Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Study: Smartphones Just As Good As Fitness Trackers For Counting Steps

Posted by samzenpus on from the stepping-it-up dept.

jfruh writes While dedicated fitness trackers that you wear around your wrist have any number of functions, many people are focused on a single metric: counting steps, which serves as a proxy for determining how active you are. But a recent study from the University of Pennsylvania showed that if that's mainly what you want out of a fitness tracker, then you almost certainly have a device in your pocket that can do the same thing as well if not better: your smartphone.

24 of 128 comments (clear)

  1. But the price... by hooiberg · · Score: 2, Insightful

    But smartphones are a lot more expensive than fitness trackers. Moreover, they tend to be far more complicated devices. Moreover, they are quite big and inconvenient to carry along when practicing fitness. So, actually, they are not so good at all for this purpose.

    1. Re:But the price... by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 4, Insightful
      TFS

      you almost certainly have a device in your pocket that can do the same thing as well if not better: your smartphone

      implies that you already have a smartphone. So, use it instead of purchasing another device...

      --
      Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
    2. Re:But the price... by Thanshin · · Score: 4, Funny

      As always, the best part of Slashdot isn't the news but the insight by the experts in each topic.

      Thank you for your feedback.

    3. Re:But the price... by itzly · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I think they are mainly talking about people who carry a simple device to count their steps during a normal day. In that situation, it's perfectly normal to be carrying a smart phone, and not worry too much about it getting covered in sweat or getting exposed to shocks.

    4. Re:But the price... by Chrisq · · Score: 2

      But what if you don't have a smartphone? What if you want to buy a fitness tracker because it looks cool?

      Then buy one!

    5. Re:But the price... by Chess_the_cat · · Score: 2

      Also implies that it's in my pocket when I'm about to go for a run and it most certainly isn't. They're too big, too heavy, and too fragile to take with me when running. They flop around in your pocket (if you even have a pocket) and they get covered in condensation. A case won't help because it only adds to the weight and condensation occurs inside the case anyway.

      --
      Support the First Amendment. Read at -1
    6. Re:But the price... by gstoddart · · Score: 4, Informative

      Obviously you've never seen the weather-proof armbands people use for jogging with their cell phone ... put in the headphones, put it in the sealed case, strap it to your arm and go do your thing.

      This is literally a solved problem, and has been for a bunch of years.

      The accessories makers have been all over covering the running crowd for a LONG time.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    7. Re:But the price... by wile_e_wonka · · Score: 3, Insightful

      But don't the fitness trackers all pair with smartphones to actually convey the data they collect? It seems that this research is saying that any fitness tracker that relies on pairing with a phone is redundant (unless the tracker does something grand that the phone does not).

      Disclaimer: I have a smartphone, so I don't feel like I need a fitness tracker (and still wouldn't feel like I was in need of a fitness tracker if I didn't have a smartphone--I don't need something on my wrist to tell me that I sit in front of a computer in my mom's basement all day).

    8. Re:But the price... by blang · · Score: 2

      Uh?
      The price for adding fitness tracking to a smartphone is normally $0 if you already own one. Most users would need just a free app.
      There are very few people that do not own a smartphone these days, and also there are very few that leave their house without it.
      They want to be reachable, and they want to be able to call 911 when something bad happens.
      Or navigate, if venturing into unknown territories,.
      And they also double as mp3 player and camera, should you encounter an interesting motif.

      But I agree though, partly, that a phone is a drag to drag around.
      But one you start dropping gadgets you no longer want to drag around, you will also drop the fitness tracker, and enjoy your rides or runs unencumbered by pulse meters and gps coordinates, and just enjoy the act of running,or riding not just how many calories you burn, or how fast you can do it.. Listen to your own breath and footsteps (or for attackers sneaking up from behind) instead of some massproduced pop tune,

       

      --
      -- Another senseless waste of fine bytes.
  2. Poor testers! by ctrl-alt-canc · · Score: 4, Funny

    From the article:
    Researchers gave participants an iPhone 5s running three fitness apps, a Galaxy S4 running one fitness app and six wearable devices, including products from Fitbit, Jawbone and Nike.
     The people doing the test probably collapsed under the weight of all these devices...

  3. Re:As Good As ... by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 2

    So, unless you roll

    "People who roll" are one of the key target demographics for these devices.

    --
    systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
  4. Bad Summary: Looking at the graphs in the study by Chrisq · · Score: 4, Informative

    Looking at the graphs in the study a more accurate report would be:

    Of the dedicated devices the "Fitbit One" and the "Fitbit Zip" where super accurate, but the average for dedicated devices was brought down by the abysmal performance of the "Nike Fuelband". The various apps tested gave a reasonable performance, as did the other dedicated devices tested

    1. Re:Bad Summary: Looking at the graphs in the study by swillden · · Score: 5, Informative

      "Fitbit only usable device, Nike Fuelband total shit".

      I think they're all quite usable. In this space utility is not dependent on accuracy, for most people, because for most people it really doesn't matter if you get an extremely accurate step count. What matters is that you get a reasonable estimate of your activity level, as compared with you activity level measured on other days.

