Activity Trackers Don’t Always Work the Way We Want Them To

The study demonstrated that encouraging teens to compete left those at the bottom feeling inferior. This is news?

The problem isn't giving them Fitbits, the problem is giving them smartphones and video games.

Really disappointing to read such a meaningless article. So what? And what does it mean to say the researchers did not track changes in activity levels because the study focused on psychology? What does that mean. What was the hypothesis being tested? And: the result was frustration, self reproach- and less, not more movement? If they didn't trach changes how do they conclude not more movement? You can do better than this, well, perhaps.

This "study" is a joke and the conclusions are flawed. The conclusions may very well be that tying competition to physical activity has an adverse effect on psychology effect leading to reduced interest in exercise. But the study (at least as reported here) says nothing about the efficacy of activity trackers themselves. Please stop publishing sensless tripe in the wellness section. You do it far too often.

Thinking is an activity.

Who's "We" anyway?

What did the researchers expected? They are called “Activity MONITORS” not “Activity MOTIVATORS”. The motivation to be active, to exercise, has to come from within oneself. No one can motivate any one for doing any thing let alone to be active. If I understood it correctly, these were psychologists who conducted this research and they don’t even know the basics of human nature. The motivation HAS to come from within.

"The problem with the monitors seemed to be that they had left the teenagers feeling pressure and with little control over their activities, as well as self-conscious about their physical abilities." That's a good thing, isn't it?

i understand the dispiriting effects of the "leaderboard." I have a pedometer but never wanted to synch it up to a site where I would compete with my friends and colleagues--that would be dispiriting, and do little positive for either my physical health or social relationships. (Frankly, I'm glad I don't know the salaries of my friends and colleagues, either.) And I'm far beyond adolescence and all its inherent insecurity involved with comparing oneself with peers. If "leaderboards" motivate others, great. Just not my thing. (Also, though not pertiment to the main point of this article, I share fellow commenter AW's disappointment in the ability of trackers that I have used to reflect the steps or aerobic workout involved in dancing. A half-hour of moderately paced salsa dancing requires far more exertion than a half-hour of even fairly brisk walking, but "counts" for fewer steps, and those don't register as "aerobic." Go figure.) I do find pedometers helpful in motivating me to get more exercise. Even if I'm the only one who knows how much exercise I'm getting, and if I have no idea how I stack up against others.

I’ve had a FitBit since 2012, and I love it. But they’re not for everyone. I have watched countless friends add me to their FitBit leader board, only to disappear (aka stop using it) after a few weeks. I would say a FitBit would work best for people who (1) love having data, and (2) are motivated to check that box and reach your daily step goal. Imagine yourself 2,500 steps shy of your goal a half hour before bedtime- do you just forget about it, or do you start moving because you HAVE to reach your goal? If you don’t feel motivated to check that box, I’m not sure that a FitBit will do you much good. I actually feel like I’m too ruled by my FitBit at times, sometimes I wish I could let it go every once in a while so I could do something else with that time. Meeting a weekly step goal might be more practical than doing it every single day. But I’ve used it every day for 5 years, and I know it helps me manage my weight and health, so at the end of the day I can’t complain.

The place to start is awareness, and the trackers help with that. The problem isn't in the trackers, it's what you do with the awareness of your activity.

Once again, the article's title is misleading. Rethink forcing an activity tracker on someone else. They are effective for those to choose to use them.

Fitbits are disappointing. Mine would register me as being asleep during yoga and I’m certain thought I was dead or had removed the device during others. It would register 2x as many steps for walking than dancing even though my heart rate was greater with the latter. Dumb devices.

The teenagers felt “lazy if they did not manage 10,000 steps each day.” And they should. If a healthy kid of 13 does not manage 10,000 steps per day he or she is in big trouble.

I have only been encouraged to do more or better when faced with these kinds of situations or my own tracking device letting me know the level of activity. After the newness of my activity tracker wore off I then realized I wasn't as active but that didn't stop me from changing that. I think it has more to do with a desire to be healthy than having a competition with others or a device. Even though I no longer track my steps, I resolved to be active each and every week, simply getting out and walking a certain amount each week. I also was of a generation of children that played outdoors each day and had chores, responsibilities. Now it's all about social media and indoor activity compounded by the fact that parents are more afraid to let their children run freely outside.

The NY Times had another story on Fitbits months back with a similar idea. That one tested the benefit of simply giving one to a person. Guess what? No benefit. Now this study says simply tracking people also does not work. These devices are not magic talismans. You have to understand the data it delivers, learn what works and what does not, and how that info fit your goals. Then you have to get up and exercise. Nothing magic. If anything, these stories reinforce how difficult it is in modern society to stay in a healthy state, especially when your own memories are the only guide. We do not naturally do much activity anymore. We think we do more than we really do. Are any studies that ask people what they did, whether voting, watching TV or exercising giving any valid results? Probably not. Disappointment with actual performance is expected if you never really knew what you did.

I'm trying to reconcile the title of the article with the focus of the research, which was not really about activity trackers. I've read other studies that show that activity trackers as a whole do not promote fitness, so was interested in this study to corroborate that. What this study showed was that middle school children don't want to be publicly shamed in front of their peers; it is coincidence that the study used the trackers to obtain metrics. Although a good idea on paper, I think ultimately the activity tracker will go the route of some of the less popular exercise machines in American's basements.

I don't compare my activity with anyone else, and nobody sees what I do or don't do. My fitbit works great for me. It also tells me what time it is!

