Latest news with #Fitbits
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Health
- Yahoo
RFK Jr. Wants Every American To Wear A Health-Tracking Device, And Security Experts Have Serious Concerns
If you don't yet wear a smartwatch or smart ring to monitor your health and fitness, you may soon be encouraged to do so by some of the highest-ranking members of the government. During a House Energy and Commerce Health Subcommittee hearing, Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said he'd like all Americans to use wearable health products, such as Fitbits, Apple Watches, Oura Rings, WHOOP and glucose monitors, to 'control' their health and 'take responsibility' for it. According to Poltico, Kennedy said people can use wearables to track 'what food is doing to their glucose levels, their heart rates and a number of other metrics as they eat it, and they can begin to make good judgments about their diet, about their physical activity, about the way that they live their lives.' While this remains just a suggestion and not a mandate, it's been announced that the Department of Health and Human Services will launch a campaign to encourage Americans to wear these devices. Wearables can track your heart rate, menstrual cycle, fitness regimen, blood sugar levels, sleep patterns, location and more. They're a great way to understand your health (for example, the Oura Ring lets you know when it thinks you're getting sick) and to stick to a workout regimen (the Apple Watch is both loved and hated for its 'close your rings' reminders). While they can be helpful for the average person, these devices store lots and lots of our data — is it safe for all of this information to be out there? And what happens if this data ends up in the wrong hands — including the government's? Experts weigh in. First, know that no one has said the government will actually collect this health data. Related: It Turns Out That Most People Wipe Their Butts Completely Wrong, But This Doctor Is Here To Teach Us The Right Way There is a major difference between the government having access to health data and the government simply encouraging folks to use wearables for their own health tracking, said Alex Hamerstone, the advisory solutions director for TrustedSec, an ethical hacking company. 'Those are obviously two very different questions, and there's no indication at this point that they're looking to have the government have access to that data,' he noted. The government does, though, already have access to lots of health data. 'If you look at the percent of people who receive health care through Medicare and Medicaid and state programs, and so on and so forth, they already have a lot of very detailed information,' Hamerstone noted. 'I know there are guardrails around it and things like that, but not to get into any kind of political thing, but a lot of those guardrails seem to be falling down,' he noted. You should also understand that no matter who is privy to it, health data is very valuable. You've probably heard the phrase 'data is the new currency,' meaning your personal data has inherent value to companies. It's how they sell you ads and understand your needs. But 'health data is just kind of a different category of data,' said Hamerstone. Having your credit card hacked is temporarily annoying, but you're not liable, and typically, after some phone calls and logistics, your life will go back to normal. 'But if someone gets access to your private health care data, that's much different. It's a different kind of data,' Hamerstone said. 'So, somebody knowing how many steps you take is one thing, but if you start to get into things like glucose levels or very detailed medical information, those things could start to affect other parts of your life,' he added. This could impact insurance rates and insurance options, Hamerstone said. Some experts are worried about the government's ability to protect health data because of past breaches. Related: Older Women Are Revealing Their Biggest "Life Regrets," And Every Young Person Needs To Hear This Kevin Johnson, the CEO of Secure Ideas, a security testing and consulting company, has concerns about the government's ability to protect any data that is gathered through the use of wearables. For instance, in 2018, there was a major security breach involving the Strava fitness app and the U.S. government in which soldiers' locations at military bases were shared via Strava. 'So, the idea that the government is saying we're going to encourage ... wearing of these when the government had a significant security problem due to this, that's one of the concerns that I just don't understand how we forgot that happened,' said Johnson. Overall, Johnson said, there are 'significant security issues with wearable devices.' 'My company and other companies have tested these devices. We've found vulnerabilities. We have found ways that the wearable technology gives an attacker access to your data because of security lapses in the hardware and software. We've seen multiple cases where attackers are able to gain access to things that are unrelated to the health care data because of security problems,' Johnson said. There have also been privacy violations when data brokers get access to this data, whether they gain access illegitimately or legitimately, Johnson said. (And the companies collecting the data from wearables do often sell your data to data brokers, Johnson noted.) You may not care if someone has your heart rate data from your smartwatch, but it's so much more than 'just' that. 'There are always security concerns when it comes to connected technology,' said Dave Chronister, the CEO of Parameter Security. And your wearable device is most likely connected to your smartphone — meaning it has access to lots of your personal data, according to Johnson. 