow me to customise goals. Those that don't allow me to customise goals don't have goals to customise.

  12. GOP system will link them to black lists by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 0

    GOP system will link them to black lists

    1. Re:GOP system will link them to black lists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      GOP system will link them to black lists

      We should blacklist anyone linking to lists of blacks.

  13. way off!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    100 calories per jogging a mile. No way is 10000 steps anywhere close to 2000 calories.

    1. Re:way off!!! by bmk67 · · Score: 1

      Read it again. That's 10,000 steps every day for a week to burn 2000 calories. 10,000 steps is approximately 5 miles. 35 miles a week. So that's ~57 calories per walking mile.

      Sounds about right.

  14. sad sack by binarybum · · Score: 2

    things are pretty sad with the world if we have serious concerns that recommendations to take 10,000 steps in one day might hurt someone.

        The whole drink 8 glasses of water a day thing is probably more of a risky recommendation for certain pre-existing conditions, but c'mon. Any health / exercise recommendation should be taken with caution if your health is on the far end of the bell curve.
    This is a ridiculous criticism.

    --
    ôó
  15. Re:Not built into app - built into HR's health pla by serviscope_minor · · Score: 2

    With that in mind, I downloaded the related health-care app so I could reverse-engineer the web services and feed them the appropriate numbers each day to avoid paying more.

    Are you boasting about committing fraud? And, if you happen to get caught then your insurance will be invalid, so if you need to use it, uoi'll personally be on the hook for all of the medical bills.

    --
    SJW n. One who posts facts.
  16. Working for me by bi$hop · · Score: 2

    I changed my diet and started exercising in November. After losing about 12 pounds, I bought a popular fitness tracker in January to help me keep going. I don't use it to track steps at all. I track calories in/out, water intake, various exercises, and sleep. It's been quite helpful, and I've lost another 13 pounds since then.

  17. Specious reasoning at its finest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Imagine everyone thinks they have to poop, but you have a colostomy bag and are not actually physically capable of doing that. You could actually cause harm or damage by doing so.

  18. Re:Not built into app - built into HR's health pla by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You just admitted to insurance fraud (a felony) while logged in. Are you worried someone will look you up and report you? You were just kidding right?

  19. We believe in nothing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Knowing the inside-out of one such product I helped construct, I can tell you this:
    a. The people I know have good intentions, and have made a "working" device that they believe is good for you.
    b. Working means: people will buy it, people will believe it does what it claims.
    c. All else is by far less important. Once sold to the masses, it's too late to change anything.
    d. I really don't know if the masses care much about scientific evidence. They care much more about battery lifespan, how to start the damn thing, why it crashes on them in mid-exercise etc.
    e. I'll never use a machine that tells me what to do. Use it only for keeping track of performance, never as an instructor.

    f. Having said all of the above, rethink human instructors. Some know their work, but most just follow some routine they learned.
    Why do you think their advices are above chance?
    Physical education for the masses is broken, and can be fixed only if any trainee gains personal responsibility.
    If you're wise, learn to select your instruction carefully, and be really cautious, or be ready to take injuries.
    Beware of charismatic instructors, human and machine alike.
     

    1. Re:We believe in nothing by bmk67 · · Score: 1

      I'll never use a machine that tells me what to do. Use it only for keeping track of performance, never as an instructor.

      ^^^ this ^^^

      I use an fitness tracker and an app, but I use it primarily for monitoring, logging calories in and out, and tracking results. The only "instructional" part of it I use - if you can call it that - is the "get off your lard ass, tubbo" reminder.

  20. Pick it up, put it down, eat carrots, run by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...exercise and eating right is not this complex. Also those apps are going to give you advice that are generic to the population, not necessarily what you as a unique individual actually need.

  21. I for one vote by thegarbz · · Score: 2

    I for one vote we should suspend all exercise until we can determine a scientifically and clearly defined target for each person and get these hard coded in apps.

    But on a more serious note, what a stupid argument to make. Just because someone doesn't understand the purpose of exercise doesn't mean actually getting some is automatically bad.

