Self hosted FLOSS fitness/workout tracker
122 comments
·February 13, 2025neilv
hk1337
To be fair, the app being posted is the server application which you can run locally. You do not need the phone application to use the web application.
The mobile app is also open source https://github.com/wger-project/flutter
I don't know how but I imagine you could build it and side load your own build to your phone?
AlienRobot
Seems relevant to the blog post I just read yesterday!
https://raphael.lullis.net/thinking-heads-are-not-in-the-clo...
satvikpendem
And what was posted yesterday on HN as well.
satvikpendem
Indeed, this should be local first software [0], not self-hosted but server required.
[0] localfirstweb.dev
ashu1461
Generally firebase / supabase do a very good job of providing client sdks to access database directly without the need of a server.
That way your data is still in cloud and you don't actually need a server.
satvikpendem
This is unrelated to local first, just because you don't need to set up your own backend (not a server, because they are all servers) does not mean that the app works purely on the client.
ants_everywhere
Supabase and firebase are servers.
In fact if something is "in the cloud", it's by definition being made available by a remote machine, AKA a server serving the data.
The alternative is not to have a server and instead have clients share data if data needs to be shared.
graemep
Really? They do not run on servers? Where us the data stored then?
globular-toast
That's even worse. The whole point of things like this are you do all your computing with your own computer(s). People in this thread are just saying that it would be even better if you could only use your phone/laptop etc and didn't have to also set up your own server.
walrus01
Yes, that's what "Self hosted" means, you install it on your own server. Your choice if it's something "cloud" based and remote from you, or resides in your home.
gchamonlive
Normally when talking about fitness tracking we are talking about embedded systems with very limited capacity both in terms of compute power and storage. You can use on-device storage to buffer tracking data, but any relevant and long term assessment and storage of the data has to be done off-site.
yencabulator
It's an Android/iOS app. On-device storage is measured in gigabytes, on-device CPU is very capable.
zekrioca
They are commenting about smaller devices such as a smart ring or a smart watch. Running a web server on such devices is the best way to deplete their battery.
satvikpendem
This app is not about biometric fitness tracking as in smart watches, it is about manually tracking workout information. In that case, there is no need for a server to start with.
nolroz
Huh, I totally don't get this conjecture... What do you consider fitness tracking? In my mind a basic fitness app is essentially a replacement for a journal.
GenericDev
[dead]
davisr
[flagged]
gchamonlive
Data isn't only about being able to store and process it, but correlate to other metrics and reliably persist the result.
Vrondi
That's what "self hosted" usually means.
timmg
Is there a missing "product" for [easy] "self-hosting" in the cloud? (Or does it exist? Or will it only apply to a narrow kind of user?)
Like I think there should be some way to "one-button-click" install "self-hosted" apps in the cloud, tied to my personal account (and maybe with auth tied to that account). And I pay the usage fees for the cloud (hopefully on a per-request kind of basis, not an always-on server instance).
Is this a thing that I don't know about? Or is the market too narrow to be useful? (Otherwise, why doesn't it already exist?)
diggan
> Is this a thing that I don't know about? Or is the market too narrow to be useful? (Otherwise, why doesn't it already exist?)
I'm not super familiar with it, but I think what you describe was/is the goal of Sandstorm (https://sandstorm.org/).
Then there are also efforts like YunoHost (https://yunohost.org/) which are kind of like that, gives SSO auth and everything out of the box for all the apps it supports.
Even easier to use and less involved would be maybe what TrueNAS Core has in terms of apps support, which is essentially also "one-click install" of self-hosted applications, backed by local Kubernetes installation if I remember correctly.
A more involved option for people who want to manage more themselves (both infrastructure and configuration-wise) is using NixOS, which is the approach I chose for my own local infrastructure at home. For the packages supported by NixPkgs, many applications are like ~4 lines of configuration to setup and get integrated with the rest of the apps you run.
All of these options you can run in the cloud, bare-metal or at home servers, afaik.
ncrmro
They are now backed by docker after the Electric Eel update.
diggan
Had to look it up, you're talking about TrueNAS moving from Kubernetes to Docker, just for clarification, https://forums.truenas.com/t/the-future-of-electric-eel-and-...
Huh, interesting as I literally moved from TrueNAS to NixOS because of two reasons 1) not liking something as complicated as Kubernetes for something as simple as home infrastructure and 2) to have a more reproducible setup.
Happy to hear 1 won't be an issue for others in the future :)
jasongi
The problem is that self hosted apps are rarely designed to be run serverless (why would they be?) and giving each app it’a own VPS or hosted container is going to price out the self-hosted crowd, to the point where you might as well be paying for some cloud software.
