The marathon, the algorithm and me
Twenty-five centuries in the past, after the Greeks shattered the Persian military at Marathon, courageous Pheidippides ran 26 miles to Athens with the information. Robert Browning’s poem tells the story:
“Rejoice, we conquer!” Like wine thro’ clay
Pleasure in his blood bursting his coronary heart, he died — the bliss!
With the demise of Pheidippides started the legend of the marathon, a feat of working so arduous that the very try might kill you. I plan to run my first marathon in April in London, hoping to keep away from his blissful destiny. In any case, I’ve an ally that he didn’t. Pheidippides, for all his valour, lacked a sports activities watch.
I used to be by no means a runner; my knees weren’t as much as it, I’d inform myself. However one factor led to a different and, after a few years at my native Parkrun, I purchased an entry-level working watch, with no intention past pacing myself evenly. I didn’t realise that I used to be plugging my physique into the train yard of the digital panopticon, with the watch’s app estimating every little thing from my heart-rate to my step depend, and hazarding a guess at my physique’s capability to make use of oxygen, to not point out my “health age”. I had by no means dreamt such a small field of tips might present so many numbers, all claiming ultimately to — and right here I quote the watch producer, Garmin — “assist your efforts to enhance and keep your well being”.
There isn’t any denying the technological cleverness right here. My watch makes use of a community of 24 satellites, time indicators to inside three billionths of a second and calculations adjusting for the irregular form of the planet with a view to pinpoint my location to inside 5m. It provides an accelerometer, a tool that detects modifications in pace or course utilizing interleaved combs of conductive materials etched on silicon that flex and contact as my wrist strikes. A strip of flashing inexperienced lights on the underbelly of my watch displays my coronary heart fee by detecting how a lot gentle bounces off my wrist relatively than being absorbed by the pink blood swelling and shrinking my tiny capillaries.
It’s all one thing of a miracle, however extra attention-grabbing nonetheless is the panoply of behavioural nudges, every little thing from inviting me to share my runs on social networks to monitoring my “streaks” of train. Final yr, I started coaching for a 10k race, then a half-marathon (greater than 21km), utilizing the free teaching software program bundled with my watch.
Over 12 weeks of coaching, my digital coach would ship me off on a number of runs every week, steadily sharpening the tempo and rising the gap, mixing issues up with simpler runs or fierce dash intervals. Once in a while, I’d get a brief article or a canned video message and, after each run, an upbeat verdict: “Nice job!” or “Room to develop.” A colored dial, purportedly indicating my coach’s confidence, however really the output of some unknown algorithm, informed me how seemingly I used to be to realize my aim on race day.
Indisputably this teaching programme labored; it prompted me to train frequently, and I grew to become sooner and fitter. However the longer I used it, the extra questions arose in my thoughts.
There’s something concerning the health watch that feels unnervingly acquainted after twenty years of smartphones and social media. A tremendous know-how flipping from unimaginable to indispensable virtually in a single day; the limitless monitoring, nudging, sharing; the datafication of one thing that beforehand had eluded measurement; and a way of thriller about the place all this knowledge goes and the way it’s getting used. On high of all that’s one thing new and visceral: a tool worn on my pores and skin, measuring blood, breath, pace and sleep.
Is the health watch actually to be trusted with my health? And might it educate me a lesson about the best way so many elements of my life have been reworked into numbers, rewards and targets?
*
Automated health monitoring started earlier than I used to be born. Within the Nineteen Sixties, fearful that their Japanese compatriots have been changing into sedentary, a health care provider named Iwao Ohya and an engineer named Jiro Kato developed a easy step-counter. They referred to as it the manpokei or “10,000 stepmeter”. There are numerous origin tales for the determine of 10,000 and all of them acknowledge that there isn’t any scientific logic for the brink. That didn’t cease the concept catching on in an enormous manner within the twenty first century, when smartphones and health trackers started to quantity our steps and tut disappointedly each time we missed their arbitrary goal.
