Fitbit Zip vs. Nike Fuel Band
Monday, November 26, 2012
Being one of those gadget crazy types, I've bought both the fitbit and the Nike Fuel Band.
How do they stack up?
I compared results today, as I wore both and wore them for exactly the same amount of time. My fitbit was on my belt. The Nike Fuel Band is a bracelet.
Fitbit registered 5209 steps / 2.1 miles / 1536 calories burned (obviously taking basal burn rate into account)
Fuel registered 4678 steps and 1.92 miles, with 439 calories burned (obviously NOT taking basal burn rate into account)
That's a difference of 600 steps--who knows which is right? I think I'll do this experiment a few days and see if it's a consistent difference.
I like that fitbit is synching automatically with SparkPeople, so I'll keep using it. I like that the Nike Fuel Band is so readily visible. I find it motivational to look at it and see how many calories I've burned or how much "Fuel" I've earned. I can't do that with the fitbit without taking it off (awkward if I have it on my bra, as I often do!). It's more of a visual reminder than the fitbit is.
Updates to come...
Monday 11/26 - The fitbit logged 900 more steps than the Nike Fuel Band. I suspect the NFB is more accurate in this instance.
Tuesday 11/27 At 11 a.m. The fitbit was already 700 steps ahead of the NFB. Somehow, by the end of the day, the two became more in sync. The final steps on the NFB were 8,493 and fitbit, 8,698.