Trust Your Body Over Algorithms — Triathlete

Wearable technology has come a long way since Polar released the first wireless heart rate monitor in 1982. Now, instead of clunky watches and chest straps, we have sleek wrist-based trackers and integrated biometric sensors.

These technological advances allow us to measure everything from heart rate variability and training load to sleep stages and recovery metrics. There’s even embedded artificial intelligence (AI) to synthesize this information and provide real-time training recommendations. But do we pay a price for all this? Have we come to rely so heavily on technology that we’ve neglected our body’s own wisdom?

Let’s explore two psychologically-grounded concepts (and one quirky phenomenon) to help us evaluate our relationship with algorithms.

The nocebo effect

Have you ever woken up in the morning feeling good, but then noticed your less-than-ideal sleep score and started feeling off? This might have something to do with the nocebo effect.

The nocebo effect refers to undesirable or harmful outcomes associated with negative expectations. It is essentially the opposite of the more commonly understood placebo effect. Like a placebo, a nocebo is an inactive substance, event, or idea; it’s believed to be harmful, while placebos are believed to be helpful.

Nocebos can be inactive supplements or mechanical ergogenic aids, such as transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) or kinesiology tape (KT). They can also be verbal suggestions, such as “your body isn’t ready for today’s workout.”

Most nocebo research has been conducted in clinical settings, but there are a couple of sports- and exercise-related studies worth noting. In one study, participants were given a “supplement” (it was actually cornstarch) and were told it would increase muscle soreness. They then performed a resistance exercise immediately after taking the supplement and again 48 hours later.

Interestingly, muscle soreness didn’t change over time, but their range of motion and the number of repetitions were both significantly lower than at the earlier time point. In another study, participants sprinted more slowly after being told a “supplement” (again, cornstarch) would negatively impact their speed.

These studies suggest that the mere suggestion of a negative effect can hinder athletic performance. In fact, one recent review article found that the nocebo effect was twice as impactful as the placebo effect. In other words, negative expectations may have an even greater influence over outcomes than positive expectations.

Let’s tie this back to training. If you believe that a low readiness score or a dip in heart rate variability will negatively affect your workout, then your expectation is already shaping the outcome. If left unchecked, that mindset can create anxiety, tighten your focus around what feels “off,” and ultimately pull you away from the kind of adaptability that drives progress.

Interoceptive accuracy

As any endurance athlete knows, there’s a fine line between rigidly following a plan and adjusting based on unexpected variables, such as illness, injury, or changing conditions. We often think AI can help us toe that line by turning training into a perfectly calibrated equation. However, the body and brain are far more complex than that – and training certainly doesn’t happen in a vacuum. This is where interoceptive accuracy comes in, which is the ability to objectively detect and interpret bodily signals.

Here’s where it gets interesting. One study found that elite sprinters and distance runners were more confident in their ability to read their body’s signals compared to non-athletes, and could detect their heartbeat more accurately, especially when distracted. However, another study showed that interoceptive accuracy doesn’t offer a clear performance benefit. The point is this: Since the relationship between bodily signals and performance is not necessarily neat or linear, it’s probably best to find a middle ground where data informs, but doesn’t override, your internal cues.

Cadence locking

Have you ever noticed an unexpected spike in your heart rate during a relatively comfortable run? If so, you might have experienced a phenomenon runners have dubbed “cadence locking.”

While cadence locking isn’t technically a psychological construct and there isn’t yet scientific evidence to explain its effect, it is something worth knowing about. Cadence locking is a type of error that’s unique to wrist-based heart rate monitors. It occurs when a wrist-based monitor tracks cadence instead of pulse. This tends to happen when a person’s steps per minute are very similar to their heart rate.

So what’s the problem with mistaking the rhythm of your movement with the rhythm of your heart? Well, it may cause you to panic – and that certainly isn’t helpful. If you’re cruising on a run, feeling good and maintaining quick turnover, but then you check your watch and see an unusually high heart rate, you might start to wonder: “Should I see a cardiologist?” “Is it safe to keep pushing, or should I walk for a few minutes?”

This cognitive dissonance (the run feels pretty easy, but the watch indicates max effort) can cause stress and confusion, pulling you out of the present moment and affecting your performance. Cadence locking may also reduce your motivation. If you’ve been putting in the work to strengthen your cardiovascular health, but then you see your heart rate spike on a relatively easy run, you may feel less motivated and less inclined to trust in your training.

Main takeaway

We’re certainly not suggesting that you sell your wearables or completely ignore the data, but you might want to examine your relationship with it. How much does data drive your behavior? Is it affecting your ability to directly notice your body’s sensations? Is your reliance on data causing you to feel anxious or confused? Technology can be incredibly useful, but it can also derail our efforts if we view it as the ultimate authority. The goal should be to integrate external information (e.g., from wearables and AI) with internal data (e.g., bodily cues and your personal history). That level of intelligence will most greatly benefit your performance and enjoyment.

How to recalibrate

• Do more “no tech” workouts. Leave the watch at home and move based on feeling. Check in with yourself every few minutes, asking, “Can I push more?” or “What is that sensation telling me?” You don’t always need to know the answer. Simply by asking more questions, you’re training your mind to pay more attention.
• Keep a training log. Immediately after each workout, jot a few notes. What was the workout? How did you feel? How focused were you? What types of thoughts did you have? Write down the internally-driven subjective data first, then feel free to add in the objective metrics.
• Don’t place too much value on data from individual workouts. Look at patterns over time instead of obsessing over each number.
• Incorporate mind-body practices, such as yoga or tai chi. Doing this for even 15 minutes three times a week can strengthen the relationship between your mind and body.