These tuts make a distinction: Katy Milkman, a professor on the Wharton College and creator of How To Change, confirmed me step-tracking knowledge from an unpublished examine. Her examine topics walked a wide range of distances, however the knowledge displayed an enormous spike simply past 10,000 day by day steps, proof of the highly effective urge to fulfill the health tracker’s meaningless goal.
Nonetheless, motivation is motivation. “There’s a widespread notion that health trackers don’t work, which is inaccurate,” says Carol Maher, a professor of inhabitants and digital well being on the College of South Australia, who has performed many research into the consequences of health monitoring. “Once you put all of the proof collectively, it’s very clear that they do assist folks stroll extra and take extra steps. It’s a modest change however even modest modifications are very useful.”
Maher and a workforce of researchers performed a wide-ranging evaluate of various research of health trackers, protecting 164,000 individuals. They discovered all the consequences that one may hope for: folks are usually extra lively, stroll extra, lose fats, shed pounds and achieve health.
This shouldn’t be a shock. Health trackers set us easy objectives, document our progress and share our achievements with our pals. All of those behaviour nudges are calculated to prod us into motion.
Milkman despatched me a brief studying record of related research, together with a rapid-fire abstract. “Reminders change behaviour,” she informed me. “Chunk-sized, short-term objectives change behaviour and round-number objectives are significantly useful. Self-monitoring modifications behaviour. Symbolic rewards like badges change behaviour. Social accountability, akin to sharing your train, modifications behaviour.”
Each Milkman and Maher are satisfied that health trackers assist, and so am I. However assist who? And to do what? It’s one factor to coax a sofa potato to rise up and go for a stroll; it’s one other to information an ageing author to his first marathon. But I had put my watch accountable for reaching this all encompassing aim.
*
On the coronary heart of the matter is a bit of human behaviour recognized by Milkman in a examine performed with behavioural scientists Linda Chang, Erika Kirgios and Sendhil Mullainathan. The researchers requested a easy query: “Can we resolve otherwise when some dimensions of a alternative are quantified and others are usually not?”
The reply emerged loud and clear from a sequence of experiments: sure, we do. Every time experimental topics have been provided a alternative between two choices, they’d are inclined to favour whichever possibility appeared higher on numerical measures and overlook qualities that have been expressed as graphical parts, letter grades, star symbols or in phrases (“average”, “glorious”, “extremely seemingly”). This was true whether or not the selection was between lodges, job candidates, convention areas, public works tasks, eating places or charitable causes. Numbers loomed giant. What was quantified, obtained consideration.
This issues as a result of health trackers purport to excel at quantifying some issues and don’t fake even to quantify others. If quantification fixation applies, we’d count on to see such trackers systematically pushing folks in the direction of the quantified behaviour on the expense of different issues.
An early trace of this got here in 2016, when the outcomes of a examine of weight reduction in 470 folks have been revealed. All these folks have been making an attempt to shed pounds, all of them have been prescribed a low-calorie food plan and all of them have been inspired to train. Solely half of them, nonetheless, got health trackers. To the hardly hid glee of journalists, who love a counter-intuitive discovering, the outcomes of the examine confirmed that, after two years, the individuals who had misplaced extra weight have been those with out the health trackers.
Subsequent, bigger research strongly counsel that health trackers don’t often hinder weight reduction, however the stunning and disheartening discovering is an instance in miniature of the quantification-fixation drawback.
On this case, each teams have been equally lively, however these utilizing a health tracker have been getting automated, easy validation of their effort, which they might then use to justify extra indulgent consuming. The lead researcher, John Jakicic, speculated on the time: “Individuals would say, ‘Oh, I exercised so much in the present day, now I can eat extra.’ And so they may eat greater than they in any other case would have.” Calorie counting is joyless, simply fudged — and never automated by the watch.
