Talk:Fitbit

  This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Lorinangj. Peer reviewers: Soriaj295.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:28, 16 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

With the Fitbit finally approaching release, I've done a serious overhaul of the article over the past few edits. Summary:

• Rewrote basically the entire thing.
• Cleaned up references to use cite templates.
• Removed the stub marker.
• Changing to Start-class with this edit.

I'd like to get it to C-class also, but I think it still needs at least a picture of the device and/or website once they're both available. Hopefully I'll have more to add once I get mine. --bithaze (T.C) 06:43, 19 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Dear Madam, dear Sir:

How much does to cost?

Sincerely yours 80.219.20.36 (talk) 14:25, 21 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

This is not a sales website. Wikipedia has no affiliation with Fitbit. In fact, Wikipedia has an explicit policy of not including prices of items. You will need to go to Fitbit's own website http://www.fitbit.com/. —Bill Price (nyb) 20:55, 21 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

I started a section about the new Fitbit Ultra. It's a stub only, but maybe someone else can chime in and add more references and information. I moved the previous development history section into section Fitbit Classic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.182.132.164 (talk) 11:10, 8 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

I'm thinking about putting up the Advertising template, even though there are no links to promotional content. The reason is that I think that the article doesn't have a neutral point of view and is more focused on it's reception than it's history. sa (talk) 18:23, 20 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

Have tried to add more general information on health effects User:Sheldon.andre. The evidence from a health point of view for these types of devices is really poor.

"Accuracy" is a surrogate marker for "do these devices help people expend more energy and thus lose weight". The best avaliable evidence says no. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:28, 12 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

• Thanks, Doc. However, one of the things I forgot to mention was there is no "History" section for the article. The article itself is just fine except for this problem. Another problem is that the intro doesn't sound neutral, and is more like the history for the article. Just wanted to bring that up. sa (talk) 19:47, 12 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Sheldon.andre and Doc James: I've gone ahead and moved some lead material into a history section for the reasons stated above. Doc, re: your most recent edit, I'm curious about what including the weight loss sentence in the lead accomplishes. It feels like a bit of an abrupt change of topic to me. I suppose if we assume that fitness=weight loss, the preceding material would support the inclusion of some sort of weight loss effectiveness evaluation. I'm skeptical, given the article's current size, whether this constitutes due weight. Thoughts? Airplaneman ✈ 19:46, 26 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

I also do not understand why it is included. The assumption weight loss=fitness should not (implicitly) be in the article, without a reference to support it. Furthermore the information in the "Health effects" section is about wearables in general and not specifically about fitbit products. It seems more appropriate to place it in wearable technology. -VeniVidiVicipedia (talk) 10:54, 27 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

A discussion of the effectiveness of these devices is useful. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:00, 27 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

A discussion is relevant, but I don't think you're supposed to have discussions in the article lead. I'm going to move that phrase out of the lead and into the relevant section below. FWIW the participants in the study you cited were all obese at the beginning of the trial (averaging over 200 lb) and lost on average 7 lb / 13 lb (technology / standard intervention) over 24 months, which means they're still obese after two years of dieting and exercise. That's hardly something to be proud of - it would seem that both interventions were ultimately a failure despite some progress. I didn't read where participants had a weight loss goal to meet - just self reported diet and exercise requirements. It would seem that a conventional weight loss regiment would include a targeted amount of weight to be lost (and not merely that some measurable amount be lost.) Lime in the Coconut 18:22, 12 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Additionally, I would like to remove the part that references a lack of evidence that the devices increase physical activity or affect one's diet. That was not the intent of the study that you're using to back that statement. Indeed, participants were instructed to perform a set amount of physical activity so it doesn't seem logical to try and use this research to extrapolate a conclusion on that front.Lime in the Coconut 18:35, 12 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

A discussion of the effects of a device marketed to improve health in the lead is definitely notable and due weight. The lead is supposed to summarize the most import points.

In fact the best avaliable evidence finds that this device when added to usual care decreases rather than increases the amount of weight lost. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:50, 12 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

I'm the third person to randomly happen upon this article and come to the same immediate conclusion. I'm going to revert, feel free to triple up. My edit does not diminish the weight of your contribution by moving it to a more appropriate location. Lime in the Coconut 14:14, 13 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

I am not sure all of them are "random". You can try a RfC. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:00, 13 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

When an intervention matching a control in an RCT one does not spin it as "However, those using the technology enhanced intervention experienced similar improvements in overall fitness, diet, exercise habits, and body composition."[1]

Negative results are defined as "There was no evidence that the devices altered the amount of exercise people got or the diet they eat."

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:08, 8 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Doc James: I reverted the edits you made, because you changed the first sentence of that section to your own interpretation. In that process the sentence you mentioned also got reverted.

