3 ms·
Could you explain a bit more when Bodymedia FIT is superior? The FitBit One and Ultra tracks steps taken, floors climbed, and sleep efficiency, and tells you ca
by heyitsnick 14y ago
Could you explain a bit more when Bodymedia FIT is superior? The FitBit One and Ultra tracks steps taken, floors climbed, and sleep efficiency, and tells you calories burned and distance travelled (the latter two i assume just simply calculated from the raw data collected; you can input your weight and stride length on the site).
- b3b0p 14y agoI believe the Fitbit is nothing more than a step counter type of device. I could be wrong, but that's what it looks like. The Bodymedia FIT has actual sensors, it's an armband you have to wear. It monitors temperature among other things. It has been tested against, a $40,000 "portable oxygen analyzer", the gold standard for measuring calories. (source: http://www.bodymedia.com/the_science.html http://www.bodymedia.com/the_science.html) Regarding the Bodymedia FIT developer program. It looks you still need a subscription though and one still needs to upload the data from the armband to the website to get at it. Seems kind of pointless. I would want to get the data directly from the USB armband without a subscription.
- jessedhillon 14y agoSuppose you did 100 squats. Which will be closer to reporting your true caloric burn -- a pedometer or a sensor directly contacting your skin and measuring your skin temperature and other variables. The latter, right? The former would probably report 100 steps taken, very slowly. The total costs are higher though. The Fitbit is a onetime cost of $100-125 where the Bodymedia is $120-150 once and $84/yr. But for me, the cost of the Fitbit is too high for the relatively inaccurate method of collection.