We’re all aware of the tendency to be virtuous in a single facet of our behaviour, then let ourselves off the hook some other place — selecting a wholesome salad, then utilizing it as permission to order dessert. Psychologists name this behaviour “self licensing” and health trackers encourage it by supplying us with uneven knowledge. We’re informed how a lot we moved, however not what we ate. We get stark suggestions on coronary heart fee and step depend, however the tracker seems the opposite manner if we order french fries and a glass of beer.
Right here’s one other instructive instance of the best way quantification can lead us astray. In a small experiment performed by Rob Copeland of Sheffield Hallam College, some volunteers have been requested to hit the timeworn goal of 10,000 steps a day, whereas others have been informed as a substitute to take three brisk walks a day, every of about 10 minutes. Certainly one of these train regimes requires a wearable laptop; the opposite, nothing greater than a pair of footwear. Three brisk walks aren’t near 10,000 steps; in whole they’re extra like 3,000 — not that anybody is counting.
When Copeland studied fitness-tracking knowledge from all of the volunteers, he discovered that those that had performed the human-centred train of some quick walks had really performed virtually a 3rd extra “average to vigorous” bodily exercise than those grinding out a step depend for the algorithm, and located the duty much less of a chore.
Even on the slender grounds of cardiovascular exercise, the unquantified stroll beats the quantified one — and that’s earlier than we take note of the advantages of a chat with a pal or the sensation of the wind in your hair. The health tracker will deal with amount all day lengthy. However the high quality of a stroll? That’s as much as us to defend.
Our digital units are quantification machines. Attempt to depend 10,000 steps as you go about your day and also you’ll drive your self mad, however your watch will do it for you with out you even noticing. However what will get counted isn’t at all times what counts.
A brutal callisthenics session within the health club might go away me feeling that I’ve given every little thing, however the watch sees solely my coronary heart fee and is unimpressed. My Taiji observe is a type of light train that I tremendously worth, however so far as my watch is anxious I’m not likely exercising in any respect. None of this could matter a lot if quantification fixation didn’t exist, however it does. It’s human nature to take the watch and the actions it quantifies extra significantly than they deserve.
*
Over the previous 18 months, my digital coach has paced me to my longest runs and my quickest runs, prodded me to drag on my trainers and head out the door even after I didn’t really feel prefer it, and broadened the (admittedly slender) horizons of my coaching routines. But it surely has additionally nudged me into some selections I remorse.
Final winter, I went out working when a few of the roads have been coated in sheet ice. I averted mishaps by gingerly selecting my manner over the obstacles, solely to seek out the algorithm grumbling that I had not run quick sufficient.
A month forward of my first flat 10k race, I picked up a minor harm. A coach would have informed me to relaxation and heal, however I fearful that the algorithm’s “adaptive” coaching plan could be derailed if I didn’t preserve going. (Many of those coaching plans name themselves “adaptive” however I’ve but to seek out one which explains how this adaptation works.)
Ultimately I resolved the strain between my want for recuperation and my need for a private finest by going to my native park three weeks earlier than race day, gritting my tooth and working the PB I’d been aiming for. Then I switched off the coaching plan in order that I might heal. I doubt I might have achieved the PB with out the watch — however I additionally would by no means have behaved so oddly.
There’s a phrase for shedding sleep since you’re fearful about being judged by your sleep tracker: “orthosomnia”. I’m fortunate sufficient to not fear a lot about my sleep, however I do fear about my working. It’s straightforward to see how the highly effective lure of a coaching plan that understands neither ice nor harm might immediate me and others like me into counter-productive overtraining — even everlasting injury.
A few of these dangers come from poor product design. Garmin’s Join app, for instance, prominently celebrates “streaks” of train, which means the variety of consecutive days during which I’ve recorded some form of exercise. But any coach will inform you that relaxation days are very important, so it’s unusual that my predominant health app applauds me for the variety of consecutive days during which I’ve didn’t take a relaxation.
Different dangers are extra delicate. After I signed up for the Runna app, for instance, it prompt what appeared an absurdly aggressive goal for my first marathon time — virtually an hour sooner than Garmin’s race prediction. The primary coaching run the app proposed was at a blistering tempo.
