5 ms·

The biggest issue facing the wearable market is that, despite having all the data, I still don't know what to do with it. We need to correlate cause and effect.

The biggest issue facing the wearable market is that, despite having all the data, I still don't know what to do with it. We need to correlate cause and effect. It differs dramatically between individuals, so what's true for me is probably not true for you. We have a battle between privacy and usefulness, in that we'd ideally feed data from millions of people into a machine learning algorithm to start helping people actually use and benefit from the data. However, most people don't want to share their intimate health data to the cloud. Another huge issue is that we haven't nailed the input problem: wearables can measure our energy expenditure, but not our energy intake. Until we can measure that as accurately as heart rate (and not just calories, but the nutrient breakdown too) then we only have one side of the equation. We still have a long way to go before wearables are truly indispensable, and that's before we start considering the emerging research on gut bacteria and the role it plays.

revelation 10y ago
Wearables can't measure energy expenditure, at most they give you an overblown estimate that is only weakly correlated with actual expenditure. The closest thing to measuring expenditure is a power meter on a bike or ergo, and then you still technically have to do a lab test measuring expired gases from your breathing to estimate efficiency.
- throwanem 10y ago
  Even a weak correlation is better than nothing, especially when increasing accuracy seems to require a very well equipped gym and a sports medicine lab.
bsder 10y ago
> Another huge issue is that we haven't nailed the input problem: wearables can measure our energy expenditure, but not our energy intake. Until we can measure that as accurately as heart rate (and not just calories, but the nutrient breakdown too) then we only have one side of the equation. It's worse than you think. Humans expend almost exactly the same amount of calories until they get to extreme amounts of activity. The body simply shunts the available calories to different systems. So, it's almost all about caloric intake. See the latest Scientific American (dead tree edition) for a nice article about it.
- iopq 10y ago
  Also, when you eat less your body temperature drops, so caloric intake has to ALSO be adjusted by a lot.
jib 10y ago
Newtonian level of insight into fitness is super easy. (With Newtonian I mean enough true to get the work done, even if there is a higher level of truth underneath, i.e Einsteinian physics, quantum physics) Weight delta = calories in - calories out Health preservation requires adequate levels of protein (muscles) and fat (hormones) Muscle growth requires caloric surplus, adequate protein availability and muscle breaks Muscle breaking requires progressive overloading of muscles (i.e. do more/harder of the thing you want to get better at over time) Micronutrients is a thing, so eat a balanced diet or take supplements. With those five things, 99% of people can do anything they need around fitness. Wearable fitness does very little for those five things. Gathering data to further the development of Einsteinian level of insights is interesting - fitness certainly lags behind there, but I dont think any big breakthroughs in fitness will come from that, in the same way that Einsteinian physics didnt change how we build bridges or pipes. The less sexy but much more interesting point is on changing behaviours around those five things. How do you design technology to change habits? It is possible to change habits with technology. The obvious example is how mobile phones changed habits, for instance in how we make appointments, navigate and a multitude of other ways. Cracking how wearable fitness can change those is a much more valuable challenge in my view. Can we design wearable fitness that lets you exercise wherever you are? Tap your fitness device and you're sent to the nearest gym, with a change of clothes and towels etc ready in a locker for you, and the device reading off your exercise plan? Tap it to get your personalized meal prepared for you at your nearest participating restaurant, or a shopping bag sent home to you. That's where I see the future being for fitness technology - we know the right things to do, they are just awkward to do, so lower the barrier to doing the right things.
- RugnirViking 10y ago
  Issue with this is of course that calories out is not something we understand very well at all. some people burn more, some less. Sometimes it spikes for no reason while sitting in a chair. Sometimes it spikes when people are stressed. Sometimes it doesn't. These are only some of the pitfalls
  - jib 10y ago
    Right, but you can control two of the parts of the equation fairly well - weight delta (scales, over time) and calories in (nutritional information).

revelation 10y ago

Wearables can't measure energy expenditure, at most they give you an overblown estimate that is only weakly correlated with actual expenditure. The closest thing to measuring expenditure is a power meter on a bike or ergo, and then you still technically have to do a lab test measuring expired gases from your breathing to estimate efficiency.

throwanem 10y ago
Even a weak correlation is better than nothing, especially when increasing accuracy seems to require a very well equipped gym and a sports medicine lab.

bsder 10y ago

> Another huge issue is that we haven't nailed the input problem: wearables can measure our energy expenditure, but not our energy intake. Until we can measure that as accurately as heart rate (and not just calories, but the nutrient breakdown too) then we only have one side of the equation. It's worse than you think. Humans expend almost exactly the same amount of calories until they get to extreme amounts of activity. The body simply shunts the available calories to different systems. So, it's almost all about caloric intake. See the latest Scientific American (dead tree edition) for a nice article about it.

iopq 10y ago
Also, when you eat less your body temperature drops, so caloric intake has to ALSO be adjusted by a lot.

jib 10y ago

Newtonian level of insight into fitness is super easy. (With Newtonian I mean enough true to get the work done, even if there is a higher level of truth underneath, i.e Einsteinian physics, quantum physics) Weight delta = calories in - calories out Health preservation requires adequate levels of protein (muscles) and fat (hormones) Muscle growth requires caloric surplus, adequate protein availability and muscle breaks Muscle breaking requires progressive overloading of muscles (i.e. do more/harder of the thing you want to get better at over time) Micronutrients is a thing, so eat a balanced diet or take supplements. With those five things, 99% of people can do anything they need around fitness. Wearable fitness does very little for those five things. Gathering data to further the development of Einsteinian level of insights is interesting - fitness certainly lags behind there, but I dont think any big breakthroughs in fitness will come from that, in the same way that Einsteinian physics didnt change how we build bridges or pipes. The less sexy but much more interesting point is on changing behaviours around those five things. How do you design technology to change habits? It is possible to change habits with technology. The obvious example is how mobile phones changed habits, for instance in how we make appointments, navigate and a multitude of other ways. Cracking how wearable fitness can change those is a much more valuable challenge in my view. Can we design wearable fitness that lets you exercise wherever you are? Tap your fitness device and you're sent to the nearest gym, with a change of clothes and towels etc ready in a locker for you, and the device reading off your exercise plan? Tap it to get your personalized meal prepared for you at your nearest participating restaurant, or a shopping bag sent home to you. That's where I see the future being for fitness technology - we know the right things to do, they are just awkward to do, so lower the barrier to doing the right things.

RugnirViking 10y ago
Issue with this is of course that calories out is not something we understand very well at all. some people burn more, some less. Sometimes it spikes for no reason while sitting in a chair. Sometimes it spikes when people are stressed. Sometimes it doesn't. These are only some of the pitfalls
- jib 10y ago
  Right, but you can control two of the parts of the equation fairly well - weight delta (scales, over time) and calories in (nutritional information).