    1. Re:I for one vote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even better, the argument is, that general limits based on a scientific study are no good, and he knows this, even though he hasn't done a study yet to prove it.

  22. Re:Not built into app - built into HR's health pla by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, health insurance needs to be optional again. Then you wouldn't have to pay for it at all, and I wouldn't have to help pay medical for people who hate themselves or are too lazy to care about themselves.

  23. Could by blogagog · · Score: 1

    Any article that discusses an issue that 'could' or 'may' do something is not an article worth reading. You can say them about anything. For example, double cheeseburgers could lead to visits by extraterrestrial life forms!

  24. Re:Not built into app - built into HR's health pla by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, health insurance needs to be optional again. Then you wouldn't have to pay for it at all, and I wouldn't have to help pay medical for people who hate themselves or are too lazy to care about themselves.

    Yes, let's make sure that people in the emergency room, maybe found on the road, victims of a hit and run driver for example, are not treated until they can be searched for proof of health insurance, followed by verification from the hospital that the policy is valid and the victim is in fact the authorized service recipient. No one will bleed out, die from a heart attack, or suffer damage from an untreated stroke. What could go wrong?

  25. Re:Not built into app - built into HR's health pla by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, health insurance needs to be optional again. Then you wouldn't have to pay for it at all, and I wouldn't have to help pay medical for people who hate themselves or are too lazy to care about themselves.

    Quick question - who paid for the uninsured guy that is going to be turned away everywhere except the (very expensive) ER back when insurance was optional?

    Pro-tip: You and everyone else did, in the form of higher prices.

    There's no avoiding "pay[ing] medical for [other] people". The most sensible thing to do is to ensure that we collectively get our money's worth.

  26. *sigh* by sootman · · Score: 1

    "Health Apps Could Be Doing More Harm Than Good, Warn Scientists"

    Or, they could be doing more good than harm. Way to take a stand, guys. ANYTHING is possible.

    A dozen articles a day that contain the phrase "scientists warn" is about as useful as Outlook telling me that attachments MIGHT harm my computer -- every... single... fucking... time.

    And are these the same scientists that once said I shouldn't eat eggs, and now they say I should? Or that I should avoid cholesterol -- wait, sorry, now it's only *bad* cholesterol that I should avoid. And I should drink a bunch of water every day... but not *too* much. And I should eat lots of fruits and vegetables... well, not so much fruits, actually, because of the sugar.

    "... they... force people to focus on ambitious goals that they will never reach."

    Like when an overweight person goes to their doctor and is told for the tenth time in as many years that they should lose weight? Useful, that.

    --
    Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
  27. TFS is not very good by pointybits · · Score: 1

    The "snake oil" quote is about mental health apps, not physical health trackers.

    Personally I have tried and discarded Google Fit, but Strava is fantastic and has helped me lose huge amounts of weight and get fitter than I have ever been. For me it succeeds because it's much better at gamifying fitness and making it a little competitive, without having to front up to an actual race.

  28. Well... by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 1

    "I mean, imagine everyone thinks they have to do 10,000 steps but you are not actually physically capable of doing that, you could actually cause harm or damage by doing so."

    Well they can just swing their arm while holding the device like I've seen many people do. They can probably do that from the couch while eating Oreo's too. Problem solved.

  29. The Best Fitness App by sexconker · · Score: 1

    The best fitness app is Pokemon Go.

    1. Re:The Best Fitness App by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So far, it increased the hardness of my face, from walking into multiple objects on the street.

    2. Re:The Best Fitness App by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Probably because you're an idiot. From years of playing Ingress (Pokemon Go for adults*), I have developed a heightened peripheral awareness of my surrounding to the extent the even while looking at my phone screen I know when there are obstacles I need to navigate, so I don't walk into lampposts or trip over steps or blindly out into roads.

      *Not that there is really anything wrong with adults playing Pokemon Go if they want to, just that it lacks depth of gameplay.

  30. Re:Not built into app - built into HR's health pla by jedidiah · · Score: 1

    Watch Big Bang Theory sometime.