I spoke to Walter Holohan, the chief know-how officer of Runna, who was eager to emphasize that the Runna coaching plan was personalised and it will use a proprietary algorithm to adapt the coaching schedule to my efficiency. Might he share any particulars?
“Clearly, we wouldn’t need to share our proprietary algorithms,” he defined. Clearly. I’ve not but discovered an organization that can. However that leaves customers taking issues on belief.
“It’s comprehensible, in fact, as a result of they’ve obtained competitors between each other,” says Joe Warne of the Sports activities Science Replication Centre at Technological College Dublin. “They don’t need to share their secrets and techniques of how they’ve arrived at these values. However the extra that we proceed to try this, the much less that we’re going to have any actual perception.”
Provided that the historical past of health trackers begins with somebody selecting 10,000 steps as a result of it’s a nice-sounding spherical quantity, the shortage of transparency and impartial verification of those apps and units isn’t wholly reassuring. They aren’t being bought as medical units, so regulators don’t become involved. I’m typically informed that older runners want extra time to get well between every run, so I requested Runna’s Holohan to reassure me that Runna would take note of the truth that I used to be 52 years outdated. Alas, he couldn’t. Age-adaptive plans have been nonetheless on the drafting board, he informed me. So have been coaching plans that mirrored the menstrual cycle of feminine athletes.
Reassurance was no extra forthcoming from Garmin. The corporate wouldn’t make anybody out there for an interview, and ducked each query about whether or not the Garmin coaching suggestions took into consideration my age.
Going through a marathon, then, which app ought to I select? I respect their behavioural savvy and would count on any of them to tug my strings like an professional puppet grasp, however I’m much less assured of the physiological science behind their suggestions, as their strategies are secret and their pretensions to rigour largely untested.
I don’t imply to be ungrateful: my cheap Garmin watch and the free teaching app that was bundled with it took me from weekly wayward 5k runs to a well-paced half-marathon. However maybe I’ve come to count on a bit of an excessive amount of from my silicon coach.
Iefore my half-marathon, my Garmin app informed me my predicted time was 1hr 54 minutes and 56 seconds. Strava, precisely the identical knowledge, informed me I might go a full 11 minutes sooner. Even over a distance of greater than 21km, 11 minutes is a large distinction. This put me in a quandary earlier than the race. Everybody warned me to not go off too quick — however given the yawning hole between the algorithmic forecasts, what did “too quick” even imply?
“Should you spoke to 2 completely different people they could do the identical factor,” says the digital well being professional Maher. “It’s straightforward to consider that know-how simply has the reply.”
A good level. I’d by no means tried to set a half-marathon time earlier than, so any forecast could be little higher than a guess. But that didn’t cease each Strava and Garmin making their race predictions to inside the nearest second. And it didn’t cease me taking each of them significantly, and hesitating after they contradicted one another.
*
It’s a sobering expertise to stare at a marathon coaching plan.
Monday — Power Coaching — half-hour
Tuesday — Fartlek (“pace play”) run — 10 minutes @6:05/km. 8 minutes @5:35/km, 2 minutes straightforward. 5 minutes @ 5:15/km, 90 sec straightforward. 4 minutes @5:10/km, 90 sec straightforward. 3 minutes @5:00/km, 90 sec straightforward. 2 minutes @4:50/km, 90 sec straightforward. 1 min @4:35/km, 90 sec straightforward. 10 minutes @6:05/km
Wednesday — Simple Run — 45 minutes @6.05/km, 15 minutes @5.45/km
Thursday — Cross Coaching — 45-60 minutes
Friday — Power Coaching — 30 minutes
Saturday — Threshold Run — 15 minutes @6:05/km, 5 x 5 minutes @5:05/km with 1 min relaxation after every, 15 minutes @ 6:05/km
Sunday — Lengthy Run — 120 minutes @6.05/km
That’s week one. It will be an oversimplification to counsel that the next 15 weeks are the identical, however additional and sooner — however not a grotesque one. Though such a coaching block isn’t straightforward, it isn’t sophisticated both. Along with your health watch on and the coaching schedules programmed in, simply pull in your footwear, head out the door and comply with the watch’s orders.
