Quote:
Originally Posted by LondonGirl88
I have been doing some reading up - the Fitbit only monitors movement, so it is assuming your BMR and working out calories burnt from that. The BodyBugg apparently uses other factors, like body temperature and some other sciencey things. Surely the BodyBugg is the more accurate option then? The Fitbit sounds like it is just a fancy pedometer?
Am I missing something here?
I think you basically got it right! It really is a pedometer on steroids. The Fitbit Ultra measures altitude, too (I don't have that version).
The Fitbit also measures how fast you are taking steps, though, so there is an intensity factor there, and it organizes the information on the website in a way that is very useful.
The BB/BMF does measure other things, and for some people, that might be an important factor.
You can enter some of these activities (like weight training) manually on the Fitbit, so there is a way to take these things into account. But it would be an estimate, not an actual reading.
My sense is that the two are equally accurate (people who have worn both simultaneously tell me this), and that the BB/BMF measures more parameters but is more expensive and inconvenient, and to me, it's not worth it. But to someone who does a lot of strength training or something like that, it might be. I'm more of a runner/walker.