In the Zone

Biohacking can be taken too far, but the intelligent use of modern technology has the potential to provide valuable insights about our health.

Most doctors seem to hate it when patients conduct their own research.

Why? Surface-level knowledge of complicated systems can easily lead people astray. The human body is a complex adaptive system. It takes more than a decade to gain the knowledge needed to become a doctor. Much of the information available online glosses over complexity and leads people to unwarranted conclusions. It is no surprise that patients coming in with such “information” can be annoying.

The problem is that our medical system is optimized to treat disease states rather than to prevent these conditions in the first place. Doctors are not paid to gain a complete understanding of their patients while they are healthy. As a result, those of us determined to remain in good health have no choice but to educate ourselves.

I am a generally a skeptic of technology despite spending many years in the software industry. I have often seen technology applied for its own sake rather than in cases where it promises real improvements. In recent years, the overuse of technology, particularly among children, has caused massive harm to society. When it comes to health, we already know the basics regarding food consumption, exercise, smoking, avoiding excessive use of alcohol, and other obvious risk factors.

For most people, technology is not likely to improve their health because there is so much low-hanging fruit available. For a sedentary smoker eating fast food every day, the steps to vastly improve health are obvious. But for those of us who have already optimized the obvious areas, technology can be very helpful.

Running has been my primary form of cardiovascular exercise for twenty years. For most of those years, I shunned technology and opted for a simple Timex watch and fell into a routine of running the same routes again and again. I could calculate my average speed per mile and that seemed to be enough. My pacing “strategy” was always the same. I would run as fast as I could, always feeling like I was in a race against random people on the street. Competitive people like to compete.

While I gained some benefit from this practice and completed eight marathons and many other shorter races, this was a very stupid way to train. In recent years, I have read about how top endurance athletes tend to spend much of their time in “Zone 2” which is a relatively leisurely pace. Knowing your heart rate is necessary to accurately know which zone you are training in. This requires technology.

Last year, I received an Apple Watch Ultra 2 as a gift. The watch has the ability to display the user’s heart rate during exercise. Not surprisingly, my heart rate tended to be in Zones 3, 4, and 5 during most of my runs. I had to make a conscious effort to lower myself into Zone 2. At first, it was hard to keep myself in that zone and I would oscillate between Zones 1 and 3, failing to calibrate my speed to my desired heart rate.

Eventually, I figured out how to properly calibrate my speed to stay in Zone 2. I found it annoying and frustrating to run so slowly and hated being passed by other runners. But I kept at it and gradually the speed I could sustain while remaining in Zone 2 increased. I added interval training and found that I could sprint much faster than ever before. My VO2 Max, a measure of cardiovascular fitness, increased significantly.

Apple’s heart rate monitor uses optical technology known as photoplethysmography. It is sufficient for most situations but I found that it could stop reporting results during very heavy exercise, which was a bit disconcerting. It also does not report changes in heart rate very quickly. I purchased a Polar H10 heart monitor that uses a chest strap and is far more accurate, reporting the heart rate dozens of times per minute. This allowed for better insight into my heart rate during interval training.

Apple Watch Ultra 2 and Polar H10 are wearable technologies that add tremendous value for those trying to optimize their health. This optimization would be impossible without technology. And ironically, using this technology eventually provides a “feel” for the exertion associated with a particular heart rate so if I forget my devices on a particular run, I’m pretty sure I can still stay in my desired zone.

Another useful technology can be used to gain insight into metabolism. Diabetes and other metabolic disorders represent a leading cause of death as a primary factor and also greatly increase the risk of heart disease. There are studies that refer to dreaded cognitive conditions such as Alzheimer’s Disease as “Type 3 Diabetes.” Continuous Glucose Monitors (CGMs) help discover the patterns of food consumption that can lead to high variability of blood glucose levels, a risk factor for metabolic dysfunction.

I’ve occasionally used CGMs and, as a result, have a good idea of the types of food to avoid if I want to keep my blood glucose in a narrow range. Everyone knows that foods high in sugar are not healthy if consumed regularly. But the reaction to foods differs among individuals. I have found CGMs to be less accurate than heart monitors but still useful as a “biohacking” measure even though I have no signs of diabetes.

When speaking to doctors, it is important to demonstrate some real knowledge if the goal is to have an intelligent discussion. Doctors are wary of “experts” who spend five minutes online and think they can self-diagnose themselves. But I have found that saying just a few sentences that makes it obvious that one has done the work puts the doctor at ease and some even like to have more in-depth discussions. I found this to be the case during a recent cardiology appointment. Doctors who still resist speaking to informed patients as intelligent adults should simply be avoided.

Technology is not inherently good or bad. It depends on how we use it. It is obvious that addictions to social media and smartphones can be destructive, especially for children. But my opinion has changed when it comes to wearable devices.

I have discovered that my most important health risk factor is now lack of high quality sleep. I strongly suspect this because when my sleep quality is poor, my runs have to be slower the next morning in order to remain in Zone 2. For example, last night I only slept five hours and my average pace per mile, consistent with staying in Zone 2, was thirty seconds slower than earlier this week when I slept seven hours.

Sure, other factors may have been in play today but when you see a pattern over a period of time, the strength of a theory increases. None of this insight would be possible without technology. We should use it wisely.

---

If you find this articles interesting, please click on the ❤️️ button and consider sharing with your friends and colleagues and on social media.

Thanks for reading!

---

Copyright, Disclosures, and Privacy Information

Nothing in this article constitutes investment advice and all content is subject to the copyright and disclaimer policy of The Rational Walk LLC.  

Your privacy is taken very seriously. No email addresses or any other subscriber information is ever sold or provided to third parties. If you choose to unsubscribe at any time, you will no longer receive any further communications of any kind.

The Rational Walk is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.com.