Information on how to run faster, lift stronger and think deeper

Can fitness trackers cause cancer? [Article]

Posted by Pascal Landshoeft

Dec 27, 2017 10:00:00 AM

Can fitness trackers cause cancer

Can fitness trackers cause cancer

According to a pricewater house coopers study from 2016 almost every second American owns a fitness tracker. This makes the question of whether they can cause cancer very relevant to public health. Unfortunately, there is no conclusive data yet to answer the question definitively. Here is what you can do.

Click for Instagram

Setting the scene

 

Before we even go into further details on the cancer risk around fitness trackers some brushing up on what happened before it even started. Most electronic devices which connect to a network do this by using Non-ionizing radio frequencies or radiation (RF). Non-ionizing means that the levels of energy of this electromagnetic radiation is not high enough to alter the structure of molecules or atoms. It only moves electrons to a higher state of energy. Altering the structure of your molecules is bad. It fosters mutation and cancer is a mutation of the cell which makes it grow uncontrollably. That is what you do not want. Therefore non-ionizing radio frequencies are a compromise. Not so bad to have an immediate impact on you. Not so sure whether the lower exposure bears long-term consequences.

 

The body who regulates and checks whether devices adhere to tolerable levels of RF is called The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in the United States. This body of the federal government, in a nutshell, sets the standards for technology companies like Apple, Samsung, and Huawei that they do not microwave you with their devices and takes their gadgets off the market if they do not comply with standards.

 

The argument which preceded the fitness tracker debate was one related to cell phones. In 2011 the World health organization which consists of 31 scientists from 14 countries released a report based on peer reviewed studies (read the book bad pharma if you want to know why this matters) that cell phones were "possibly carcinogenic".

 

When dealing with scientists you have to be aware of one thing. Even if they are 100% percent sure that something is true they will still write something like "based on the methods and procedures used in the very scenarios we tested and after cleaning the data using the following mathematical algorithms we are 99.99% sure that the results of the treatment group are of statistical relevance compared to the control group based on 10.000 samples". To you and me that sounds vague.

 

In scientist language, this means "I am god damn sure that you slept with my wife because I walked in on the two of you 10.000 times. Our bedroom was the same way as it always was and I came home at the same time as every day each time I saw you and it was definitely the same woman in the bed with you. I even looked into all the 10.000 neighbors bedrooms at the same time to control whether it is normal for their best friends to be sleeping with their wifes to make sure that what you did is out of the ordinary. The only way this didn't happen is that I am dreaming, this happened on a parallel timeline in a different universe or my glasses have some kind of "wife cheat" filter on them every time I step into the bedroom." So the WHO saying cellphones are "possibly carcinogenic" is kind of a big deal.

 

The solution of the controversy in 2011 which appeased the public was "don't have your phone near to your head for long". This was one of the reasons why Google glasses did not as good as expected.

 

Next to your genitals seems to be the lesser evil, as they do not provide vital functions and can be taken off in an emergency. You might think otherwise, but that is the case. Doctors are very practical in that sense.

 

Then all of this went to sleep for a while to be debated here and there. Fitbit provided their first wearable for the wrist in 2013 with flex. The next big bang on this happened in 2015 when Apple also decided to enter the wearable market with the apple watch.

 

Apple is a magnet for news agencies as the crazy Apple community gobbles everything up which surrounds the release of new products. Especially when it is not just a new generation of an existing product, but a completely new branch. Enter the New York Time columnist Nick Bilton.

 

The controversy

 

In his article with the title "The health concerns in wearable tech" Nick Bilton directly connects the findings of the study about cell phones with fitness trackers even though they function differently. In addition, the claims for the bad influence of wearables on health were backed up by several doctors within the article.

 

The outcome of this was a huge controversy. After the public scrutinized the article it became clear that the sources were thin on evidence and a long editor note had to be put in place to apologize for the accusations made. This took some wind out of the discussion. One of the sources in Nick Bilton was doctor Mercola. Mercola has extensively written about alternative medicine which puts him very close to the quackery department. Here is a list of 23 things Mercola claimed to be causing cancer.

 

Cell phones vs Trackers

 

Fitbit CEO James Park says cell phones and wearables cannot be compared as wearables only emit a fraction of the radiation. This also holds true when put to the test by less biased sources like John Sweetenham from the Huntsman Cancer Institute of Utah who also seconds this opinion.

 

In its forum Fitbit stated under the question Does wearing a fitbit cause cancer? that fitness trackers only emit less than 1% of the radiation which cell phones produce.

 

What is not discussed by the manufacturers of gadgets like the Fitbit, Jawbone UP24, and Nike+ FuelBand is that you have to wear them all day around and how this might have a different impact than a cell phone.

 

The evidence

 

As so often when cancer is connected to certain products the evidence to prove whether fitness trackers cause cancer or not is little to none.

 

The providers of the technology would be in the best position to provide information as they have the money, people and data to conduct a long-term study.

 

The Challenge is that you will not proof or even entertain the idea that your most selling product is a potential health hazard. That is commercial suicide.

 

Because if these consumers have to work with statements like this

 

"The numbers of brain cancers we’re seeing have been pretty flat for many years. With widespread cellphone usage, if there was a link, you might expect to see some increase in the number of cases. But there isn’t.”

 

From John Sweetenham or like that

 

"The lack of proof of harm is not evidence of safety. You have to decide for yourself if that’s a risk you want to take.”

 

By Devra Davis both Subject matter experts on cancer.

 

Both arguments are consistent and correct in themselves. However, Mister Sweetenham lacks to point out that cancer can develop over several years of exposing yourself to certain foods or bad influences and wearables are not around for long.

 

Mrs. Davis is also correct that no proof of harm is not automatically safety. To then conclude that wearing devices is a risk is a bit of a jump and would surely have been remarked upon by other professionals if she wrote it like this on her Ph.D. thesis. 

 

One thing is for certain, the fields of radiation you are exposed to are increasing and real which you can see in these wifi pictures which visualize the usually invisible technology around us.

 

What to do?

 

That leaves you and me, the consumers, with a big question mark above our heads about what to do. I personally use a Fitbit but not in the way you might expect.

 

Some suggest that you should minimise the exposure and radiation by only using the devices occasionally and keep synchronization to a minimum. I think that defeats the purpose of why you bought it and is therefore pointless. In this case, you might as well not use the tracker.

 

Another alternative is to accept that, as a city dweller, if RF causes cancer you are exposed anyway and might as well use a fitness tracker.

 

For someone who is already very active the steps tracking does not make a lot of sense. If you belong to this group you can minimise your risk by simply tracking your runs with the Nike+ running app or a Garmin. Depends on how far you want to take it.

 

So personally I use my Fitbit for one thing only. It is the best way I found to wake up at 5.30 without disturbing my wife.

 

Conclusion

 

All in all, there is no real evidence for fitness trackers being safe or causing cancer. That was the same for cigarettes too. If there is a risk there has to be research conducted until the case is strong enough to minimise RF even further generally below the levels which have already been defined.

 

To stop exposure you have to move out of the city. To stay fit a Fitbit helps for beginners but is more or less useless for advanced athletes. You have Tonwaren up the pros and cons and keep in mind that people often want to grab attention. Linking a popular product with cancer is a sure way to do that.

 

Further reading

Resources

 

Topics: Fitness