However the longer I’ve adopted this type of plan, and the extra I spoke to folks on the earth of health trackers, the extra I really feel that there’s something lacking — one thing unquantifiable. Serendipity, maybe? Selection? Playfulness? Look once more at that Tuesday “pace play” session. Velocity, sure. However there may be nothing playful about it.
These coaching plans are relentless and never simply within the apparent vogue, the place a 52-year-old physique with niggles and twinges and the occasional 14-hour work day faces an implacable silicon coach which refuses to barter. My physiotherapist shook her head in exasperation after I informed her I used to be planning to make use of the Runna app for my marathon preparation. Having seen too many individuals enable an app to overtrain them into harm, she urged me to suppose once more.
However the relentlessness is available in one other guise, too. It isn’t simply the grind and the chance of harm, however all of the instances I handed up alternatives that the watch and the coaching plan couldn’t quantify — alternatives to run with a pal or my spouse or my casual native working membership. The watch tends to produce other plans, and I don’t need to disappoint the watch. That’s the nature of quantification fixation.
As I mirrored on these missed alternatives, I realised that working apps might, in precept, set us a really completely different form of coaching programme.
*
In 1976, David Bowie fled to West Berlin. Beset by authorized troubles, drug abuse and a disintegrating marriage, he later recalled, “It was a harmful interval for me.” Within the shadow of the machine gun nests alongside the Berlin Wall, it appeared an unpromising place to make a document. However Bowie had a manner of discovering new challenges and constraints, which can be why he requested Brian Eno to hitch him.
Eno started exhibiting up on the Hansa Studios with a number of playing cards he referred to as Indirect Methods. Every card had a distinct, typically baffling instruction:
Emphasise the issues
Solely a component, not the entire
Change instrument roles
Eno would draw a single card at random, and push the musicians to reply. They didn’t essentially approve of his randomised provocations — “This experiment is silly”, complained guitarist Carlos Alomar — however it’s arduous to argue with the outcomes: two of the last decade’s most critically acclaimed albums, Low and “Heroes”.
Years later I requested Eno what the concept of those playing cards was alleged to be. “The enemy of artistic work is boredom,” he informed me. “And the pal is alertness.” The random inscrutability of the playing cards saved producing new conditions and new issues. And, because of this, pushed the musicians into conditions that might be irritating however may be thrilling.
So what about injecting a bit of pleasure into marathon coaching with the occasional Indirect Coaching Run?
Monday, health club. Tuesday, straightforward run. Wednesday, go for a run dressed as superman.
Monday, health club. Tuesday, straightforward run. Wednesday, pack a picnic, run someplace good, get the bus dwelling.
Monday, health club. Tuesday, straightforward run. Wednesday, get a head torch and run at midnight.
Run with a quick pal.
Run with a gradual pal.
Make three folks smile.
Run a route that attracts an image on the Strava map.
Run with a distinct soundtrack.
Run in silence.
I’m in coaching now; want me luck. My health watch might be a significant a part of my coaching observe, however it gained’t be the one half. Should you see an economist working up the river Thames dressed as Superman or carrying a picnic, that’s as a result of in working, as in life, a lot of what issues can’t be measured.
Of their potential to trace our working metrics, plot out advanced progressions, and push us arduous, health watches are a wrist-borne marvel. If I make it to the beginning line of the London marathon in April, I’ll have my watch on my wrist, pacing each step.
However like Pheidippides, I’ll additionally hope to have pleasure in my blood.
I’m working the London marathon run is in support of the Teenage Most cancers Belief. tinyurl.com/HarfordMarathon
First revealed in FT Journal on 17 January 2026