I do not know what you are trying to say with 'spin as' (english no is me first language).

My guess is that the basis for the statement that I reverted is this line of text from the reference: "Both groups had significant improvements in body composition, fitness, physical activity, and diet, with no significant difference between groups." You can find it in the result subsection of the Abstract.

My question to you is where did you find that definition you mentioned? I could not find it in the reference. VeniVidiVicipedia (talk) 20:45, 8 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

"No significant difference between groups" is how scientists say "as far as we could tell, it didn't do anything" when they're talking to other scientists. "[T]hose using the technology enhanced intervention experienced similar improvements in overall fitness, diet, exercise habits, and body composition" is a roundabout and obtuse way to say "the technology didn't help". I think "There was no evidence that the devices altered the amount of exercise people got or the diet they ate" is a fair translation into neutral, common language. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 01:09, 9 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

What I mean is your wording appears to be trying to make a negative result sound positive. In English we call that "spinning the results". We also paraphrase so as to comply with copyright. This means reading the text, understanding the text, and than writing it in your own words. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:26, 9 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

It is not my wording.[2] I think you are to quick with jumping to conclusions about my intentions.[3] Carefully looking at the changes other people made and asking for clarification when you don't understand is a better approach then reverting, accusing and not questioning your own understanding of the text. VeniVidiVicipedia (talk) 10:49, 9 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

I think VeniVidiVicipedia was following the wording of the source, rather than trying to add a positive spin. The root of the problem was the awkward wording in the source itself. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 08:09, 9 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

I disagree with the sentence being a fair translation. The source clearly mentions the "technology enhanced intervention". So standard intervention + technology. The supposed fair translation seems to imply that only the influence of the devices on diet and exercise was tested, which is not the case. VeniVidiVicipedia (talk) 10:30, 9 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

My text is how one typically describes a negative RCT.

It is usual to have an active control. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:55, 9 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

I have no idea what you are talking about. Could you elaborate? VeniVidiVicipedia (talk) 19:17, 9 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

An RCT compares a treatment against a control. In this case the treatment was these devices and the control was usual care. When the active intervention does not beat the control intervention the outcome is defined as a negative result not as "both the control and treatment did well". Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:25, 10 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

What you're saying is not what is in the souce. The treatment was devices and usual care. What is an active intervention? VeniVidiVicipedia (talk) 13:54, 10 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

What I am saying is how one interprets such a source. In science one cannot generally use a placebo of nothing. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:01, 11 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

So you are saying it is normal practice to ignore the information in the source when it does not follow some set of customs? VeniVidiVicipedia (talk) 10:53, 11 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

So the sentence is "Both groups had significant improvements in body composition, fitness, physical activity, and diet, with no significant difference between groups."

This means "There was no evidence that the devices altered the amount that people exercised or their diet compared to control."

That they had an increase from the beginning of the trial is both groups is of lesser importance. Expecially with out evidence that these improvements were maintained long term. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:23, 11 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

This was a single study, the device used was not a FitBit, and the device was not used in the same way as a Fitbit (worn on upper arm), and data provided was not accessed in the same way (via a web page, rather than through an app). It seems a little too different for the study to be suitable here. - Bilby (talk) 21:02, 16 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

This sounds like an advertisement, even if it is referenced:

"Some evidence has found that the use of similar devices results in less weight loss rather than more.[5]"

Particularly in the header. Perhaps a subheading of "Effectiveness" would be a better place for such an assertion?

Rusty Lugnuts (talk) 22:11, 28 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

The lead is a summary and thus a summary of the health effects should occur their. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:42, 7 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Agree with the use of the term effectiveness. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:10, 7 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

> A Fitbit device played a role in solving another murder in 2018. Anthony Aiello murdered his stepdaughter Karen > Navarra while visiting her home and her body was found one month later. Data from her Fitbit fitness tracker > showed that her heart rate spiked when Aiello visited her and stopped five minutes before he left. Aiello was > arrested in September 2018 on murder charges and was booked into the Santa Clara County Jail. Aiello is currently > awaiting trial.

