I’ve been using a Fitbit step counter since New Year and have been enjoying the various visualizations it gives me of my days. It provides an interesting form of automated diary of my days.

Here, for instance, is last Monday, Easter Monday, which was a holiday here in Norway. The y-axis shows calories burnt each five minutes, and the x-axis shows the time of day. That pink spike at 7:30 am is me walking over to my mother’s to have breakfast with my sister and her family before they began their eight hour drive home after Easter in Bergen. After that you can see I barely sat down until our two and nearly-four-year-old were in bed at 7 pm, although we didn’t do anything particularly strenuous. Then a nice relaxing evening with Scott, with a bit of pottering around the house and some getting ready for bed in the evening. I logged a total of 11417 steps.

On Tuesday I was back to work, and as you can see, we got off to a late start – I was in bed until nearly 8. The yellow lines are walking the kids’ to preschool, then I took the train to work, so there’s only a narrow pink spark where I walked up the hill to the university from town. I was rather sedentary at work, although I did use my standing desk a little in the afternoon. The second pink line is me running to the train, then I picked up the kids, we got dinner going and so on. Once they were in bed at 7, I crashed, then did some housework (the blue lines after 8 pm) and then sat down to do some more work before turning in. A sadly sedentary day, at only 8698 steps.

On Wednesday I was determined to be a bit more pro-active, and after an efficient morning and preschool-dropoff I walked to work, which takes about 50 minutes and is a pretty good workout, I’ve realized. It costs a lot less time than going to the gym and I’m more likely to actually do it, especially now I’ve got the Fitbit cheering me on. I moved around a bit more at work and was more active throughout the afternoon and at home in the evening too, ending up at 15505 steps.

Fitbit lets you download (some of) your data, and I’d love to see other examples of how you could visualize it – and of course there are other views provided by Fitbit in addition to this. There are other fitness trackers too, such as Nike’s Fuelband, which is a bracelet that actually vibrates to alert you that you’ve been too sedentary.

They’re not primarily sold as diaries, though, and although you can add journal notes for each day, they’re not displayed next to the visualizations so that it’s not too easy to annotate days, either, without taking them out of the Fitbit website as I’ve done here.

 


Discover more from Jill Walker Rettberg

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Leave A Comment

Recommended Posts

Academics in Norway: Sign this petition asking for research-based discussions of how to use AI in universities

I just signed a petition calling for Norwegian universities to use research expertise on AI when deciding how to implement it, rather than having decisions be made mostly administratively. ,  If you are a researcher in Norway, please read it and sign it if you agree – and share with anyone else who might be interested. The petition was written by three researchers at UiT: Maria Danielsen (a philosopher who completed her PhD in 2025 on AI and ethics, including discussions of art and working life), Knut Ørke (Norwegian as a second language), and Holger Pötzsch (a professor of media studies with many years of research on digital media, video games, disruption, and working life, among other topics).  This is not about preventing researchers from exploring AI methods in their research. It is about not uncritically accepting the hype that everyone must use AI everywhere without critical reflection. It is about not introducing Copilot as the default option in word processors, or training PhD candidates to believe they will fall behind if they do not use AI when writing articles, without proper academic discussion. Changes like these should be knowledge-based and discussed academically, not merely decided administratively, because they alter the epistemological foundations of research. Maria wrote to me a couple of months ago because she had read my opinion piece in Aftenposten in which I called for a strong brake on the use of language models in knowledge work. She was part of a committee tasked with developing UiT’s AI strategy and was concerned because there was so much hype and so few members of the committee with actual expertise in AI. I fully support the petition. There are probably some good uses for AI in research, but the uncritical, hype-driven insistence that we must simply adopt it everywhere is highly risky. There are many researchers in Norway with strong expertise in AI, language, ethics, working life, and culture. We must make use of this expertise. This is also partly about respect for research in the humanities, social sciences, psychology, and law. Introducing AI at universities and university colleges is not merely a technical issue, and perhaps not even primarily a technical one. It concerns much more: philosophy of science, methodological reflection, epistemology, writing, publishing, the working environment, and more. […]

screenshot of Grammarly - main text in the middle, names of experts on the left with reccomendations and on the right more info about the expert review feature
AI and algorithmic culture Teaching

Grammarly generated fake expert reviews “by” real scholars

Grammarly is a full on AI plagiarism machine now, generating text, citations (often irrelevant), “humanizing” the text to avoid AI checkers and so on. If you’re an author or scholar, they also have been impersonating and offering “feedback” in your name. Until yesterday, when they discontinued the Expert Review feature due to a class action lawsuit. Here are screenshots of how it worked.