'No device or platform is completely secure,' Chronister noted. 'Attackers often target the backend systems, such as cloud servers, via compromised employee credentials or software vulnerabilities.' 'Devices that rely on Bluetooth or Wi-Fi can also be exploited, and if the device supports messaging or sync features, phishing or spoofing attacks are possible,' noted Chronister. These devices can also get stolen or lost, which also puts your data at risk, Chronister added. Johnson said he's often heard people say things like, 'Oh, it's just my heart rate data, that's not a big deal,' but it's actually so much more than that. 'The issue is, we're not just talking about heartbeat. We're not just talking about your sleep schedule. We're talking about your location. We're talking about most of these apps tie into your contacts so that you can invite friends,' said Johnson. More, it also may include your reproductive health data, glucose levels or heart irregularities, Chronister said. 'These can paint a sensitive, personal portrait of someone's health and behavior,' Chronister added. Health data from wearables isn't protected like your medical records. 'It's important to understand that data from wearables is not protected under HIPAA like your medical records are,' said Chronister. HIPAA protects patient health records from things like doctor's appointments. 'Instead, it is governed by the company's terms of service ... which often include loopholes that allow for data sharing or sale, especially in the event of a merger or acquisition,' Chronister explained. This is true even if the company says they'll never sell your data. 'That promise can be overridden by fine print or future policy changes,' he added. 'Consumers should be aware that once their data is out there, they may lose control over how it is used,' Chronister said. What can you do to protect your security if you use wearables? 'Almost all of these types of devices have some level of privacy controls in them that you're able to select what data you give,' said Johnson. If you decide to get a wearable, make sure you check your privacy settings and adjust them accordingly, he noted. 'And this is very important — regularly go in and validate that the privacy settings are still set the way you want them to be,' Johnson added. This is really the most you can do to protect your data, and it certainly won't totally protect you from data breaches or data brokers. 'Unfortunately, individual users have very limited control. You are largely at the mercy of the device manufacturer and app provider,' Chronister noted. While you can follow privacy precautions, such as by 'turning off unnecessary Bluetooth connections, using strong account passwords, and checking app permissions ... those measures only go so far,' Chronister said. 'The real issue is how companies store, share and protect your data behind the scenes,' Chronister noted. Chronister stressed that 'it's critical to understand the long-term implications of voluntarily handing over personal health data to private companies. This information can be sold to marketers, shared with third parties, or exposed in a breach.' He voiced specific concern about how this data can be combined via different apps and companies over time to build 'incredibly detailed personal health profiles.' So while it may not be a big deal if one company has your sleep data and another has your activity levels, these companies can be acquired, or data can be combined to create a fuller picture of your private health information. 'And AI is really a wild card. Going forward, it will increasingly be able to draw conclusions and make predictions about your current and future health. This raises serious questions about how such insights could affect things like insurance eligibility, premium rates, or even creditworthiness,' Chronister said. When it comes to health data (and data of any sort), 'the risks are inherent even with the government not involved,' Hamerstone said. Once that data exists, it's at risk of being lost or stolen by bad actors, he added. Keep that in mind before you start using wearable health technology, and if you're already a user, it's important to be aware of the risks so you can make informed decisions and do what you can to protect your article originally appeared on HuffPost. Also in Goodful: This Woman Is Going Viral For Begging Women Not To Get Married Right Now, And Personally, I Couldn't Agree More Also in Goodful: People Are Sharing Their Biggest "How Doesn't Everyone Know This?" Facts, And I'm Honestly Embarrassed I Never Realized Some Of These Also in Goodful: "I Can't Wait For This To Go Out Of Style": People Are Sharing Popular Modern Trends That Are Actually Pretty Toxic
Buzz Feed
3 days ago
- Health
- Buzz Feed
RFK Jr.'s Health Tracker Plan Raises Security Alarms
If you don't yet wear a smartwatch or smart ring to monitor your health and fitness, you may soon be encouraged to do so by some of the highest-ranking members of the government. During a House Energy and Commerce Health Subcommittee hearing, Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said he'd like all Americans to use wearable health products, such as Fitbits, Apple Watches, Oura Rings, WHOOP and glucose monitors, to 'control' their health and 'take responsibility' for it. According to Poltico, Kennedy said people can use wearables to track 'what food is doing to their glucose levels, their heart rates and a number of other metrics as they eat it, and they can begin to make good judgments about their diet, about their physical activity, about the way that they live their lives.' While this remains just a suggestion and not a mandate, it's been announced that the Department of Health and Human Services will launch a campaign to encourage Americans to wear these devices. Wearables can track your heart rate, menstrual cycle, fitness regimen, blood sugar levels, sleep patterns, location and more. They're a great way to understand your health (for example, the Oura Ring lets you know when it thinks you're getting sick) and to stick to a workout regimen (the Apple Watch is both loved and hated for its 'close your rings' reminders). While they can be helpful for the average person, these devices store lots and lots of our data — is it safe for all of this information to be out there? And what happens if this data ends up in the wrong hands — including the government's? Experts weigh in. There is a major difference between the government having access to health data and the government simply encouraging folks to use wearables for their own health tracking, said Alex Hamerstone, the advisory solutions director for TrustedSec, an ethical hacking company. 'Those are obviously two very different questions, and there's no indication at this point that they're looking to have the government have access to that data,' he noted. The government does, though, already have access to lots of health data. 'If you look at the percent of people who receive health care through Medicare and Medicaid and state programs, and so on and so forth, they already have a lot of very detailed information,' Hamerstone noted. 'I know there are guardrails around it and things like that, but not to get into any kind of political thing, but a lot of those guardrails seem to be falling down,' he noted. You should also understand that no matter who is privy to it, health data is very valuable. You've probably heard the phrase 'data is the new currency,' meaning your personal data has inherent value to companies. It's how they sell you ads and understand your needs. But 'health data is just kind of a different category of data,' said Hamerstone. Having your credit card hacked is temporarily annoying, but you're not liable, and typically, after some phone calls and logistics, your life will go back to normal. 'But if someone gets access to your private health care data, that's much different. It's a different kind of data,' Hamerstone said. 'So, somebody knowing how many steps you take is one thing, but if you start to get into things like glucose levels or very detailed medical information, those things could start to affect other parts of your life,' he added. This could impact insurance rates and insurance options, Hamerstone said. Kevin Johnson, the CEO of Secure Ideas, a security testing and consulting company, has concerns about the government's ability to protect any data that is gathered through the use of wearables. For instance, in 2018, there was a major security breach involving the Strava fitness app and the U.S. government in which soldiers' locations at military bases were shared via Strava. 'So, the idea that the government is saying we're going to encourage ... wearing of these when the government had a significant security problem due to this, that's one of the concerns that I just don't understand how we forgot that happened,' said Johnson. Overall, Johnson said, there are 'significant security issues with wearable devices.' 'My company and other companies have tested these devices. We've found vulnerabilities. We have found ways that the wearable technology gives an attacker access to your data because of security lapses in the hardware and software. We've seen multiple cases where attackers are able to gain access to things that are unrelated to the health care data because of security problems,' Johnson said. There have also been privacy violations when data brokers get access to this data, whether they gain access illegitimately or legitimately, Johnson said. (And the companies collecting the data from wearables do often sell your data to data brokers, Johnson noted.) You may not care if someone has your heart rate data from your smartwatch, but it's so much more than 'just' that. 'There are always security concerns when it comes to connected technology,' said Dave Chronister, the CEO of Parameter Security. And your wearable device is most likely connected to your smartphone — meaning it has access to lots of your personal data, according to Johnson. 'No device or platform is completely secure,' Chronister noted. 'Attackers often target the backend systems, such as cloud servers, via compromised employee credentials or software vulnerabilities.' 'Devices that rely on Bluetooth or Wi-Fi can also be exploited, and if the device supports messaging or sync features, phishing or spoofing attacks are possible,' noted Chronister. These devices can also get stolen or lost, which also puts your data at risk, Chronister added. Johnson said he's often heard people say things like, 'Oh, it's just my heart rate data, that's not a big deal,' but it's actually so much more than that. 'The issue is, we're not just talking about heartbeat. We're not just talking about your sleep schedule. We're talking about your location. We're talking about most of these apps tie into your contacts so that you can invite friends,' said Johnson. More, it also may include your reproductive health data, glucose levels or heart irregularities, Chronister said. 'These can paint a sensitive, personal portrait of someone's health and behavior,' Chronister added. 'It's important to understand that data from wearables is not protected under HIPAA like your medical records are,' said Chronister. HIPAA protects patient health records from things like doctor's appointments. 