Just have to state this, I read that article and its the stupidest thing I think I have ever read.
No wonder they have comments disabled on their article as everyone would be screaming bs at them, including me
First off, I don't see how that is a politically motivated article other than the fact that the whole thing is a Lie. Im against FitBit(s) anyway here are a few examples of why the device itself is unhealthy, I dont own an iphone btw its a government trap IMO im not a doomsday prepper or anything (I do have my stash of guns and food though), but its obvious the government tracks people via iphone, cameras through computers (which I own a laptop, taped the camera hackers can easily see through them) can easily be hacked through, and Fitbit, anything connected to the internet can be Easily tracked in a nutshell.
There are Fitbit apps for the iPhone and Android too which allow fans to log their food, activities, water intake, and weight, as well as track their fitness goals throughout the day even while offline.
While the Fitbit and devices like them may seem like a very helpful tool to keep people motivated and moving toward exercise goals, I don’t personally use one nor do I recommend them to folks that ask me about them. Here are my reasons.

Exercise is About Relaxation, Movement and Stress Reduction
For me, exercise is primarily about movement, relaxation and stress reduction. It frees the mind from the cares of the day for a short period of time.

Adding a lot of data and personal activity tracking to the mix is decidedly un-relaxing to me. I don’t want my every breath, step and heartbeat chronicled, tracked and categorized as I go through my workout whether it be a leisurely stroll around the neighborhood or a high intensity rebounding session on our outdoor trampoline.

Tracking my steps around the house as I do laundry, cook and wash dishes seems very over the top and rather invasive too. Can’t we just enjoy our exercise and daily activities without having to micromanage and examine every aspect about them under a microscope?

Exercise is not primarily about weight loss either at least to me. It’s about getting the blood pumping to facilitate the body’s detoxification mechanisms and to build and maintain muscle, fitness and balance. Simple burning of calories may help you lose weight but this alone never got anyone healthy, so why bother tracking exercise at such an elementary, two dimensional level?

While some may find Fitbits helpful to the exercise process, to me, they detract from the psychological benefits of exercise enjoyment by micromanaging what should be experienced in an expansive manner.

Fitbit: Unnecessary Exposure to EMF Radiation
There are now pictures available that show actual wireless radiation surrounding a person using a wireless enabled device. You can see photographer Luis Hernan’s incredible photos here.

While it is basically impossible to get away from the constant bathing of the body in wireless radiation while at work or in a public place, exercise particularly in the outdoors offers a prime opportunity for rest and release from the onslaught of electromagnetic fields (EMF) for a brief period of time.

It makes no sense, at least to me, to be hooked up to a device like a Fitbit that emits any sort of EMF radiation while exercising which is already putting the body under physical stress from sweating and detoxification.

Fitbits that people wear while sleeping seem most dangerous of all. There is absolutely no data proving the safety of these devices during sleep even though the user manuals claim that “This equipment complies with FCC radiation exposure limits set forth for an uncontrolled environment.”

Quality sleep is very important for maintaining a healthy weight. Research has shown that poor quality sleep causes weight problems. Even just a few nights of poor sleep can lead to almost immediate weight gain.

Are Fitbit nighttime wearers inadvertently undoing their daytime efforts to lose weight?

In fact, sleep and good health are so inextricably linked that many holistic medical practitioners recommend turning all wireless sources off at night with some going so far as to recommend flipping the entire house breaker until morning! The reason? The EMF radiation swirling around you may negatively affect sleep in a very profound way over the long term.

I’ve written before about how wireless baby monitors aren’t a good idea for sleeping baby. Fitbits worn during sleep transmitting data via wireless are a bad idea for similar reasons.

According to PowerWatch, a wireless baby monitor at less than 1 meter away from the baby’s crib was roughly equivalent to the microwave radiation experienced from a cell phone tower only 150 meters away. How much worse would a wireless enabled Fitbit be that is worn on your physical person as you exercise or sleep?

Interestingly, if you have dental amalgams (silver fillings) or titanium implants, this may make the wireless radiation from constantly wearing a digital Fitbit type device even more problematic. According to Lina Garcia, DDS, DMD:

“When considering the numerous reasons for the increasing prevalence of chronic illness in our society, I think that we should not overlook the possibility that metal-containing dental work, especially titanium implants, could be acting like antennas for the microwave [which includes wireless] transmissions going on between our cell phones and all of the cell phone towers in our 21st century environment.

… it is important to be aware that metal dental restorations and implants have already been shown to cause galvanic and electromagnetic stress for the human body. Galvanic and electromagnetic stress occurs when an unnatural electric current is generated by metal ions interacting with the electrolyte-rich fluid known as saliva.

If you doubt that you are surrounded by very strong wireless radiation while wearing a wireless enabled device be it a cell phone or a Fitbit, you can now download an app that will give you a colorful visual on those waves invisibly surrounding you with blue indicating the strongest wireless radiation down to red which indicates the weakest signal.

