We are pleased to announce that on March 4, 2025, an updated Rich Text Editor will be introduced in the MyFitnessPal Community. To learn more about the upcoming changes, please click here. We look forward to sharing this new feature with you!

Body Bugg vs. fitbit one Data comparison

Ambition00
Ambition00 Posts: 37 Member
in Health and Weight Loss
I notice that when this topic has been discussed in the past, the fact that body bugg (BB) has a 90% accuracy or 10% error is not taken into account. often it is mentioned that BB is accurate, and fitbit is off by 200-300 cals, however if you take the cals BB generates, and do the math it usually equates to what fitbit is calculating.

i.e. i wore my BB and fitbit for a day and here's the data

fitbit
steps 18591
cals 2114
activity min 49 min

BB
steps 19646
cals 2407
activity 178 min moderate activity
vigorous 9min

a diff of 293
however when you take 90% of the 2407 you end up with 2116 for BB which is pretty much the same as what FB got.

What do you guys think?

Replies

  • StaciMarie1974
    StaciMarie1974 Posts: 4,138 Member
    I used a BodyBugg years ago - loved it. I liked that it was useful for measuring all day calorie burn, and with fairly accurate results. But I didn't like needing to keep a paid subscription active. It was a learning tool though, allowing me to see that the incremental differences based on regular activity.

    I use a Fitbit now, not for all day calorie burn & accuracy but as a measure of my total daily movement. I'm lazy by nature, so having a meter/gage helps me to hit a certain level. I am more knowledgeable now about how & when my body burns calories, so don't feel the need for as much accuracy there. I typically hit ~2100 calories burned in a day, and that is probably accurate +/- 10% based on the math I can do to check based on my stats. When I'm working at my hardest (jogging @ 4.8mph on the treadmill) I average only 7-8 calories per minute burned.

    I personally do not do much that would be considered strenuous. Fitbit is not a heart rate monitor, cannot measure intensity. So based on that my personal opinion is that the Fitbit (for some people) would be more likely to underestimate burn than overestimate. If you're walking 3.0 mph at 15% incline on the treadmill, or 3.0 mph at 0% incline, the Fitbit will record the same # of steps per minute, so the same calorie burn, when in reality you are working harder with the incline. So depending on what activities you do in the day, your # burned is probably somewhere between the Fitbit & BB.
  • Bukawww
    Bukawww Posts: 159 Member
    That 10% margin could go either way though...in other words, it could be Underestimating calories just as easily. The BB is not the most comfortable tracker though. I've been tempted to try the fitbit but the fact that BB uses so many other measurements leads me to believe it HAS to be more accurate lol.
  • Ambition00
    Ambition00 Posts: 37 Member
    good point. i did think about that, but thought was are the chances that a 5"2" female approx 127 lb could be burning 10% more than the BB said; i.e. on days where it already read that I burned 2400 an additional 10% would be a huge addition; and 10% deduction always seems unreal to me. I will have to play with the numbers and see what I get out of it. thanks your input. It's crazy because before one of the issues with weight loss was not knowing your TDEE and your intake; now you have so many devices that compute your TDEE with so many variables that you don't know which one is accurate. I mean for a device to be 90% accurate with a 10% margin of error is complicating!

Categories