'Instead, it is governed by the company's terms of service ... which often include loopholes that allow for data sharing or sale, especially in the event of a merger or acquisition,' Chronister explained. This is true even if the company says they'll never sell your data. 'That promise can be overridden by fine print or future policy changes,' he added. 'Consumers should be aware that once their data is out there, they may lose control over how it is used,' Chronister said. What can you do to protect your security if you use wearables? 'Almost all of these types of devices have some level of privacy controls in them that you're able to select what data you give,' said Johnson. If you decide to get a wearable, make sure you check your privacy settings and adjust them accordingly, he noted. 'And this is very important — regularly go in and validate that the privacy settings are still set the way you want them to be,' Johnson added. This is really the most you can do to protect your data, and it certainly won't totally protect you from data breaches or data brokers. 'Unfortunately, individual users have very limited control. You are largely at the mercy of the device manufacturer and app provider,' Chronister noted. While you can follow privacy precautions, such as by 'turning off unnecessary Bluetooth connections, using strong account passwords, and checking app permissions ... those measures only go so far,' Chronister said. 'The real issue is how companies store, share and protect your data behind the scenes,' Chronister noted. Chronister stressed that 'it's critical to understand the long-term implications of voluntarily handing over personal health data to private companies. This information can be sold to marketers, shared with third parties, or exposed in a breach.' He voiced specific concern about how this data can be combined via different apps and companies over time to build 'incredibly detailed personal health profiles.' So while it may not be a big deal if one company has your sleep data and another has your activity levels, these companies can be acquired, or data can be combined to create a fuller picture of your private health information. 'And AI is really a wild card. Going forward, it will increasingly be able to draw conclusions and make predictions about your current and future health. This raises serious questions about how such insights could affect things like insurance eligibility, premium rates, or even creditworthiness,' Chronister said. When it comes to health data (and data of any sort), 'the risks are inherent even with the government not involved,' Hamerstone said. Once that data exists, it's at risk of being lost or stolen by bad actors, he added. Keep that in mind before you start using wearable health technology, and if you're already a user, it's important to be aware of the risks so you can make informed decisions and do what you can to protect your privacy. HuffPost.
Tom's Guide
6 days ago
- Tom's Guide
The Pixel Watch 3's biggest safety feature sounds like a gimmick, but I just read the study and I think it might actually save lives
When Google announced the Pixel Watch 3 last summer, the company promised it would get a life-saving new feature — Loss of Pulse detection — at a later date. I was skeptical, and not just because you shouldn't buy devices on what they might do. Even though it's clearly one of the best smartwatches (how could it not be after Google decided to bury the best Fitbits and incorporate that brand's fitness tracking smarts into its own watch), a life saving software update sounded like vaporware to me. But then in February this year, six months after the Watch 3 launched, Google was granted FDA clearance for the feature, and, in March, it began rolling out to all Watch 3 owners in the U.S. That was one objection overcome — the company did release it — but I was cynical that a feature on the Pixel Watch 3 would be as revolutionary as Google claimed. But then I read the team's study in the journal Nature, and it changed my mind. To go alongside the launch of the feature, the research team at Google published a study in the scientific journal Nature detailing how they developed the Loss of Pulse detection feature and the algorithm that detects when your heart stops beating. There's a lot of detail in there, which surprised me as Big Tech companies are usually very reluctant to discuss how these critical health features actually work. I guess that's not shocking; they do have products to sell and need an edge over the competition. But if you spend your money on a new smartwatch because it could potentially save your life in a specific circumstance, you want to be sure it can actually do that effectively. A recent experience on vacation brought home to me just how critical that is. I was involved in a vehicle collision while traveling, and had been wearing the Amazfit T-Rex 3 for testing. Thankfully, everyone involved was okay, so when taking stock later on, I realized this would have been a rare test of some critical features. Unfortunately, the T-Rex 3 doesn't have collision detection like the Pixel Watch or Apple Watch Series 10, so all I could do was look nervously at how my heart rate rocketed at the moment the two vehicles smashed into each other. But this got me thinking; how would you know for sure that the collision detection feature worked, until it's too late? And similarly, how would you know if the Pixel Watch 3 Loss of Pulse detection can actually save your life? Of course, when you think about it, the tech companies have the same problem. You can't really test a feature like this in the real world; you'd need to wait until someone has a cardiac arrest and then delay care to see if