New Issue: Orbital Catastrophe Ahead? Read Now

Wearable Step Counters Offer Exercise Leg Up

High-tech pedometers do a decent job of counting steps accurately. Dina Fine Maron reports.

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Sometimes it’s hard to get moving. So setting a goal for the number of steps you walk each day can be a good motivator. But how to keep track of your total? A new study finds that many of the widely available wearable step counters actually keep a pretty accurate count. The research is in JAMA. [Meredith A. Case et al, Accuracy of Smartphone Applications and Wearable Devices for Tracking Physical Activity Data]

For the study, 14 volunteers agreed to walk on treadmills while decked out with 10 popular wearable or smartphone counting technologies. The devices were compared with actual manual counts of either 500 or 1,500 steps. So how’d they do? 

Smartphone apps were better step trackers than wearable tech—but the wearables were not terrible either. They typically slightly undercounted, compared to manual tallies, for example.  Some of the discrepancy between the apps and wearables could be because volunteers’ phones were in a pocket close to their hips where it may be easier to pick up specific movements. But in everyday life smartphones would not always be in a pocket, of course.

Of the 10 apps or devices studied, the Fitbit One was most accurate and had good consistency. 

Although none of the counts were that far off—for example, clocking just 1,200 steps instead of 1,500—the findings suggest that it’s probably a good idea to take the numbers as a loose estimate. And if you can’t walk somewhere, you can still feel motivated to park a few hundred steps away from your final destination.

—Dina Fine Maron 

[The above text is a transcript of this podcast.]

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe