Did I become a better runner just by investing thousands of euros in sports watches, subscriptions to various services, and crunching the numbers for countless hours?
This question, which often lingers in the minds of (recreational) athletes, underscores a pivotal concern in the realm of sports: the increasing reliance on technology and its actual impact on performance. As we navigate through the era of data-driven training, the allure of the latest gadgets and analytical tools promises a path to improvement.
However, this journey reveals a nuanced reality where the essence of athletic progress—rooted in routine, discipline, and focused training—risks being overshadowed by an overemphasis on quantification.
The Illusion of Control: Navigating a Sea of Data
In my pursuit of becoming a more proficient runner, I, like many others, have found myself drowning in a sea of data. Heart rates, sleep patterns, recovery metrics—the list of quantifiable aspects of my performance seemed endless. Each new device promised a closer look at my physiological workings, offering the illusion of control over my athletic destiny. Yet, this abundance of information often led to more confusion than clarity.
Contradictory data from different gadgets left me questioning which metrics truly mattered, pushing me further away from understanding my body’s natural rhythms and needs.
I’m sure a lot of people look into the scores coming from their devices in the morning and sometimes drive their day based on that .. and that’s not always great.
The Influence of Admiration and the Consumerist Trap
My journey was also shaped by the figures I admired in the running community. Influenced by elite athletes, coaches and influencers, I found myself mirroring their choices in gear and training methodologies. This emulation, while initially motivating, sometimes steered me towards paths that did not align with my unique physiological and psychological makeup. The realization dawned on me that the sports technology market, with its well-oiled marketing strategies, often capitalized on our desires to emulate our heroes.
It became apparent that the gadgets and subscriptions I amassed could not replace the intrinsic values of hard work and persistence.
The Trap of Composite Metrics: Losing Touch with Reality
The allure of composite metrics—overall readiness scores, fitness levels derived from a plethora of data points—promised a simplified view of my complex physiological state. However, this simplification sometimes disconnected me from the reality of my capabilities and limits. There were days when the numbers suggested rest, yet my body felt primed for rigorous training, and vice versa. This reliance on external validation through scores highlighted the potential harm in distancing oneself from the intuitive signals our bodies provide.
Just look at some thoughts from Marco Altini https://marcoaltini.substack.com/p/protocols-matter regarding the composite metrics, you’ll find some wisdom there – accuracy sometimes is dwarfed by protocol consistency. Also https://marcoaltini.substack.com/p/resting-heart-rate-and-wearables is a good perspective regarding devices and their approach to collect, display and interpret data.
Embracing Balance: Integrating Technology with Traditional Training Wisdom
The journey through the landscape of sports technology taught me the importance of balance. Data and devices, I realized, are tools—parts of a larger puzzle that includes the timeless principles of consistency, discipline, and mindfulness. Embracing technology as a complement to, rather than a replacement for, traditional training wisdom has been key. It’s about listening to one’s body, understanding its signals, and making informed decisions that fuse the insights from technology with the knowledge of one’s own physical and mental state.
Pick a good book about running and physiology, spend some time understanding the content and use that to better guide your evolution complementing the data which comes from your devices and platforms of choice.
A Personal Reflection: Finding My Path to Improvement
Reflecting on my initial question, the path to becoming a better runner has been less about the financial investment in technology and more about understanding how to use these tools judently. It’s about recognizing the role of consumerism in shaping our decisions and staying true to the core principles of athletic training.
By navigating the data landscape with a critical and reflective mindset, I’ve learned to stay connected to the essence of my athletic journey, ensuring that discipline, routine, and focus remain at its heart.
Am I there yet? Not yet, I still feel the urge to purchase new devices, to try new platforms (AI based training anyone?) as a potential solution for being a better runner. But I’m more realistic in the evaluating the new tools and I understand that the performance improvement won’t come from devices and platforms (they may contribute) but from my focus on the objective and the perseverance to show up and perform in correlation with a good understanding of my .
In conclusion, the quest for athletic excellence in today’s technologically driven world requires a thoughtful approach to integrating data and devices into our training. It’s a journey of balancing the insights provided by technology with the fundamental principles of athletic progress, guided by self-awareness and a deep connection to the physical and mental aspects of training
With that, enjoy your (mindful) running!
Discover more from Liviu Nastasa
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Liviu Nastasa 
I feel naked if I run without my watch. And I feel I have to record every run and every step.
I find it helpful to track all of this as a way to hold my self accountable.
But, I’m tracking against my own goals and no one else’s.
These are not medically approved devices and I assume they are 80-90% accurate.
I’ve had plenty of mornings where Garmin’s assessment of my sleep did not match the way I felt.
But I use one watch and any variation or lack of accuracy is always in relation to the erroneous data the device gave me the day before.
I know you are a device guy, and I enjoy reading your reviews.
I’m one of those weird guys with more than one watch when running, comparing and looking for the ”holy grail“ of sports watches/fitness devices but from time to time I need to remind myself to just slow down a bit and listen to my body more than just looking at the numbers from my watch.
That’s why (or part of it at least) I felt the need lately to exchange my Epix Pro for a Suunto Vertical because I felt Vertical is more “barebones” and less intrusive. The same with Apple Watch Ultra, which is more “basic” when it comes to advices based on the collected data.
Anyway, first world problems…
For me, there is an expectation of software quality as a baseline and that includes:
* Regular Updates
* Descriptive Change logs
* Responsive Support teams
As a bonus, I would like to see:
* Public Beta releases
Suunto and Polar are on the ‘poor’ side of the above metric.
Apple and Garmin are on the ‘better’ side of the above metric.
I lose patience if they are not on the ‘better’ side of those requirements.
After that, if the health metrics are not accurate due to bugs, i.e., problematic hardware needing firmware changes or software issues, then it goes in the drawer until there is an update or eventually sold on eBay.
Currently, I’m primarily using Garmin and switch back and forth with the AppleWatch.
Sean
I agree with you on the expectations from the wearable companies, I feel Garmin and Apple to some extent are doing alright. With Suunto, I appreciate the energy of their forum and the recent direction they took with Vertical and Race. For Polar, regardless of my admiration and respect for their technology, I feel that in the recent years they didn’t tick off many boxes in my book.
I’m currently more interested into a simpler but sturdy device, I’m attracted by Vertical (if only Suunto could get rid of some issues). With Garmin, it’s more of “all or nothing” since you need to wear it constantly to get the data and some of the insights are aggregated/derivated indicators of the measurements (should I be interested in the body battery in the morning only to “overlook” how I feel?). That’s why for now I’m using the AWU, since it provides the “raw” data, but doesn’t “force” you into anything. Apple has its own issues with measuring RHR or HRV…
What was your experience with Suunto?
Thanks,
Liviu