Heavy Metal Exposure from a Fitbit?
In March 2014, the Consumer Product Safety Commission officially recalled the Fitbit Force due to injuries to an estimated 9,900 people. These customers suffered from skin irritations such as blisters, rashes, and peeling skin after continual wearing of the Fitbit Force for a period of time. Fitbit stated that after consulting with medical professionals, the general assessment is that the skin problems were likely allergic reactions to nickel, a alloy in the stainless steel or adhesives used to assemble the Fitbit Force.

While it is well known that ingesting heavy metals like nickel can cause health problems, what is less well known is that the skin can absorb heavy metals too. Cooking acidic foods in stainless steel is known to leech alloys like nickel into the food, but could stainless steel placed on the skin which is normally acidic at a pH of 4.5-5.5 leech metals too? Even minute amounts of heavy metals in the body can have negative health consequences so this is far from a trivial concern.

Until there is more research and definitive answers to this question, it seems prudent to be wary of products like the Fitbit Force that expose the skin to heavy metals for extended periods of time.

Must Have a Fitbit?
If you find that despite any health concerns, you simply must have a device like a Fitbit to track personal activities, my suggestion would be to seek one of the older models that work mechanically rather than digitally.

For example, a basic mechanical pedometer counts steps by measuring how much the body shakes. An internal object moves up and down with the motion of the person wearing the pedometer, which senses the vibrations of feet hitting the floor. As the ball moves, it activates a switch that clicks the counter forward.

You can tell that you have a mechanical pedometer as it will work simply by shaking it even without any walking involved.

My Experience Using a Fitbit Scale
While I don’t wear a Fitbit like device for the reasons cited above, I did use a Fitbit scale once a few months back. These devices measure BMI, body fat and other health statistics by sending an electrical signal through the body.

While the companies making these scales insist the signal shot through the body to gather the data is safe, the scale isn’t recommended for pregnant women, children under 10, or anyone with an implanted medical device.


While I do not consider myself EMF sensitive in any way, I felt immediately light headed and fatigued after having my health statistics gathered by the Fitbit scale. The experience really surprised me, as I didn’t expect a single use to produce such a reaction. I didn’t feel right until a number of hours later.

Needless to say, I won’t be using a Fitbit type of scale again in the future!

Use of a Fitbit Like Device is a Personal Decision
While choosing to use products like the Fitbit ultimately is a personal decision like whether or not to put a cellphone up to your head, in my book, it seems important to learn to switch off from our constant exposure to electronic devices and EMF radiation.

Exercise and sleep are the most obvious times to give yourself both a mental and physical break from EMF exposure.

article credit to Sarah, The Healthy Home Economist
Last edited:
And just to add on:
Fitbit trackers boasting the company's PurePulse heart rate monitoring technology are "dangerous" and pose a risk to general consumers. That's according to Dr. Edward Jo, assistant professor of Applied Physiology at California State Polytechnic University.

Jo, along with his colleague Dr Brett Dolezal were instructed by Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein to research the accuracy of the Fitbit Charge HR, the Fitbit Surge and the Fitbit Blaze, as part of an ongoing class action lawsuit it has filed against the wearable tech company.

"The legal group wanted me to do a validation study – me, as an unbiased independent researcher – and whatever the outcome was, I was to do a comprehensive study and provide them with the results," Jo explained to Wareable.

The result of which, as you may have read earlier this week, concluded that Fitbit's heart rate accuracy is, on average, 20 beats per minute inaccurate during moderate to high-intensity exercise.

"This inaccuracy that we've seen can definitely pose a danger to not only the clinical population, but those population of individuals who may not know that they have any cardiac related conditions," said Jo. "It can definitely put them at risk."

However, Fitbit has quickly moved to counter the results of the study, and contacted us to state: "What the plaintiffs' attorneys call a 'study' is biased, baseless, and nothing more than an attempt to extract a payout from Fitbit. It lacks scientific rigor and is the product of flawed methodology. It was paid for by plaintiffs' lawyers who are suing Fitbit, and was conducted with a consumer-grade electrocardiogram – not a true clinical device, as implied by the plaintiffs' lawyers. Furthermore, there is no evidence the device used in the purported 'study' was tested for accuracy."

Firm words indeed, but words that didn't take Dr. Jo by surprise.

"It's expected obviously," he responded. "They're not going to say, 'Oh great job Dr. Jo'. If the result of an independent study is not in the favour of the product, obviously the manufacturer will come up with a generic rebuttal – and one of the most generic ones is to say it's flawed methodology."

Fitbit on the ropes
"Mudslinging in a litigation contest is not that unfamiliar but I was a little bit insulted on their behalf to the depths that Fitbit has stooped to call out independent researchers who have done many validation studies," Kevin Budner, one of the attorneys working on the case against Fitbit, told us.

"There is absolutely zero incentive for an academic to sully their reputation with a biased report. If anybody is misrepresenting the facts and the reality of the world to gain a profit, then it's Fitbit. They very aggressively market a heart rate feature, knowing it's a big selling point, saying 'every beat counts' and 'know your heart'," he added.
With regards to the Zephyr Technology BioHarness, the device used in the study to compare the Fitbits to, Jo himself had this to say: "The device has been validated twice to the traditional 12-lead ECG and also a 3-lead ECG for heart rate measurement. It's FDA approved, so for them to say it's not a clinical grade device – well, I don't even know what that means."

A Fitbit spokesperson also highlighted an additional study, one by Consumer Reports, that gave the Surge and HR an 'excellent' rating. However, that study is useless according to Dr. Jo, as there were only two individuals tested.

"If they're talking about flawed methodology, this one had the most minimal amount of scientific rigor you could possibly have," argued Jo. "It's crude, not sophisticated and has minimal data. They say they did statistical analysis – you can't do statistical analysis with just two data points. And this is their go-to reference?"

Jo told us that his study involved 43 subjects simultaneously wearing a Surge and Charge HR on each wrist, resulting in over 120,000 data points in controlled conditions.

Surge and Charge HR inaccuracies
Jo also explained that the inaccuracies he reported were not consistent and, more worryingly, he also noted differences between Fitbit's own devices, while the individual user was wearing both at the same time.

"If the difference was systematic, that would be one thing – say always underestimating by 20 beats all the time compared to the ECG," he said. "But those differences were sporadic. It was ambiguous and all over the place.

"Another separate analysis that we did was comparing the data from the Charge HR versus the Fitbit Surge," he added. "They are purported to have the same optical heart rate sensor. So you'd think the results for an individual would be the same for a given time point but we saw inconsistencies. It was off. From a statistical standpoint it was significantly off."
Fitbit disputes the report and has always maintained that its devices are consumer products and not medical devices. However, the attorney Budner has issues with that distancing.

"They're bandying about this term 'medical device' like it's the be-all and end-all," he told us. "But it's kind of a red-herring. The issue is they advertise it and sell it, at a premium, to do something – monitor your heart rate during exercise.

"It doesn't matter if it's a medical device or not a medical device, they tell the consumers it will do one thing, consumers buy it and it turns out that it doesn't do that thing. That's classic consumer fraud and I think that's what we're dealing with here.

"We're not saying that this is supposed to be an ECG; it's a consumer device. But there are a lot of consumer devices out there that actually do provide close and meaningful heart data to consumers – and these Fitbit devices simply don't."

Fitbit leading the way
Fitbit has told us that its research team rigorously researched and developed PurePulse technology for three years before introducing it "and continues to conduct extensive internal studies to test the features of our products."

The company was also keen to express us that the Fitbit Charge HR is the top selling fitness tracker on the market, and is "embraced by millions of consumers around the globe."

We at Wareable actually rate the Fitbit Blaze, featuring PurePulse technology, as our best all-round fitness tracker. However, as we lamented the sporadic bpm recordings of both the Surge and the Charge HR in their reviews in 2015, we also had big concerns about the Blaze's performance during exercise
We've written at length about the accuracy and shortcomings of optical heart rate technology, and the usefulness of the data, especially at high intensity. And in our own testing against consumer grade HR straps, we found Fitbit's PurePulse technology to be unreliable during high-intensity workouts.

"As we upped the pace, things fell apart," wrote executive editor James Stables in his review. "As our heart rate rose up from 150bpm to 165bpm, the Fitbit remained static, locked to 150bpm. As we started to sprint the chest strap reported 170–180bpm, yet still the Fitbit stayed at 150.
"Later in the run it came back to the chest strap at around 165 as we started to cool down. It's a disaster zone… The Blaze's tracking can't handle high intensity, and what's more, it suffers from a dreadful lag time, making its suitability for hardcore sessions non-existent."
Fitbit may have the fitness tracker market sewn up but it seems it has a long way to go before it can truly boast about its HRM credentials.

But as far as the fitness crowd - you know who the real fit people are? The ones that don't need all that stupid stuff. The ones that wake up and go running in whatever stuff allows them to move, Chuck Taylors if they have to because they can't find their sneakers. We don't need to change into workout gear to go for a walk or dress up like Lance Armstrong to go for a bike ride. We don't need to wear $150 Lulusemen tights to do 15 half-cashed crunches at the local YMCA, and we certainly don't need a tracking device on our wrists to tell us we are active today. You don't need to optimize every breath, step, and stuff you take with a dumb-looking gadget. Just get out there and give it an honest effort. Work your butt off and get to the brink of quitting several times, but stick through it because you are a freaking warrior. Then go home, rest, and repeat the next day.

Most reactions