Step counter apps could be doing harm by driving people to chase over-ambitious goals, a leading computer scientist has claimed.
Dr Greg Hager, from Johns Hopkins University in the US, maintains "very few" of the estimated 165,000 available healthcare apps are based on scientific evidence.
Yet after being downloaded more than a billion times they were likely to have an enormous impact on public health.
Dr Hager was especially critical of apps and devices that set the user a target of 10,000 steps.
Speaking at the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) annual meeting in Boston, he said: "Some of you might wear Fitbits or something equivalent, and I bet every now and then it gives you that cool little message 'you did 10,000 steps today'.
"But why is 10,000 steps important? What's big about 10,000?
"Turns out in 1960 in Japan they figured out that the average Japanese man, when he walked 10,000 steps a day burned something like 3,000 calories and that is what they thought the average person should consume so they picked 10,000 steps as a number.
"But is that the right number for any of you in this room? Who knows? It's just a number that's now built into the apps."
A survey of several hundred mental health apps used for coaching and diagnosis found only five that could be linked to an evidence base, he said.
None of those were available to the public, they were all research tools.
Dr Hager added: "I think apps could definitely be doing more harm than good. I am sure that these apps are causing problems.
"Without any scientific evidence base, how do you know that any of these apps are good for you? They may even be harmful.
"The 10,000 steps example typifies the problem in many ways.
"We all know that probably the more you exercise, the better it is for you. But if you are elderly or infirm then this is not going to be good for you."
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel