Cool thanks for that info, it was a sort of dual purpose question. If I accept the bugg is 'pretty darn accurate' then I wonder how accurate the charts are, and vice-versa.
not burning as much calories while sleeping can be easily explained tho. If you've lost weight (fat), fat is still metabolically active just not near as much as muscle, so there's not as much there burning calories just to stay alive.
The caloric differences between various activities and the bugg I can justify given that lardasses like me probably aren't able to push my muscles as hard or as far as a 'generally fit person', which is what I'm sure most charts are derived from. Basic reality for me is, I'm not going to be able to do a mile run @ my current 315lbs unless there's a chocolate cake in front of me, and even then, I doubt I'd last till the end of the block. (thank you phillip morris), but put me on a bike, and I can likely do much better because of the gearing and fighting my own mass and get closer to what 'average' people are doing as long as I can relatively keep my wind. Make sense?
Maybe I'll look into it when I get my tax refund. it is quite a bit of a bite out of the wallet for someone like me. No real money reserves, thanks to the economy.
If anything, even if its only about 75% accurate, burn-wise, it seems like a good tool to keep a person honest about their intakes and expenditures.
So I think all that's really left is if the subscription is absolutely necessary to make any real use of the thing, or can you mostly get by with the system and the watch on a day to day basis?
