I was interested to read last month’s feature on activity tracker accuracy, and whether this is important (HCM May, p46).

This debate is a red herring for most fitness users. Much like scales to weigh yourself, their accuracy depends on many variables: the manufacturer, the time of day, what you ate, etc. If your goal is to win a top marathon or triathlon, accuracy is very relevant: these races are often won by a few seconds. But for general fitness users, at this stage in the development of most devices/apps, it’s more about how they can improve motivation.

Weight loss and significant health improvements take time, and this is where the wearable market is of great value. Small incremental praise, given often and focusing on my immediate improvements, will lead me to do more. No change or a bunch of data I don’t understand will demotivate me and ultimately stop me using the service.

All that said, we’re entering the next stage of development of apps and wearables: many are becoming much more accurate in the data fields they present, almost to the gold standards used in the medical world. This will be important as the health and fitness world looks to gain more credibility from the medical and sports worlds.

As for the app versus wearable debate, they are really the same thing: the winner will be the one with the user experience that leads to increased motivation every time the app/device is used.

One thing is for sure: this market is moving fast and users are making their own decisions on what’s best for them. Gyms need to help people understand the choices available to them rather than telling them what to do.

I was encouraged to read the article ‘Active Women’ in last month’s HCM. However, while the stats show that women are less active than men, it would be helpful to see detailed segmentation of the data: you can’t treat ‘women’ as one uniform group. I strongly suspect, for example, that levels of activity will vary widely by socio-economic group.

An understanding of the perceived barriers faced by different socio-economic segments is therefore vital if we’re to develop effective intervention programmes for the more disadvantaged; I believe the barriers are far more complex than the generally touted lack of time or on-site childcare.

The budget gym sector is already democratising fitness: the ability to pay is less of an issue and its gender mix is not too unbalanced. In other settings such as Zumba and many boutique gyms, women predominate. So why do these offerings resonate with women, and what are the lessons for the wider industry?

Researchers have analysed the differences in the way girls and boys behave in school playgrounds and observed that girls favour small group activities whereas boys play more energetically. This prompted discussions around the availability of equipment and provision of playtime activities that would ‘nudge’ girls to take part in more vigorous playtime activities. Perhaps we also need to look more closely at behaviour, as well as programming, to ensure a varied and vibrant class schedule that’s fun, social and emphasises health.

Rather than proposing operational solutions, I call for further research to understand how we can really help women be and remain active.