In particular, self hosted apps usually are using relational databases or SQLite which need persistent disk so can’t run serverless. They also sometimes require writing to physical disk instead of object storage like S3. Writing or rewriting apps to support serverless when they have no technical need to when self hosting would make things more complicated. Most CRUD frameworks used to write self-hosted apps do not work with NoSQL out of the box.
Thing is, almost every self hosted app supports docker now and so if you like, install portainer on a VPS or NUC or raspberry pi and you’ll be able to set up most self hosted apps easily without touching the command line.
diggan
> and giving each app it’a own VPS or hosted container is going to price out the self-hosted crowd,
As far as I know, myself and other self-hosters run these sort of applications/services on home infrastructure or VPSes/dedicated/bare-metal where multiple applications usually share one instance. This could be done with docker, or cgroups, or countless other ways. I'm not sure if that's what you mean with a "hosted container" though, don't think I've heard about that before.
jasongi
Yes. But that is not what OP comment is asking for. They want one-click. And request based pricing. I was explaining why request based pricing is infeasible and one-click install would price people out (because it would imply a VPS per service).
And I said the same thing at the end of my comment about the way people would host things using docker on a VPS or home server.
> Thing is, almost every self hosted app supports docker now and so if you like, install portainer on a VPS or NUC or raspberry pi and you’ll be able to set up most self hosted apps easily without touching the command line.
satvikpendem
Why would you use a new VPS for each application? Just dockerize and put all your apps on one VPS, which is what most self-hosters do.
jasongi
Because that’s not one-click setup or priced per request, which was the comment I was responding to was seeking.
And I did say at the end of my comment:
> Thing is, almost every self hosted app supports docker now and so if you like, install portainer on a VPS or NUC or raspberry pi and you’ll be able to set up most self hosted apps easily without touching the command line.
Wingy
I think the most popular service like this is PikaPods.
timmg
I hadn't heard of it before. Thanks!
bityard
Yes! There are lots!
Even decades ago, you could buy a web hosting account and simply click an icon to install Wordpress, CRMs, webmail clients, etc in your account and get started with minimal hassle. There are very likely many of these still around. Of course, if you are not a technical user, you are limited to what they provide.
In the realm of containers, there are also many many choices for this. Most are open source, some are commercial. The problem with all that I know of, is that when you want to use an app that isn't in their "store", or when you want to use it differently than how they have packaged it, either you can't do it because it's not supported, or you essentially have to learn docker from scratch anyway.
No1
Shared hosting providers have had such installers, typically as part of cPanel, for decades. An example would be Fantastico https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fantastico_(web_hosting)
You’re not going to get per-request billing, but shared hosting is typically as cheap as you’re going to get for “always-on” web hosting.
null
null
theragra
Several apps that try to solve this. Good one, but costly, is cloudron. It allows you to one click install a wide range of self-hosted apps. Cloudron itself is subscription software that can be installed on own server or many cloud options.
There are many more, though. Things like proxmox with app stores, which are easily installed in most clouds.
Also CasaOs and others.
napsterbr
Another interesting self-hosted tracker is https://ryot.io/.
Demo: https://demo.ryot.io/_s/acl_vUMPnPirkHlT
Code: https://github.com/IgnisDa/ryot
(PS: they opted to go in a direction where it also includes some media-related features -- like tracking movies or books you've seen/read -- but this can be disabled).
31337Logic
Neat project, thanks! But, I gotta ask... what does the "L" in FLOSS stand for? :-) (I've only ever heard of FOSS.)
flankstaek
Usually the L stands for Libre indicating full freedom of usage of the software and that is not just "free" as a price tag.
null
bbor
Ok, this one’s baffling, especially learning at the end that FLOSS is bad because it’s meant to de-emphasize the “libre” part.
All OSS software is inherently without cost, that seems unquestioned here. So free only ever means one thing to non-laypeople, in this context. So isn’t FOSS already the neutral middle ground between OSS and FS??
Regardless, I’m struggling to conceive of how a piece of software could be OS but not F. I guess if it’s, like, surveillance software known to be used by governments…? Maybe OSS that is paradoxically restrictively licensed, threatening any forks or unauthorized compilations with legal action? That seems like a terribly naive proposition, but I’m sure it’s been floated by at least one MBA…
In other words: you can argue all day about the justifications for OS’ing your S being more related to removing cost barriers or to sharing control, but in the end, you clearly have to do both. Making “F[L]OSS” redundant at best, confusing at worst!
Surely I’m missing something, bc I know this has been litigated for many thousands of hours both pre- and post-Eternal September. But rn it just comes across as baseless pedantry
globular-toast
Initially there was no Open Source or OSS. There was Free Software. This started a long time ago with things like GNU and later Linux, BSD etc. Richard Stallman codified what it meant for software to be Free. Specifically, it had nothing to do with cost. The "free" was free as in freedom, not free as in beer. Unfortunately English uses one word for both senses. Romance languages like Spanish still retain both: gratis means free as in beer and libre means free as in freedom.
