Are Predictive Metrics By Wearables “Unproductive”? The Effect Of Deceptive Wearable Monitor Feedback On Performance And Perception In Recreational Runners

Popular wearables used by endurance athletes feature predictive prompts about recovery status and fitness based on heart rate variability (HRV) and/or exercise data. No previous research has examined whether receiving these prompts can cause performance or psychological effects in athletes. PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to determine the effect of deceptive feedback from a wearable on time trial performance, pacing, perceived effort, perceived readiness and performance quality, and affect in recreational runners. METHODS: Participants (N = 19) completed three 5-km time trials (TT), each preceded by a sham “analysis” by a contrived prototype wearable. Participants received no feedback (FAM) or scripted feedback indicating a positive (POS) or negative (NEG) recovery and readiness status. Perceived readiness and performance level were assessed via visual analog scale before and after each TT, respectively. RPE and elapsed time were recorded at each kilometer of the TT. RESULTS: TT performance was similar between conditions (p = 0.54). RPE at 2-km was lower in POS (13.8 ± 1.54) than in NEG (14.5 ± 1.31, p = 0.01) or FAM (14.6 ± 1.26, p = 0.02). The 4th km was faster in POS (337 ± 64.7 sec) than in NEG (342 ± 62.0 sec, p = 0.04) or FAM (346 ± 65.5 sec, p < 0.01). Participants reported higher perceived readiness (p = 0.02, d = 0.46) in POS (76.4 ± 14.9 mm) than in NEG (66.7 ± 17.7 mm) and higher ratings of performance in POS (85.6 ± 11.8 mm) than in NEG (73.7 ± 18.2 mm, p < .01) or FAM (76.1 ± 17.6 mm, p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Predictive feedback from a wearable does not appear to affect running performance, but may affect expectations, perceived effort, pacing, and the perception of the completed exercise. Algorithmically derived scores or ratings by wearables should be interpreted with caution or along with analysis of individual trends in HRV.