Nutrition research is sometimes subject to criticism for methodological issues. For practical reasons, scientists are constrained to execute observational studies and to rely on people’s own information regarding their dietary habits. The problem, of course, is that people – ­whether due to forgetfulness or embellishment – don’t always do what they say they do.

The problem, of course, is that people – ­whether due to forgetfulness or embellishment – don’t always do what they say they do.

And it is difficult to distinguish ­between cause and effect in these types of studies – or what is simply genetics, rather than habits.

An increa­sing amount of research also suggests that how we are affected by our diet is highly individual (which explains why individuals who have achieved success with a certain diet – be it low-carb, intermittent fasting or something else – are so eager to tell the world). There quite simply isn’t one diet that suits everyone.

AI has enormous potential

Here, artificial intelligence could have enormous potential when it comes to cracking the individual code. Exactly how should I, out of all billions of people, eat in order to be healthy? But more advanced measurement methods are ­also required. Blood sugar meters will be a key component. Google, among others, has conducted research into ­contact lenses that can measure the glucose level in tears.

If we adopt a full-blown science fiction perspective, Apple Watch and the likes from Samsung, Fitbit and other manufacturers are probably just one step on the path to a future reality in which we have a chip implanted directly into our body, or nanobots injected into our bloodstream.

But enough for now about the technological developments – what are the human drivers behind this accele­rating monitoring of ourselves?

Perhaps it’s not really all that remarkable. All high-performing, self-absorbed people have simply been presented with yet another way to measure their success in life. Society’s constant pressure to perform, literally strapped around your wrist.

Extremely frustrated

Most smartwatches are pretty good at detecting when you consciously or unconsciously engage in some form of physical activity, such as walking or cycling. They ­discreetly buzz to suggest that they should start monitoring your current training session. I myself get extremely frustrated when I have commenced a walk or gym workout and realise that I have forgotten to put on my watch. If the exercise isn’t registered then it hasn’t happened!

The most amusing experience occurred a few years ago when I was taking my two children to preschool, and the Samsung watch I was wearing at the time asked me if I was engaged in high-intensity interval training.

Nowadays, as soon as there is a trend change in my physical performance, I receive a notification from my Apple Watch: I have exercised 27% more this month than last, my recovery heart rate has improved by 14% compared to the same period last year, and so on.

By gathering more and more data, we obtain an increasingly better basis for making decisions about our health – or having such decisions made for us. Inevitably, the smartwatch seems destined to become a personal 24-hour health employee.

When McKinsey recently published a special ­report on the wellness industry, it was valued at 1.5 ­trillion USD, with an annual growth rate of 5–10%. The consulting firm provides quite a good ­summary of all aspects covered by the term “wellness” from a consumer perspective:

• Health
• Fitness
• Nutrition
• Appearance
• Sleep
• Mindfulness

Wearable technology has potential in more or less all of these fields. Are we dealing with a toxic cocktail, with our own high expectations of ourselves, fuelled by a growing wellness industry and technological developments – soon on AI steroids – that perhaps is not ­particularly health-promoting at all?

Recently, in the course of my professional duties, I carried out a test of various yoga apps. One particularly nasty app had, when notifications were activated, opinions on most aspects of my life. When, for the fifth time that day, completely out of the blue, it asked me if I had remembered to drink a glass of water or recommended a playlist of soothing sounds, my response was not to respectfully mumble “Namaste.”

A relentless PT is perhaps possible to endure during three 60-minute sessions a week. But if he, completely unsolicited, were to tap me on the wrist with admonitions any time of the day, every day of the week, I’m fairly sure that I would terminate our arrangement pretty quickly.

What happens when everything is to be optimised, even such basic needs as sleeping and eating?

What happens when everything is to be optimised, even such basic needs as sleeping and eating? If there is something that should be allowed to be immeasurable – and permitted to be highly subjective – perhaps it is our own well-being. The constant process of evaluation can in itself lead to stress and pressure. When our health is measured down to each breath, it is simply not that… healthy anymore.

The philosopher Jonna Bornemark made quite an impact in the Swedish debate a few years ago with the book “The Renaissance of the Immeasurable.”

A showdown with the age of measurability, with a broadside aimed at New Public Management. When public ­services are standardised and everything must be documented to the point of absurdity, feelings – and the ability to act on them – are eventually rationalised away.

A philosophical book achieving such success was a little unexpected, but the protest says something about the times in which we now live. And her arguments are just as valid when it comes to the measurement of our personal performance.

If you’d like, it is also possible to add a class perspective to this dystopia. There is a correlation between socioeconomic factors and health. If advanced technology becomes an important component of well-being, this will benefit groups that have access to such technology. While those with less education and lower income – whose health status is already impacted to a greater degree by a sedentary lifestyle and poor diet – will fall even further behind.

So, please allow me to offer an alternative future scenario to the one in which large parts of the population will be walking around with a screaming health fascist around their wrist.

An ugly plastic device

Do you remember the electronic pedometers that were around long before smartphones and smartwatches ever existed? A rather ugly plastic device that you attached to your belt so that you could proudly announce to your colleagues how many steps you had taken during the day.

All right, here comes a perhaps slightly far-fetched analogy, but keep in mind that you are dealing with a former political news editor who has now switched to fitness journalism, so please bear with me.

During all my years covering politics, we tried to come up with a new, innovative digital service prior to each ­general election. Despite the best efforts of skilled develo­pers and creative reporters during countless workshops every four years, nothing we created has ever come close to sparking our readers’ interest in the same way as The Vote Compass (“Valkompassen” in Sweden, “Valgomat” in Norway). You know, the digital form that asks you to answer 25 policy-related questions and then indicates which political party best matches your own views.

An ingenious idea – which was launched on SvD.se (as the first Swedish news site!) as early as 1998.

The most important question

How has this success from the early days of digitalisation been able to remain so unthreatened for almost three decades? Probably because it answers the most important question the reader asks herself during an election campaign: “Who should I vote for?” (The second most important question – “Who will win the election?” – is answered by opinion polls.)

Perhaps the pedometer is the vote compass of wearable technology? In other words, the only digital service we really need.

It has now moved into our mobile phones and smartwatches, but it likely still remains the most common way of using wearable technology for health purposes. Am I going to reach my goal of 10,000 steps a day or not? (According to the ­latest research, a lot less is actually required to achieve health benefits.) Perhaps most of us don’t want to know more.

To me, the heart rate monitor is the only wearable function I actually find useful in my personal health project, to make sure I remain in the right heart rate zone during my workout. Slightly more advanced than counting steps, but not much.

My point is that technology will not be used just because it exists and is advanced. Rather, the technology that succeeds is the technology that meets actual needs in our daily lives (or that manages to manipulate our psychological needs, like social media).

I propose that all developers of wearable technology should apply my “mother test:” Is this something that would interest a self-absorbed person? Or, to use somewhat more correct customer insights language: Is this helpful for people in their daily lives?

When I received what, at the time, was the brand new Apple Watch model from my husband last Christmas, I initially experienced childlike delight at exploring all the exciting functions. The new sleep tracker was particularly alluring.

By sleeping with the watch on (when are you actually supposed to charge it?), each morning I could take part in a series of neat diagrams to see how I had moved between REM sleep, core sleep, deep sleep and wakefulness during the night. And, not least, if I had reached the goal of sleeping for a total of eight hours, as you should if you want to be at the top of your game.

But after a month or so I ­started taking the watch off at night.

The feeling of constantly being monitored and evaluated did not contribute to my night rest.

And the irony of the fact that even recovery had become a measurable performance was something that could not be missed – not even by a self-absorbed SvD editor.