BodyMedia FIT Armband vs. Fitbit Ultra Accuracy (Stats Comparison)

I’ve worn BodyMedia’s FIT Armband and the Fitbit Ultra together for the last few weeks.  In doing so, I’ve discovered that the FIT Armband consistently records more steps taken and more calories burned than the Fitbit.

On average, for me at least, BodyMedia’s FIT Armband reports anywhere from 15-25% more calories being burned a day than the Fitbit.

Bodymedia’s FIT Armband stats:

bodymedia stats BodyMedia FIT Armband vs. Fitbit Ultra Accuracy (Stats Comparison)

Calories burned / steps taken according to FIT Armband:  3,624 / 13,140

Fitbit Ultra stats:

fitbit ultra stats BodyMedia FIT Armband vs. Fitbit Ultra Accuracy (Stats Comparison)

Calories burned / steps taken according to Fitbit Ultra: 3,032 / 11,379

I took a random, average day (last Wednesday).  An “average” day consists of a weight lifting session in the morning, working in the office all day, going to/from said office, cardio in the evening, and random house chores.

Which one is more accurate?

I don’t know.

BodyMedia’s rep said they had performed studies showing that it was more accurate.  I asked to see the studies, but I haven’t seen anything as of today — don’t read much into this though, as I’m sure she’s just busy.

As I said with my initial FIT Armband vs. Fitbit Ultra review, you’d be happy using either device.  As a general rule of thumb when counting calories, you always want to try to slightly overestimate the calories you consume while underestimating the calories you burn.

We have a tendency of doing the opposite without realizing it.