Open Source was a later "rebranding" of free software by some people who fell out with Stallman and wanted to emphasise more the practical advantages over the ethical ones. Stallman wasn't happy because he felt (and still feels) the most important thing is that each person should be able to do computing freely.
Anyway, long story short, free software is nothing to do with cost. Horrible acronyms like "FLOSS" are to try to make everyone happy.
diggan
> All OSS software is inherently without cost, that seems unquestioned here.
I don't think so, you could charge money for FOSS (like charging for a built binary but having the source be FOSS) and it'll still be as much FOSS as any other FOSS out there. It isn't very common to do so, but there isn't any inherently wrong or incorrect with charging for FOSS.
null
thanksgiving
I believe it means libre or free as in free speech, not free as in free beer.
remram
The "F" (free), "L" (libre), and "OS" (open source) all mean the same thing, the acronym is just meant to make extra-sure to include all the ways people refer to that kind of software (last "S).
PaulDavisThe1st
They absolutely do NOT mean the same thing.
There is open source software that requires payment to obtain.
There is open source software that you are not free to do whatever you want with (non-libre)
There is software available at no cost which is neither open source or libre.
Just about every permutation of these 3 concepts has some actual example in the real world. Please do not promote the idea that they are in any way synonyms.
CorrectHorseBat
In this case they are basically synonyms, the Free in FLOSS doesn't mean free of charge and open source doesn't mean source available.
satvikpendem
What is an example of open source software that is not libre?
Like the other commenter said, the F in F(L)OSS does mean free as in speech, not necessarily free as in beer.
remram
There is free software (as of FSF) that require payment to obtain.
ugurs
Are there any privacy-friendly wearables in the fitness tech scene? It seems like most wearable gadgets send data to remote servers, whenever possible.
doix
Most Garmin watches _can_ work without connecting to your phone and the app. It just stores the files locally on the watch and you can just connect it to your PC and read the files.
mac-attack
Please let me know if you know of any options to streamline the process.
Semaphor
Bangle.js 2: https://banglejs.com/
0_____0
If you just need heart rate, you can pull data off a plain sensor to your phone or to a computer, they report over BLE.
busymom0
What sensor would you recommend? I have tried Apple Watch and i really only care about the heart rate. But it doesn't poll the heart rate constantly unless in exercise mode. I wish I could just constantly track the heart rate every second.
0_____0
I use the basic garmin chest strap. It transmits continuously and supports things like HRV, which I suspect is a secondary high data rate mode.
fiftyacorn
Depends which sport - but golden cheetah lets you link a range of apps to your PC and store locally
jcmfernandes
I got to know more at your stand during last year's FOSDEM. Very cool project!
darkwater
I'm using it (with the hosted service and app installed from f-droid) and we'll, the UI could be improved. Bigger issue is that there is no way to know in which series you are at the moment? Is the 3rd? The 4th? The 5th? Also the timer between series stops working if you put wger in the foreground (I disabled all the battery optimizations etc for it in Android 15 on a Pixel 6a). Also some features are just in the web UI. But overall, it's a nice system and I keep using it.
mightysashiman
Excellent, will tty it out and report
sandreas
That TTY typo reveals you're a true nerd ;-)
AiAi
I tried to use it but I found the UI/UX confusing, with many exercises lacking images too. I support the idea but the workflow was not for me.
I settled with Iron for iOS, which is also free software despite the platform it runs. Still looking for an equivalent on Android, the LiftLog app seems to have potential, but I think the UI is not that great.
nunez
I've been lifting for ten years thereabouts. Used JEFIT, Hevy, and Strong throughout that time.
I've given up on apps completely and log with a reMarkable.
All of these apps use their own data schemas, which makes normalizing the data for export into something like Google Sheets really hard. Consequently, you're locked into those apps and whatever design choices they choose to implement.
Moreover, I don't like using my phone when I'm at the gym, and, well, they're phone apps.
amonon
I like Liftosaur, which appears to have an Android version on the Play store.
AiAi
Tried a little bit, it seems nice, but it is a bity janky on iOS. Feels like I'm using a web app, and some features require subscription/account.
aucisson_masque
i use fitnotes on android, it's not foss but there is no tracking and absolutely no internet connection if you don't enable cloud backup.
the ui is old but effective.
Kablys
For strength training, I can recommend https://www.liftosaur.com/. UI is a bit clunky, but very powerful, it even has scripting language for describing workout plan.
orsenthil
UI is bit clunky. If we had great UI for this app, even if not open source, then lot of athletes and runners will use it.
orsenthil
Can I try with a hosted version first?
This app seems to require a server. Invoke the app, and it presents a login screen, with links to "register" and to "use custom server".
I suppose an alternative design would be to be on-device storage first, and then have an optional sync to a server (or laptop/desktop).