This week there was both an OTA update for the LifeBEAM Vi (02.00.00.00) and a new app version (1.1.0 (14)). With the update of the app, the bug that prevented my experiences with the Effort Guide, the AI, was fixed. Immediately after the update, I went running in the evening and was initially rewarded with a bitter disappointment. The Vi told me during the run that she would be able to tell me more soon if she knew me better.
So still no artificial intelligence. After more than 7 hours of running, this should be the case, especially since the support had promised me that the previous data would be included despite bugs. After the run, however, the friendly voice said that she now knew enough about me. So the next morning purely out of curiosity I put on my running shoes again (not a sufficient recovery period, I know), and now Vi told me when I would get into my fat burning zone and leave it again. Although she doesn’t say that clearly, only that I “hurry”.
The myth of the fat burning zone
Fat burning zone. There she is again. Anyone who takes a closer look at it, for example through this wonderful article by Dr. Moosburger, knows that it is usually misunderstood. Above all, the stickers on cardio equipment in fitness centers are usually not very helpful. Often, the optimal fat burning pulse is understood to mean that you should not get over it under any circumstances, because then no more fat is burned. And that’s how some fitness trainers like to tell it. That’s wrong. For this popular but wrong interpretation of the fat burning zone, however, my pulse was much too high for Vi to see me in this zone. So what does LifeBEAM mean by the fat burning zone? An initial inquiry in the comments yielded only a standard answer, so I cheekily continued to drill. Here is the second answer:
Hi Tom- apologies for not being more specific. Your basic assumption about that zone is generally correct (i.e. more fat is burned than glucose but the more intense the workout, the more calories are burned, and even when the ratio is lower, more energy is taken from fat), moreover, Vi will also take into consideration your personalized calibrated biometric thresholds (heart rate, cadence, pace consistency) and BMI to make sure you are indeed in the right zone. Keep it up!!
P.S
There’s one last component you are probably aware of which is a term called after-burn zone where you are burning fat significantly also after the run itself, all directed by the amount and endurance of effort taken during your last run. Based on our studies we still don’t feel fully comfortable to add this metric to our off training screens due to its scientific tolerance, but we promise to keep you guys in the loop once we do so.
The BMI is just such a myth, apart from the fact that the answer is again very wishy-washy, but at least I get an idea of what the LifeBEAMers want to do.
Improvements and problems of the LifeBEAM Vi
The behavior has become much better when switching on the LifeBEAM Vi. It now reacts within a few seconds, so you no longer have to worry that the button might be defective. A solution has also been found for the bass problem, a bass boost can now be defined.
Not solved is the problem that Vi still doesn’t seem to understand that you slow down when you run up a mountain. She says that they have slowed down and that they should please try to run more evenly. But sometimes she also praises you for the steady speed, even though you have slowed down. In the illustration on the left you can see the dilemma: My pulse gets higher, at the same time I slow down, even if there are small plateaus in between where I try to speed up again. My pulse is often at 170 and more, I don’t know if I really want to reach my theoretical maximum pulse of ~180 at my age
I still haven’t understood the music selection either.
Cadence and stride frequency
The LifeBEAM Vi tries to convince me to increase my cadence on every run. That looks a bit stupid at the speed I’m supposed to keep. But the beat played to it is actually enormously helpful. Sometimes I manage to get over 160 steps on average. Here, too, science is not yet in complete agreement on what the optimal step frequency is. Achim Achilles’ calculator provides fewer steps for me. But it feels like the shorter steps actually help to not have quite as tired legs the next day.
Buy: Yes or No?
I’m not sure if I wanted to recommend the LifeBEAM Vi to a non-early adopter for purchase yet. On the one hand, I firmly believe in the benefits of artificial intelligence in sports. Instead of reading any rule values from tables, a machine can certainly make better individual recommendations for an athlete, provided there is enough meaningful data. On the other hand, I would speak of a chaotic system in the case of a body, in the sense of a lack of important data points, so that the wrong conclusions are drawn from the existing data.
I never managed to blog about my Omegawave ECG (maybe I’ll make up for it), but shouldn’t the pulse values during training also be related to how recovered the body is from the last workout? Quite apart from that, the scientists do not really agree on which values are good or bad when and where. So I’m just not sure if the data available to the LifeBEAM Vi is actually sufficient. And whether we know enough about how to handle this data to actually be a help in training.
The question of how LifeBEAM will proceed with data collection in the future is also interesting. Where is the data actually evaluated? In the app? In the device itself (unlikely, because my bug was only fixed after the app update)? Or somewhere in the cloud? The data is apparently uploaded there, and if no half-life is calculated here, then a lot of data will accumulate per user in the next few years. It is not unlikely that LifeBEAM will therefore introduce an additional monthly fee at some point, similar to Omegawave. You buy the device, but in order to be able to create an evaluation, you need the service. Maybe an early adopter will be exempt from these fees, after all, we are suffering from all childhood diseases right now. But that’s not likely.