ACTIVITY TRACKING
Should we trust tracking? Recent research casts doubt on the ability of existing technology to accurately count
the calories burned during exercise. But does being able to tell whether you’ve burnt off 400 calories or 450 during a workout actually matter? Crispin Andrews reports
accurate indication of the exercise they do. She spent a week wearing four of the latest trackers and found that they each gave a different record of how many calories she’d burnt off and the steps she’d taken: the range was 2,649 calories, with a 23 per cent difference in the recorded number of steps. Not long afterwards, researchers at
T
the Perelman School of Medicine and the Center for Health Incentives and Behavioral Economics at the University of Pennsylvania, US, claimed that smartphone apps are just as capable of accurately tracking physical activity as fitness trackers and other wearables. Participants in this study walked on a treadmill wearing a pedometer, two
his February, BBC TV technology presenter Lara Lewington decided to find out whether wearable activity trackers gave people an
accelerometers, three wearables and two smartphones running four apps. The researchers counted people walking 500 steps and 1,500 steps and then checked to see what the apps and wearables had recorded. They found that wearables logged between 22.7 per cent and 1.5 per cent less than the observed step count, while apps recorded between 6.7 per cent less and 6.2 per cent more. The researchers concluded that, if
everyone has a smartphone and can download free apps, why – if there’s not much difference in accuracy – would you pay for a wearable device? In January 2015 there was more bad
news for wearables. Iowa State University announced that seven of the most popular wearable devices provided inaccurate readings. The Iowa researchers gave 50 participants seven wearable devices each, and recorded how many calories the
devices said each individual burned off. As a control, they simultaneously tested each participant with a system that determines calorie burn by analysing oxygen levels in exhaled breath – widely recognised as the most accurate way to measure calorie consumption. The Iowa team found that all seven devices were at least 15 per cent inaccurate, with the worst offender out by 40 per cent.
Acceptable margins of error Newspaper headlines made much of the inaccuracies and discrepancies. However, Greg Welk, an Iowa State University professor of kinesiology, says a device that is 10–15 per cent out is actually providing a reasonably accurate estimate of calories burnt. Mitesh Patel, from the University of Pennsylvania, also said the devices his team tested were “all pretty accurate”.
Even if not 100 per cent accurate, tracking data offers users a benchmark against which to measure their future performance
A study at Iowa University tested 10 trackers – a pedometer, accelerometers, wearables and apps – and none was accurate
46 Read Health Club Management online at
healthclubmanagement.co.uk/digital May 2015 © Cybertrek 2015
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92