The Potential and the Pitfalls of Combining Fitness and Technology
Source: Squarespace
Fitness and technology appear to be an excellent pair. The use of innovative tech to bring about more effective programming and improved results seems like a no-brainer. Every year hundreds of companies bank on this very idea by creating new, sleek and impressive ways to integrate human performance and health into the ever-evolving tech industry. The tech industry is robust and wellness is at the forefront of society, so it seems like a perfect marriage of principles. The issue that arises though, is that often these companies struggle to gain enough traction to really change the basics of fitness since the tried-and-true methodologies are seemingly still the most effective means of reaching goals. Perhaps this is because the existing fitness community, the ones already utilizing facilities, appear less willing to integrate these devices since they grade their existing methods as “working.” Conversely, those who are currently not going to the gym are not being drawn in by the advancements in technology for a space that, to date, has not interested them. So, this begs a further exploration of the best path forward in fitness and utilization of technology.
Perhaps the most basic question is, are the classic, low-tech strategies of weight training and cardiovascular exercise best? Or are the high-tech machines that will match your personal strength curve and grade you upon past workouts each and every time you sit down most ideal? A fantastic pop-culture analog for this tech vs. no-tech dichotomy in fitness is the training montage from the 1985 movie Rocky IV. In it, Ivan Drago trains in a lab with the most advanced, cutting-edge equipment, whereas Rocky Balboa (Sylvester Stallone) is in the woods chopping wood and climbing nature’s mountainous landscape in his pursuit of ultimate strength. Spoiler: Rocky wins. The movie attempts to answer the philosophical question of man and traditional methods versus machine, but the reality is much more complicated and would clearly have a lot more caveats if produced in today’s tech-laden fitness world.
There is a lot of technology that exists today. The American College of Sports Medicine (ACSM) listed wearable technology as the number one trend in its’ yearly survey of fitness professionals [1]. Interest in the use of technology to get and stay fit shows that some aspects of the fitness industry are open to and thriving when attached to technology. These wearables, like the Apple Watch, Fitbit, Whoop, etc. are all great ways of tracking and quantifying the work that those exercising are putting in. It has even been shown that using these devices leads to an overall increase in activity and, in-turn fitness, as a whole [3]. This tracking is a helpful way to know if there is more that can be done to reach certain results. Technology can also be used by athletes to prevent injuries and identify potential issues with training protocols [7].
Wearables though are only the tip of the iceberg in the field of tech-forward fitness. Every major equipment manufacturer has created an integrated “smart” set of machines and software that can track an individual’s progress and recommend different workouts or intensities as they utilize the equipment. These sets, like the Technogym “Biostrength” line, are beautifully-made, sleek, computerized machines that offer quite a bit more than your standard selectorized equipment, albeit at much higher price-points [2].
But, what are the potential negatives? One of the downsides is the obsession with numbers associated with the statistics provided by activity tracking apps. For certain personality types the need to surpass stated goals and achieve the numbers on the screen can cause anxiety and even exacerbate obsessive tendencies. [4, 5] Fitness apps and calorie trackers can have a negative effect on social relationships for many users. Those who are utilizing these services and devices can become overly obsessed with achieving a desired caloric intake and decide to achieve these numbers at the expense of human social interaction and, ironically, health [6]. Further, tech is more apt to need maintenance so the product investment may be higher both in the short and long term from a pure cost perspective (not taking into account value or return on investment).
There are obviously huge upsides as well as potential downsides to integrating tech into the fitness world. The question becomes where do we go from here and how can we integrate these two very different worlds? A multi-disciplinary approach seems to be an effective way forward: bringing both the classic, traditional fitness world together with the high-tech and easily accessible. A great example of this is something the YMCA is doing by integrating and advertising the EGYM line of fitness equipment as a separate, but complimentary option for members [8]. The YMCA has the advantage of size and square footage to be able to do both and the varied demographics of members in both age and fitness ability level do lend to the need for diverse equipment offerings.
While the Y is bringing technology into the fitness fold by offering everything in one place, there are other companies leaning totally into technology. An example of this is The Smart Fit Method [9]. They offer only high-tech personalized fitness options in small convenient studios. Branded as a way for older people and those who are not as interested in traditional exercise programs to get results, the company has been consistently expanding across Southern California. There are countless other brands doing similar things worldwide with each trying to carve out a piece of the massive fitness market.
There is a fine line with over-doing progress and riding the wave of technology. And it is something that we will potentially be forever navigating across all industries. When designing spaces, it is important to ensure that whatever is being implemented is going to be useful and desirable to the end-user. As time goes on and the industry progresses it will be important to keep an eye on what is working and what is available. The need to be flexible in design as a means to pivot with the market, as it evolves, could be as simple as knowing where the market is going, what is crucial for personal health and the impact of amenity design against business objectives.
So why did Rocky win? It may just be because an understanding of what one wants coupled with the ideal training and fitness equipment for one’s body and goals is all you ever need. But, how you know what that combination is, oftentimes, needs a little help from those who know it best.
References:
1. https://www.acsm.org/news-detail/2023/12/28/wearable-technology-named-top-fitness-trend-for-2024
2. https://www.technogym.com/en-US/biostrength/
4. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/07439156231224731
6. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31215514/
7. https://www.essendonsportsmedicine.com.au/about/blog/tech-for-recovery
8. https://www.ymcasd.org/programs/sports-and-fitness/egym-y