Fitbit So Expensive!

Solar_Cat wrote: »

Good recent article about this:

Science Says FitBit Is a Joke
Your smartphone is much more accurate and consistent than wearable devices.

FitBits, FueldBands, and other wearable fitness trackers promised to enhance the health of the wearer by accurately monitoring every step, calorie, and sleep pattern. But, according to a new study published Tuesday in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), the apps on your smartphone do the job just as well, or even better—at least in terms of measuring your steps and your calories.

Interesting article! I am not debating whether the app or the band is more accurate, but I liked this quote from the article. This is how I feel. I don't like to carry my phone with me when I am hiking. I don't have pockets and it's usually in my bag I take with me, which means it won't be as accurate...which is where the fitbit comes in.

"Smartphones may be harder to carry with more vigorous activity such as running or biking, and that might be one reason an individual chooses to use a wearable device," explains Patel, pointing to an obvious objection for people who might reject smartphones as fitness trackers.

Interesting, as I've found my phone tracks thousands more steps than my fitbit and I had been wondering which is more accurate. However I would rather track low than high while losing weight.

Troutsy wrote: »

Solar_Cat wrote: »

Good recent article about this:

Science Says FitBit Is a Joke
Your smartphone is much more accurate and consistent than wearable devices.

FitBits, FueldBands, and other wearable fitness trackers promised to enhance the health of the wearer by accurately monitoring every step, calorie, and sleep pattern. But, according to a new study published Tuesday in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), the apps on your smartphone do the job just as well, or even better—at least in terms of measuring your steps and your calories.

Interesting article! I am not debating whether the app or the band is more accurate, but I liked this quote from the article. This is how I feel. I don't like to carry my phone with me when I am hiking. I don't have pockets and it's usually in my bag I take with me, which means it won't be as accurate...which is where the fitbit comes in.

"Smartphones may be harder to carry with more vigorous activity such as running or biking, and that might be one reason an individual chooses to use a wearable device," explains Patel, pointing to an obvious objection for people who might reject smartphones as fitness trackers.

bought my Zip on eBay for around $30. Worked well, although I did have a battery issue with it, but it seemed to be a widespread problem among some Zip users, so don't think it was because it was an eBay purchase. Hubby bought me a One for Christmas, so I willed my Zip to my daughter, and she has had no issues with it so far.

Bought my mother-in-law a Zip at Target when they had them on sale, used my Red card for 5% off, plus gift cards that I often pick up when they have their "buy three get a $5 gift card" promotions.

Shop around online, watch for sales at places like Kohl's where you can get their 30% off coupons on top of that. There are deals to be had.

I bought my FitBit one on eBay for $60 in 2013 and have had no problems. I do walk a lot so for me it was worth it.

Solar_Cat wrote: »

Good recent article about this:

Science Says FitBit Is a Joke
Your smartphone is much more accurate and consistent than wearable devices.

FitBits, FueldBands, and other wearable fitness trackers promised to enhance the health of the wearer by accurately monitoring every step, calorie, and sleep pattern. But, according to a new study published Tuesday in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), the apps on your smartphone do the job just as well, or even better—at least in terms of measuring your steps and your calories.

Not everyone has or wants a smartphone. I love my Nokia and have no plans to change it. I'd rather spend £100 on a fitness tracker that will last for some time, than £600 on a phone that will be virtually obsolete in a year or two.

ATT has fitbits for 20% if you order online by the 19th of February. Use promo code FITBIT15

I don't walk around wearing my phone when I'm cleaning house, cooking or generally cleaning, often wearing my pajamas or some workout shorts with no pocket. My fitbit was the best investment I've ever made in keeping me moving. My Ultra lasted over 2.5 years, which was a pretty good $85 investment. Fitbit replaced it once, giving me a complimentary replacement for the one my dog ate. In the end, you get what you pay for.

Solar_Cat wrote: »

Good recent article about this:

Science Says FitBit Is a Joke
Your smartphone is much more accurate and consistent than wearable devices.

FitBits, FueldBands, and other wearable fitness trackers promised to enhance the health of the wearer by accurately monitoring every step, calorie, and sleep pattern. But, according to a new study published Tuesday in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), the apps on your smartphone do the job just as well, or even better—at least in terms of measuring your steps and your calories.

It's a joke, alright. It's a couple of jokes.

The first joke is getting your science news from Mother Jones.

The second joke is running activity tracker/ pedometer comparison tests on a treadmill. If they had known anything about activity trackers they'd know that many of them, such as a Fitbit, have an accelerometer in them detecting motion through space in three dimensions. Treadmills can be problematic because the user is not moving forward, backward, or side to side. It's a vertical motion only.

This is from the linked article in EurekAlert:

Each of the study participants, all healthy adults recruited at Penn, had the following devices on during the treadmill trials:

Waistband: one pedometer and two accelerometers

Wrists: three wearable devices

Pants pockets: two smartphones, one running three apps and the other running one

At the end of each trial, step counts from each device were recorded. The data from the smartphones were only slightly different than the observed step counts (with a range of -6.7 to 6.2 percent relative difference in mean step count), but the data from the wearable devices differed more (with a range of -22.7 to -1.5 percent).

Note that the phones measured an error span of 12.9%, from 6.7% too few steps to 6.2% too many steps. The activity trackers measured an error span of 21.2%, from 22.7% too few steps to 1.5% too few steps. The activity trackers recorded too few steps. In part, because they were tested on a treadmill!

This is bad science.