    We still have this stupid idea (encouraged by mass media) that the ER is "the place to go" if you suffer the tiniest little mishap. The fact that patients may now be required to pay a trifling co-pay doesn't really alter the equation all that much.

    That moron Wolowitz also needs to carry an Epipen and Sheldon should have one in his First Aid kit.

    --
    A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
  31. Classic MIT problem. by jedidiah · · Score: 1

    So, some Ivory tower weenies are whining that something isn't perfect therefore it must be rubbished as a menace. Where have we heard this before? This should be ancient news to all of the peanut gallery here. Anyone here buying into this nonsense should just hand in your geek card now.

    I'm the kind of person they claim to be championing and I say they need to STFU and try something else. They might suck at it less.

    --
    A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
  32. Re:Not built into app - built into HR's health pla by edtice1559 · · Score: 1

    For cost-conscious patients, urgent care doctors are a great alternative to the emergency room. For those who have low or no deductibles / co-pays, the ER may be the first thing that they think of. But there's also a large swath of the population who can only get medical care in the ER due to being uninsured / under-insured.

  33. Yep. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "I mean, imagine everyone thinks they have to do 10,000 steps but you are not actually physically capable of doing that, you could actually cause harm or damage by doing so."

    This just in, statistics don't always apply to everyone. Some people (especially in different regions of the world) may have different biologies that make the statistic way off the mark and may actually cause harm to them, or not go far enough. Experts are SHOCKED by the revelation. In other news, "Just how wet is water?" we'll have the answer for you at 11.

    Until we have evidence-based apps you could amplify issues.

    Yep, there's the angle.

    No thanks. I don't want my average white blood cell count going up 0.00000001% to start serving me a never ending torrent of targeted advertising for clinics, Tylenol, and antibiotics. (I live in the US, yes they can advertise drugs to you here.) Nor do I want my health insurance to suddenly jack up the rates / premiums when I'm actually sick.

  34. Walking is not exercise by kcdoodle · · Score: 1

    If you are even slightly fit, walking is not exercise.

    If you are unfit, walking is a good start to becoming fit, but it won't take you all the way.

    Fitness comes from challenging your muscles, from pushing your limits and from cardio-vascular work.
    Strength can be built with resistance training (weights) and calisthenics (sit-ups, push-ups), but heart health only comes from cardio.

    I dislike cardio as much as the next guy, the sweating, the panting, and the enormous amount of time it takes out of my day.
    But I wanna live until we can transfer our intellect into machines (just kidding).
    I do feel the best all day if I run in the morning, so at least that works for me.

    --

    - I live the greatest adventure anyone could possibly desire. - Tosk the Hunted
  35. Do you even math? by Daetrin · · Score: 1

    20,000 additional steps equates to an extra 2000 steps for you? How long are your legs that your stride length is 10 feet?

    They said "from a common sense 30,000 foot perspective". Feet, not steps.

    I said "10,000 steps a day was hard enough!" Steps, not feet.

    The average stride length is about 2.2 feet for women and 2.5 feet for men.

    The recommended 10,000 steps would then equal 22,000 feet for women or 25,000 feet for men (on average.)

    Taking the difference between those numbers and the 30,000 feet means a difference of 8000 or 5000 feet.

    5000 extra feet for the men divided by 2.5 feet per step would be 2000 additional steps.

    8000 feet for the women divided by 2.2 feet per step would be 3,636 additional steps.

    Arguably i should have rounded up to 2000-4000 steps instead of down to 2000-3000 steps, but aside from that my math checks out. Yours is... suspect.

    --
    This Space Intentionally Left Blank
  36. Re:Not built into app - built into HR's health pla by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is it really that difficult to rack up 3,500 steps a day? When I got my S6 I turned on the step monitor in S6 and most days I hit the default 10,000 step target without even trying. It isn't really that hard to fool the app in to counting steps just by moving it in a way to simulate a walking motion (from the phone's perspective where it is likely to be in a pocket).

    I'm not too sure why I leave it on as I don't pay much attention to it, but in any case 3,500 steps is a very low target to hit.