Bodybugg vs fitbit

Likely reasons:
1. BB is more expensive than the Fitbit. It's also usually more than it's direct competetion of the BodyMedia Fit.
2. Many people looking at a BB or BMF choose the BMF because of the price and the BMF website interface. So even folks in that higher priced market have a second option that is a bit more popular.
3. Fitbit syncs directly with MFP, which makes it easier to integrate the info with the two tools.
4. Cost of ownership since BB and BMF both require a monthly paid subscription to be able to access the data and the Fitbit is free to use after the initial purchase.

Personally, I have a BMF because I like the additional aspects that are used when calculating the various data points. Just seems like its more accurate and more in depth, but that's just my opinion.

Well, I have the fitbit. I've had it for two months and paid the extra 50 dollars for "premium" service so that it tracks my sleep. So, 150 and that's all I've spent. I lost 10 pounds the first month and have been at a standstill every since. Seems how body bugg shows too much and is more expensive, most folks chose fitbit.

I had the Body Bugg and while I appreciated what it did, it was just too expensive and hard to deal with. I had to wear the armband and if I wore short sleeves or a sweater, I had to keep explaining what the bulge was (my friends joked that I was on house arrest). to see my numbers throughout the day, I had to buy the display which came separately and the service to use the thing was $50 every 6 months. If I didn't pay for the service, I couldn't really use the device.

FitBit on the other hand is small and discreet. I can check the display throughout the day to see how I'm doing. The $50 service is optional (meaning you don't have to have it to use the device) and it lasts a year (vs 6 months). I compared the FitBit numbers against some exercises I logged previously using the Body Bugg and the readings were very close.

The ONLY thing I think the Body Bugg has over FitBit is that the FitBit doesn't do a good job of capturing calorie expenditures for exercises that don't result in a lot of movement like cycling (or spinning). It works better if the device is on a waistband or in your pocket for those activities (instead of clipped to a bra or shirt pocket.

Other than that. I love the FitBit! (anyone want to buy a Body Bugg?? lol)

Has anyone had any success with losing weight using the fitbit?

I've been using fitbit for 3 weeks and have seen 1lb/week loss.

It did however, take me some time to figure out my proper activity level setting to make MFP match my Fitbit dashboard. Once I got it figured out, the two sites are usually within just a few calories of each other.

i bought the bodybugg and wore it EVERDAY for months. for me it was inaccurate. it gave me an average TDEE of around 2800 cals but i gain 1lb a week eating only 2400 cals. i just recently purchased a polar ft4 so hopefully it works better fore me.

I have both- prefer the BB. First reason is I'm always worried about losing fitbit and
prefer the BB armband although it's kind of big. Second, I find it easier to just plug in BB-
and get data. I had a tough time with the Fitbit program but maybe that's just me.
BB is very accurate.

Has anyone had any success with losing weight using the fitbit?

I bought mine when they first came out in Jan. 2010 and lost 35 lbs. the first 6 months.

I had a BB before that. Too expensive, big and I got sick of pulling it off my arm to plug it into the PC to see where I was at. Fitbit synchs wirelessly, plus it has an in-unit display. No, it's not a heart rate monitor but neither is BB. Both do best when you log things like weight lifting and cycling.