Path: ...!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail From: Frank Slootweg Newsgroups: comp.mobile.android Subject: Re: Steps counting apps Date: 16 May 2024 15:38:08 GMT Organization: NOYB Lines: 31 Message-ID: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: individual.net jojF8nC1Otie8r3jzPYlZQYwb38TR6cs68KoDsaq0ZkaOUsFgl X-Orig-Path: not-for-mail Cancel-Lock: sha1:flP3PzXC4vEYeacvhljU3tXIYX4= sha256:0TZlbsqUn4q9PRAasrhriBa6IR4/G7CDjNS8iNJ/ka4= User-Agent: tin/1.6.2-20030910 ("Pabbay") (UNIX) (CYGWIN_NT-10.0-WOW/2.8.0(0.309/5/3) (i686)) Hamster/2.0.2.2 Bytes: 2400 Jim the Geordie wrote: > In article , hugybear@gmx.net says... > > > > On 16.05.24 14:54, Carlos E.R. wrote: > > > On 2024-05-16 11:43, Jim the Geordie wrote: > > >> Just out of curiosity I thought I might try a STEPS counter app. > > >> Many seem to come with all sorts of health monitoring extras, which I'm > > >> not bothered about, but happy to enter and not use. > > >> However there are massive differences between them on the numbers of > > >> steps they claim I have taken and some don't appear to work at all. > > >> I'm not wanting to start a thread about the health benefits, just to > > >> find the simplest, accurate, free one. > > > > > > A cheap smart watch will do it easily and accurately. > > > > Jim asked for an app on his *Android phone*. > > By far not everyone wants to wear one of these ugly and for all visible > > "watches". And btw they are not more accurate than a smartphone. > > I just set up 4 apps before going out. When I got back: they said I had > taken 305, or 476, or 210, or 558 steps!!! So you've proven that Carlos is correct and Jörg is wrong. Nothing out of the ordinary. For *running*, a smartphone app and the smartphone in an upper-arm 'holster' is probably somewhat OK. For *walking* - i.e. your "STEPS" -, the specialized sensors of a 'smartwatch' (or 'fitness tracker') - and their position - give more accurate results.