      Fitbit tries to estimate calories burned from your walking, and if that were at all accurate, it could arguably be important to get an accurate step count. But it's not, because people are too different.

      For most of a year I performed very detailed tracking of my caloric intake vs expenditure, including the use of a Fitbit step tracker and a cycling power meter, and plotted those against my weight gain/loss. What I found, once I had determined by base metabolic rate, was that estimating caloric expenditure with the power meter is highly accurate, but Fitbit's estimate of my caloric expenditure due to walking consistently overreported by about 30%.

      That's not because Fitbit is doing anything wrong; their pedometers are quite accurate and I'm sure they're using reasonable models for estimating energy use based on the walker's weight and height. The fact that the overreporting rate was so consistent even though my body weight changed by almost 15% supports this. A friend who did the same experiment for a while found that for him the Fitbit-reported caloric expenditure only slightly overreported. He and I are different; perhaps his walking style is significantly less efficient than mine, or perhaps it's something in the composition of our diets (the human body is an imperfect heat engine; different sorts of foods are converted with varying efficiencies, and even the combinations matter).

      Then I tried using my phone to measure my steps. It reported far fewer steps than my Fitbit did every day, which concerned me, so I did some tests. I walked some measured courses with both and counted my steps. The Fitbit was darned near perfect, being off by only a step or two in thousands -- and it's entirely possible that those errors were mine, not the device's, since I was counting mentally rather than using a counting device. The phone, was bad... but in a consistent way. In fact, I found that, for me, applying Fitbit's formula (using their web site) but my phone's step counts actually provided a much better estimate of caloric expenditure, when calibrated against weight change.

      If you're actually trying to convert steps to calories, I think inter-person variability is a bigger factor than device accuracy, and if you're anal enough to actually try to calibrate the system, your calibration for the former will easily take care of the latter -- as long as you consistently use the same device.

      However most people don't, and won't ever, do the controlled experimentation and analysis to calibrate themselves. So what most people really use a pedometer for is to (a) track relative physical activity level over time and (b) set and work towards goals of increasing activity. If what matters is relative activity, then an inaccurate but reasonably consistent device is just as good as a perfectly-accurate device.

      And you probably already have a phone, which is a reasonably-consistent pedometer. If you already have a Nike Fuelband, that works, too.

      (And now I'm waiting to see if my AC stalker shows up and crapfloods responses to this post.)

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    2. Re:Bad Summary: Looking at the graphs in the study by Chrisq · · Score: 2

      "Fitbit only usable device, Nike Fuelband total shit".

      I think they're all quite usable. In this space utility is not dependent on accuracy, for most people, because for most people it really doesn't matter if you get an extremely accurate step count. What matters is that you get a reasonable estimate of your activity level, as compared with you activity level measured on other days.

      You could argue that something that sometimes only registers half the steps might make you fitter .... if you exercise until it says 10,000 steps every day you could be doing a lot more.

  5. Sure, you could use your phone, but by indytx · · Score: 2

    Phones are inconvenient compared to a fitness tracker. First, I have to charge my phone daily, and my tracker can go at least a week. Second, I don't have to keep my phone in the bedroom. I suppose I'm just showing my age for not wanting my phone in my bedroom. My tracker can silently wake me up! I'd have to actually sleep with my phone for that. Finally, I don't like running or exercising with my phone. My tracker weighs so much less, and I don't have to worry about it getting sweaty. Phones can do so much, but sometimes you just want a device which does less.

    --
    Make love, not reality television.
  6. Is FitBit *TOO* accurate? by KWTm · · Score: 2

    I have a FitBit, I also have a smart phone with the FitBit app on. The smart phone has motion sensors and data collection ability.

    The FitBit is a lot more accurate

    I'd like an opinion from you as a FitBit user (or any other FitBit users out there)...

    Yes, FitBit's advantages include the fact that it follows you everywhere since it's more easily worn anywhere, including the shower nowadays for some of the newer models.

    I got a FitBit as a gift for a good friend of mine. She was appalled by how it asks for permission to send very private info, and was really hesitant about starting to use it. (And I thought *I* was the one always warning people about society being apathetic about the insidious encroachment of privacy by software!) I did some digging and found articles on the web nothing that "Ira Hunt, the agency's chief tech officer, had this to say about fitness bands: 'What's really most intriguing is that you can be 100% guaranteed to be identified by simply your gait - how you walk.'"

    Also, apparently FitBit asks for permission to access your Contacts info on the iPhone, purportedly just so it can contact all your friends who own FitBits and tell them how excited you are to have gotten one.

    Would it be true that, with a smartphone app rather than a purpose-built device, you'd have more control over the privacy settings and what the fitness program does with its data? At least, presumably, there would be a choice of apps and you could choose one that is less invasive of privacy. I don't know because I use a Linux(Maemo)-based phone and don't have access to the wonderful world of Android/iPhone. Any comments in this regard would be appreciated.

    Epilogue: My friend started to set up her FitBit but got scared enough about per privacy that she decided to return it. Concerned about the company harvesting her data after she returned it, she hid it in a place for two weeks to guarantee that its battery would run out before she returned it. (Not sure if this is the way to do it.)

    --
    404555974007725459910684486621289147856453481154 in hex is "You sank my Battleship?"
    [GPG key in journal]
  7. Possible sexism by mooglejoe · · Score: 2

    Something my fiancé pointed out is that phones can never work quite as well as fitness trackers for women. Women's clothes often don't have useful pockets if they have pockets at all. So if she's walking around the house in a dress without a purse those aren't steps are likely not getting tracked. Though that might be a small number of steps so it might not make a difference overall.

  8. Sunk costs by sjbe · · Score: 2

    But smartphones are a lot more expensive than fitness trackers.

    Depends on how you measure it. I've already got a smartphone. It's a sunk cost. A fitness tracker would have minimal benefit to me at significant additional cost.

    Moreover, they tend to be far more complicated devices.

    Because they do a lot more. I don't think that is news to anyone.

    Moreover, they are quite big and inconvenient to carry along when practicing fitness.

    This is the one and only meaningful benefit to fitness trackers. Instead of carrying a full computer you are just carrying the sensors and some storage to log the data.

    1. Re:Sunk costs by hooiberg · · Score: 2

      If you already have a smartphone, the story is a bit different, I agree.

      If you want a device that does a lot more, that may also be OK. But it makes sense only when you would also use all those features. If I would just like something that monitors my fitness, I would not be tempted to buy a device that can do a lot of other things as well. If I am looking for a chair, I will not buy a car, just because it is four chairs with a whole lot of extra stuff. And I would not like to take the time to get acquainted with a smart phone, while I could master a fitness tracker in a few minutes. But then again, that is just personal.

  9. Use cases by sjbe · · Score: 2

    Phones are inconvenient compared to a fitness tracker.

    Only in some circumstances. For general use as a pedometer I normally have my smartphone with me anyway so a fitness tracker would be redundant. The only time a fitness tracker is helpful is when the bulk of a smartphone makes carrying one prohibitive or when there is a risk of damage to the phone (sweat, impact etc)

    First, I have to charge my phone daily, and my tracker can go at least a week

    I charge my phone daily anyway. Not really seeing a problem here. Doesn't really cause me any problems

    Second, I don't have to keep my phone in the bedroom. I suppose I'm just showing my age for not wanting my phone in my bedroom.

    I use my phone as my alarm clock so different strokes for different folks I suppose. It's the only alarm clock that I can program to go off on a weekly schedule so that I don't have to remember to set it every damn night (I can be forgetful about that) and it's portable so I can have it with me easily no matter where I sleep.

    Finally, I don't like running or exercising with my phone. My tracker weighs so much less, and I don't have to worry about it getting sweaty. Phones can do so much, but sometimes you just want a device which does less.

    I don't like to carry anything while I exercise either so I can appreciate that. That is to my mind the primary use case for a fitness tracker. Actually I think it should be the primary use case for a smart watch. Basically a sensor suite that you carry with you that can give you some basic info.

  10. Chances are you have a smartphone by sjbe · · Score: 2

    If you already have a smartphone, the story is a bit different, I agree.

    And the sales figures for smartphones say that odds are far better than not that you do have a smartphone. I don't think I've met a single person who has a fitness tracker who does not also have a smartphone. The target demographic for fitness trackers is very close to a subset of the demographic for smartphones.

    If I would just like something that monitors my fitness, I would not be tempted to buy a device that can do a lot of other things as well.

    Please point me to a fitness tracker that is usable as a standalone device without either a smartphone or a PC. I've certainly never seen one.

    And I would not like to take the time to get acquainted with a smart phone, while I could master a fitness tracker in a few minutes.

    If you haven't actually tried a smartphone how do you know they are harder to use? Honestly my fitbit took more setup time than my phone did and I find the interface considerably less intuitive.

  11. Re:I've used both... by DigiShaman · · Score: 2

    wrist based tracker wins.

    I'm very skeptical of this claim. Take a typical program hacking code all day. He lives a sedentary lifestyle with the exceptions of just his wrists moving as he types on the keyboard all day long. I seriously doubt that what amounts to a keyboard marathon burns all that much calories compared to moving around with your whole body. Simply standing upright and not moving your arms would burn more; because it takes energy for the muscles to keep you in that stance.

    --
    Life is not for the lazy.
  12. Why are we step counting in the 21st century? by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Step-counting is fine in the gym, but on the street a smartphone can do what no fitness tracker can: track how far you are walking/running and, combined with map information, over what hills and at what altitude. The old-style pedometer relied on your being able to calculate an average stride and stick with it under all conditions.

  13. Employer Benefits by braindrainbahrain · · Score: 3, Insightful

    In my case, my employer gives me Health Care Spending account money based on how many steps I log on my fitbit. So even if my phone can do the function, it won't get me my money.