the watch does it's job. So the team came up with a lab testing method instead. When my colleague Dan Bracaglia interviewed Edward Shi, the product manager on the Google Safety Team, Shi mentioned that they enlisted "stunt" participants. The team used "a pneumatic tourniquet to cut off blood flow in an arm, to simulate temporary pulselessness," and then would see if the watch picked up on these signals. This is similar to how Apple tests its collision feature with crash test dummies. It's not a real world test, but it's an approximation. Though this is a good reminder that these features aren't guaranteed to work, so if you have a watch with safety tools like this, it's a good idea not to be solely reliant on them. And while there's a good appeal to authority with the 'FDA cleared' label, this isn't quite as useful as it seems. There are two main FDA labels; cleared and approved. If a product or feature is "cleared" that doesn't mean that it's shown to be effective. What it really means is that the FDA is aware of the feature and believes it to be similar to something else already for sale or in use, so the applicant (ie, Google) can market it. But the FDA has not actually verified anything at this stage. To see whether it works as intended, it'd need to be FDA approved. But just because Google didn't aim for approval, that doesn't mean they don't have confidence in it. In a past life, I worked in regulatory affairs for a medical device company. To gain FDA clearance, it's (almost) as simple as filing some forms. But FDA approval is the standard medicines are held to, so you need a lot of evidence and testing to even begin the very lengthy approval process, so many companies don't bother with this. Okay, so Google has been a bit more open about the Loss of Pulse detection feature than it's peers, but that doesn't quite explain why I changed my mind and stopped seeing the LoP feature as a gimmick. According to Shi, one of the main motivations to develop LoP was that "many of these [cardiac arrests] are unwitnessed," so someone's heart could stop when they're alone and no one would know, so no one calls for help. And the way I see it, even if the Loss of Pulse feature can't detect all events with absolute certainty, there'll be enough people who suffer some form of heart-stopping emergency who will get life-saving treatment because the watch called for help. Plus, the Nature study notes that the algorithm "was trained on smartwatch sensor data collected from diverse participants (age, sex and skin tone)." This is super important because different skin tones absorb light at different rates, effecting optical heart rate measurements the system is based on. Historically, tech companies have thought very little about training their systems on diverse, less homogenous sources, so I was relieved to see Google had at least thought about it (even if you couldn't verify this as participants' data is hidden due to protect their privacy). Do I now believe that it'll work perfectly every time? No. But even if it only works half the time, that'll still save lives, as without it, no one would come to the aid of people who have suffered a potentially fatal health emergency.
Tom's Guide
20-06-2025
- Tom's Guide
No smart watch could make me switch from Oura — here's why
I have tracked fitness metrics for years and have used my fair share of the best fitness trackers from Apple Watches, Fitbits and now the Oura Ring. I went in skeptical when I first got the ring six months ago because I just didn't know what to expect. But I can say with absolute certainty this is the best purchase I have made. Smartwatches, of course, have their place and are great for some people. For example, the Garmin Vivoactive 6 is suitable for intense training, while the Apple Watch Series 10 is ideal for everyday wear. But what about the distractions and comfort? I often feel like, although they are smart (duh), smartwatches are trying to do too much. But with the Oura Ring, there is an element of calm. It knows what it is, what it's for, and does it well with impressive accuracy. I use the Oura Ring 3 Heritage version. This iteration of the ring features a flat edge on the top side, which I believe enhances its sleek appearance. I use it to track workout metrics, sleep, and recovery. It does everything you could need and more for a fraction of the price of the Oura Ring 4. I'm sure most people will agree with me here when I say that one of my pet peeves is being in a conversation with someone and they can't look away from their phone. They pick it up after every notification, or scroll whilst nodding along with what you're saying.... only to lift their head and ask "sorry, what was that?" Perhaps I'm being cynical, but it's the one thing that gets under my skin. But now it's not the phone causing the distraction — it's the smartwatch. Now I can be in a conversation with someone, and their stare is fixed to their wrist as their finger swipes and types across the screen. Somehow it seems less overtly rude than being sat with an electronic brick in your hands, but it's still annoying. Get instant access to breaking news, the hottest reviews, great deals and helpful tips. Okay, so rant over. But do we really need a screen strapped to our wrists? My answer is no. This is where my love of the Oura Ring comes in. As far as fitness trackers go, it is pretty discreet. I have the Oura Ring 3 in the Heritage design, and I find it goes well with the rest of the jewelry I wear on a daily basis. I choose to wear the ring on my index finger, and it never gets in the way of what I am doing. The only time I take the ring off is when I'm cooking. It is equipped to deal with every situation, and being waterproof, I