You should not write "Anthony Aiello murdered his stepdaughter" While he is awaiting trial for the crime. John G Hasler (talk) 23:34, 22 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

I believe this article's sections should be reordered. I propose that History should be the article's second section, followed by Products, Effectiveness, and then Reception. Right now, the Effectiveness section discusses the 2016 study findings dealing with wearable technology and weight loss before a reader even has a clear picture of what Fitbit manufactures. Reordering these four sections makes more sense to me. Some of everything (talk) 00:37, 13 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

The evidence regarding their usefulness should be higher. Fair bit of newer literature. Will work to update. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:27, 17 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

The review looked at all the studies done. Thus this is not accurate[4]

They looked at 550 studies in today of which six meet inclusion criteria. This sort of detail is in the text of the ref and not needed in the text. Same as mentioning 550 studies were looked at is not needed in the text. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:33, 17 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

They found 550 studies in their search. Only six met their criteria for examination. As the article says, of the six one was positive, one negative, and 4 had no effect. As only six studies met their criteria, only the six were examined. They didn't include the remaining 544 in their study. - Bilby (talk) 12:36, 17 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

All 550 were examined but 544 were excluded due to various reasons. Six were examined in depth. They looked at all on the topic in question. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:42, 17 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

If they were excluded, they weren't examined and their findings weren't considered. Only the findings of six studies were considered in the paper. - Bilby (talk) 12:47, 17 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

You cannot exclude something without examining it. But seriously we do not generally stipulate the exact number of studies examined in each part of a meta analysis. They look at all avaliable literature in a systematic manner. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:24, 18 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

Oddly enough, the authors said they did exclude the other studies, and only examined the 6. The problem is that a 6 study review is a very, very small sample for a paper of this type, so it is unusual to give such a small review such promince. By making clear the size of the review we leave it to the reader to evaluate. - Bilby (talk) 12:11, 18 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

Six studies is actually fairly decent. Many reviews find no studies that look at a question. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:12, 20 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

The question has been raised regarding if this article should discuss the effects / effectiveness of these devices. My position is obviously yes. Expecially with all the high quality sources on the topic. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:42, 19 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

seems prudent, would agree w/ Doc James--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:20, 19 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

It's relevant on activity tracker because that's at least an article on the concept in general. It seems jarring and almost non-neutral to just randomly include what amounts to a disclaimer in this article on a specific brand of activity tracker. In fact, are the studies you insist on citing actually specifically including Fitbit products? ViperSnake151  Talk  15:45, 19 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

Yes the article in question do include studies about Fitbit specifically. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:35, 19 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

Yes, some stuff will belong on both. Johnbod (talk) 21:39, 19 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

I agree that effectiveness should be discussed. It's a valid point in an article about Fitbit. And I like the new research that has been cited in to the article. But I had a similar reaction to the effectiveness topic that ViperSnake151 shared -- it seemed "jarring and almost non-neutral" due to its lofty position in the lead paragraph and as the first section after the lead paragraphs. For these reasons (and others), I believe the effectiveness section should be placed after the Products section. Some of everything (talk) 00:13, 20 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

The problem is that there is there little data to go on. Both the Böhm and Ridgers articles conclude that there is insufficient research to come to a conclusion, while the Brickwood review noted that the quality of the evidence was very low. As to Fitbit, what numbers I could determine were about half FitBit, half not, and mostly the discontinued clip-on models. So I'm inclined to be cautious about drawing too much out of these studies. - Bilby (talk) 03:42, 20 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

Then these reviews should be properly described in the pertinent section, and then appropriately summarized in the lede. If there are reliable reviews about a FitBit model, then it's pertinent to add in the article. If the sources say the quality of evidence is low, then it should be mentioned. It's not different from what we do for any other medically pertinent device or procedure. --Signimu (talk) 14:06, 20 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

I'm kind of leaning against, or at least keeping it quite short. Mobile phone#Health effects has information and links to two general articles, but there's no section on health effects in either iPhone or Android phone. As Signimu says, if there's something that's specific to a particular model of Fitbit, then it's worth mentioning here, but general research (e.g., "people exercise more initially, but then they stop") doesn't really belong here except as a general concept. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:01, 20 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

Yes agree with WhatamIdoing, for info pertaining to the general concept of activity trackers, it should be integrated there instead, then a link could be provided here for interested readers. --Signimu (talk) 18:29, 20 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

The name of this article was changed without obvious consensus. I propose that it be moved back, as Fitbit's name did not explicitly change to Google Fitbit. Mseingth2133444 (talk/contribs) 14:14, 18 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

@TempoaryAcc, please STOP moving the page without consensus. Please discuss why you moved the page, I can't keep undoing your undiscussed moves. Mseingth2133444 (talk/contribs) 17:17, 18 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

@TempoaryAcc, I have moved the page back. Please STOP moving it without consensus, this page should STAY in its current name unless there is consensus.Mseingth2133444 (talk/contribs) 23:16, 18 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

It would be helpful to explain the difference in battery life enhancements mentioned, as that's the sole reason people like myself stopped using them. Why spend $100 on something that's not going to last more than a year? And what about the e-waste? Came here looking for that info and found nothing. My last Fitbit was in 2010 and died after a year. Obviously, things are different now, but we need to know how. Viriditas (talk) 23:22, 16 August 2024 (UTC)Reply