I love my Apple watch which tracks steps and exercise and chides me to "stand" every hour. I find it very helpful, with a desk, job, to be buzzed to get up and walk around. I move more when I have the watch reminding me than I do if I'm not wearing it. But, I'm not competing against anyone except myself.

"The result was ... less, not more, movement" - How can you possibly conclude this if the researchers didn't track changes in actvity levels? Am I missing something?

I am from the so called silent generation, born of the greatest generation, and that for sure, is a long time ago. Ever consider today kids are restricted from going anywhere or doing anything, without parental supervision. Our generation were free, and were outside playing, or getting where we were required to be, by walking there. Being confined indoors wasn't something we aspired to. We only came back home for meals.

Flawed research methods aside, what is telling about this study is what I think we all know. Teenagers are highly susceptible to peer pressure and do not do well when they are publicly compared to their fellow students'/friends' accomplishments. Even my husband and I (who both have Fitbits) can occasionally slide into the how-many-steps-did-you-do-today trap. Besides, for people who are not used to exercise, it takes time to get into the groove. One month is definitely not enough time. My husband, who is exercise-averse, now walks 10,000 steps most days. But it has taken several months to get him there.

I think we really need to step back and realize how sad it is that people these days even feel they need some electronic device to tell them to get up and move around.

Fitbits, I Watches, etc. are the 21st center version of home exercise equipment. All the best intentions and then unused. As Americans we have become increasingly sedentary and show little concern with a healthy diet. You just have to look at comments on various social media platforms to see how little people care about their health. Many Americans have an attitude of "the government isn't going to tell me how to live my life" I guess its that "rugged individualism"

"Always" in the title is the qualifying word. Some of us love our conflicted relationship with our Fitbits.

Maybe kids could be more active if parents ever let them out of their sight for more than 30 seconds.

How about walking to school, work and errands? We were born with legs, not wheels.

Try Strava.

I've been using a fitbit since 2014 and aside from the occasional squabble over whose in charge we get along. I do like the automatic collection of data on activity, sleep, weight, etc, so that if i've a mind to, I can modify my behavior and see the results over time. As the saying goes - you can't manage what you can't measure. So, if you've a mind to manage activity, weight, sleep etc this is a tool to use.

Is it any wonder why so many young kids aren't motivated to be fit? Parents are overweight, teachers are overweight, people on ads on TV are overweight. Even the President is borderline obese. Where are the role models? Society has given a "thumbs up " to living fat and happy because we don't want to shame anyone. But the underlying message is: It's ok to increase your chances of diabetes and heart disease.

Obviously it's true that not everything you give your kid is going to be liked or used. This apples to everything in life. But you never know unless you try.

I'm a professor, and I teach research methods. I took a look at the source article referenced in this piece after reading the description in this article. If I assigned it to my graduate students and asked them to critique it, they would rip it apart. There are two fatal flaws that preclude drawing ANY conclusions from the research cited here. The first is that there is no random assignment to condition. This means that there are many many other explanations for the changes in motivation (which were very small and barely statistically meaningful).More important, as another commenter already noted, this is NOT actually a study of activity monitors (fitbits etc). It is a study of putting teenagers who are intensely concerned about social comparisons on a leader board. In the language of research, the researchers have committed an "operational confound." They have welded together two components in their independent variable--fitbit and leaderboards. We cannot separate them, and for this reason, we can draw no conclusions from this research. It is deeply disappointing that the Times puts its weight behind a single deeply flawed study that is of such poor methodological quality that no conclusion can actually be drawn from it.

I participated in an activity monitor study a few summers ago and at the end of the summer I took off my tracker and hid it in a drawer. The experience was awful. We also had "leader boards' and could see our own participation alongside (or in some weeks, combined with) that of others in our anonymous "team." I was asked to walk 15,000 steps a day based on a week of monitoring before the study began. I felt pressured to complete 15,000 steps a day, while it was clear that many of my teammates did not feel the same pressure (which led to resentment of people I didn't even know!). I was relieved when the study was over and am much happier exercising without the benefit of a machine counting my steps.

I would like to see where the statistic that "most children reach their peak activity at about age 7 and become more sedentary" afterwards comes from.

The best item you could get a child to encourage natural activity is a dog.

The title could easily be "Leaderboards don't work". I don't think we can conclude that it was the activity tracker based on the study design. It could have easily been the leader board "pressures" that created those negative feelings.

What if a competition were held among different exercise monitors to compare how effective each was in motivating activity, maintenance of activity level, improvement of fitness level or maintenance of a predefined standard, etc.? My guess is that additional or different displays and metrics would promptly appear, and that more improvement (both physically and psychologically) would occur.

The title of this article could have been simplified to "Activity Trackers Don't Work". They are notoriously inaccurate and many end up unused and discarded like so much exercise equipment at the curb for junk collectors to pick up as the end result of an abandoned workout routine.

Why on earth would they think a "leader board" of individual competition would be motivating? That's only fun for the top 10 kids at most! Who wouldn't expect more than half the kids to be discouraged by it?

At work, we were given FitBits and our small group had a contest for the most steps. Because half our group was under 25 and in one case an Olympic Class athlete, I didn't really compete very seriously. I found that if I strapped mine on my 2 year old Dalmatian's collar, I could easily get my 10,000 daily steps and the goal of 75,000 for one week was easily achieved. I admitted it, though, when we were comparing records.

Like my granddaughter, only age 9, "worrying" that she "only has 12%" on her phone...