can wear it in the shower, in the pool (to track swimming sessions), or while washing the dishes. It is so comfortable I don't even realise I'm wearing it anymore. I love that even though, yes, I wear it 24/7 (with a 40-minute break once a week for it to charge), I am not tethered to a screen. I write about tech for a living, so of course, I love getting to know all of the new advances, but I cannot stand when tech takes over. I am a firm believer that tech should enhance your experience and not distract. That's exactly what the Oura Ring does. The Oura Ring 4 is the newest model of the fitness tracker. In this version, the sensors on the inside of the ring are flat and do not cause indentations in the finger. The ring connects to the Oura app to deliver personalized feedback and daily metrics. I used to push myself far too hard. Between working out, working, and other life stuff, I wouldn't give myself enough time to rest and recover. While I knew this was the case, I didn't realise how bad it was until I started using the Oura Ring. Oura forces you to prioritize recovery. This is how you get your scores to be the best they can be. But how does the ring know when you are run down? It takes your temperature while you sleep using the sensors. This is how the cycle tracking is able to be so accurate. But It also lets me know when I need to take a step back because I'm about to get sick. When I got the flu, before any symptoms set in, the ring was a reminder to tell me that there were signs of strain on my body and to take it easy. This meant I was able to shake it off far quicker than usual and avoid any unnecessary strain. Okay, so the elephant in the room. Yes, a smart watch can do more. It can store music, be used for payments, receive texts and calls — the list goes on. But my argument is, why do we need that when we have our phones? I understand that on workouts, it's easier to tap your wrist to start and stop, but daily, I much prefer what Oura can offer. And that offering is silence and zero distraction.
The Age
20-06-2025
- Health
- The Age
Your step count is boring me to tears (and probably everyone else too)
Once upon a time, in the distant year of 2005, when it was inconceivable that statement belts would ever be unfashionable, Special K launched a wildly exciting promotion: buy an enormous box of cereal and a pedometer might just appear inside! My memory of the specifics is a little hazy (2005, to me, will always be the era of Going Out Tops and little else), but I'm pretty sure it was a one-in-every-three-box-wins-a-pedometer situation. Fuelled by the twin desires to get our hands on this technology and to do so in the cheapest possible way, my housemate and I went off to the supermarket. We weighed a bunch of Special K boxes and emerged victorious with our very own pedometers. I wore mine to university a few times, then quickly grew discouraged that my purely incidental exercise wasn't quite hitting the mythical 10,000 steps a day goal. So I stopped wearing it, then I lost it altogether, and never gave it another thought until, well, now. If this rather tedious tale were to unfold in a contemporary setting, things would be quite different. For one, almost everyone has some form of step-measuring device in their watch, Fitbit or smartphone now, so there would be no need for cereal boxes. But also, since the heady days of boho chic and Kim Beazley's last dance (not together), the world has changed. We in the West have evolved into body data narcissists. Thanks to our smartphones, smartwatches and Fitbits, we have become obsessed not just with compiling but aggressively sharing operational information about our bodies with the world at large. Step counting is the most profoundly stupid example of this. Did you know the idea of walking 10,000 steps a day isn't rooted in modern science at all? It originated from a Japanese clock company that created a pedometer for the 1964 Tokyo Olympics. They chose 10,000 steps because it was a nice, round, memorable number. The notion that this is an achievable, desirable and genuinely beneficial health goal is about as meaningful as feeling 'so special' after a bowl of cereal. While, of course, physical movement has proven benefits, the core objective of modern fitness is just part of a convenient marketing ploy. All right, so we've established that the whole premise of step counting is flawed. And that would be fine if it were just one of those we things knew but nobody talked about (like Maroon 5 having three Grammys). But these days, it's apparently a crucial part of the step-counting process to just blah blah blah about it. Loading If my Special K story happened today, I'd wear the step counter constantly. I'd talk endlessly about it, doing annoying things like announcing to the office, 'All right, I'm going for a walk to get my steps up!' or 'I'll get the photocopying, my steps are way down today.' I'd even proclaim, 'Hey everyone, did you know that I WALK?' And I'd never lose interest or stop wearing that pedometer. In fact, when I died, I'd request in my will that someone else put on my Apple Watch, so my steps could continue for time immemorial. This is because the incessant monitoring of step counts (along with sleep scores and exercise loads) has become intricately linked to our identity. Talking about your daily steps tells everyone that you have a health regimen and the emotional, mental, and financial capacity to indulge in this particular brand of self-analysis. It's showing off. A stupid flex, like carrying a huge water bottle or constantly eating fruit. Yes, I get it, you're healthy; now, please leave me alone with my idleness and my tablespoon of butter dipped in the communal sugar.
