How about a thermometer first? I've been trying to understand why anyone hasn't done this yet. It's something very simple yet very useful.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple CEO Tim Cook Spotted Testing Apple Watch-Connected Glucose Monitor
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
It seems like something easy to determine.
- Select a large group of people at random.
- Ask them if they are diagnosed with Type 2 diabetes.
- For those that say no, test them.
- If you find four times as many Type 2 diabetics among the subgroup who answered "no" in step 2 as you had in the subgroup who said "yes", then you can say that 80% of the cases of Type 2 diabetes were undiagnosed at the time you selected your group.
We can enter a new hilarious age of perfectly healthy people worrying about their blood sugars and rejecting homeostasis.
[doublepost=1495163253][/doublepost]
[doublepost=1495163253][/doublepost]
Already been done. I believe in NHANES 3 but could be wrong.
By comparing the difference in prevalence between studies that collect data on self-reported diagnoses of diabetes and the prevalence found through biomedical studies which most commonly use HbA1c readings (estimates average glucose levels in the blood over 3 months) to diagnose diabetes. A fasting plasma glucose reading is also commonly used but patients often fast incorrectly and much of the data is discarded. The studies obviously need to have enrolled large sample groups to be representative of the general population.
Self-reported data tends to underestimate the true prevalence of diabetes because there are indeed likely to be people who are not aware that they have diabetes. Biomedical studies are more accurate and the difference in prevalence are the percentage of people in the population who are currently undiagnosed.
80% of diabetics is totally pushing it though. In Australia, the prevalence of diabetes is ~5% in the population based on biomedical studies, and 4% based on self-reported data. Therefore, 1% of the entire population have undiagnosed diabetes, and that for every 4 diagnoses of diabetes, 1 remains undiagnosed - i.e. 20%.
There are millions of people with diabetes on the planet. Basically every glucose testing device on the market right now is very painful to use. This isn't just about the watch. This would literally be life-changing for many people. And healthy people can check their blood sugar levels as well. It's not some magical mystifying thing. It can help you learn a lot about yourself and how food affects you. And you don't have to use it, it's just there. I'm sure there are features of the watch now that you don't use ... and the phone as well.
+1
It would actually be a pretty significant thing for the average person to have easy access to their glucose levels.
Dexcom is known for poor service. In contrast, their current sensor G5 (smaller G6 in dev!) is exceptionally accurate. Nevertheless, there are other companies with non-invasive approach, Apple does know partners and therefore will find a way to do it non-invasive. One of the more credible placed in Europe is glucowise: http://www.gluco-wise.com
Type 2 diabetes? It's 'walking deficiency syndrome' and not a real illness, says top doctor
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-4362126/Type-2-diabetes-not-real-illness-says-doctor.html
"Top doctor" ... whatever that means. That's ridiculous.
Perhaps this is when the general public realizes diet is vastly more important than exercise when it comes to weight loss and that calories don't matter the way people think they do. Note that Cook specifically mentioned diet, but not exercise. That's not a coincidence. Could be a landslide. And then all those posturing calorie counting apps can fold up shop.
Or...I take it you didn't read the article and you just wanted to make some nonchalant comment that doesn't acknowledge what Dr. Sir Muir was indicating to be accurate in that article.
I did read the article. It's a terrible article littered with misinformation and half-truths. I take it you just believe everything you read on the internet without objectivity?
Really lets get done to fact; you disregard a Doctor, thats bound by a code of ethics, you disregard the
UK's finest journalists, bound by a code of ethics; What standing do you have to say 80% of "type 2" diabetes goes undiagnosed?
Sorry - that detects AF or atrial fibrillation which is a major risk factor for stroke - not heart attack. Stroke is a clot in the brain (usually - there are different types). Heart attack (or Myocardical Infarction) is in simplistic terms where the blood supply to a part of the heart gets obstructed causing that bit to die. This is usually caused by the rupture of an atheromatous plaque - a lump of cholesterol lining the artery wall. There is another type of "heart attack" which is essentially the heart going into a funny rhythm - e.g. Ventricular Fibrillation (note not AF - VF) This is where the heart stops beating - it can be caused by the MI above or other causes.
The app you reference detects none of these. Detecting the plaque is not easy - there are plaques and unstable plaques.. there is a fancy test called a calcium scoring CT scan that can help - a watch is unlikely to every help here... never say never and here I'm wondering about it detecting HS-crp levels..... anyway... The interesting thing is the other causes of arrhythmia are possibly detectable. There is something called long QT syndrome - often medications give you this though it can be genetic - monitoring people on meds to see if their QTc is going up would be cool - there is something called R on T phenomena where certain types of heart beat are more likely to go wrong (I'm over simplifying again) but detecting these would be good.
Even better would be just detecting the onset of VF - and calling for help! 80%+ of all unwitnessed arrests don't survive - best chance of surviving is on a Coronary care unit! - Imagine - you have an arrest - the watch detects it - tells your phone to ring for help - and puts out a signal to any CPR givers in the vicinity telling them of your location and hopefully where the nearest defibrillator is - it could save loads of lives... and interestingly from an economic pov - it would save the middle aged male tax payer probably more than any other group. Life insurance companies - might start giving discounts if you wore one.... i ramble... but its a fascinating subject.
I have absolutely no idea what point you're trying to make. I also have no standing on anything. My comment regarding the 80% thing was poking fun at the fact that ... if 80% of diabetes is not diagnosed ... how did they arrive at that conclusion if those people haven't been diagnosed? It just sounds funny.
All I said was the article isn't completely honest as it's making it seem like something it isn't. Obesity is a big risk factor for diabetes, especially visceral obesity, which is fat held in the stomach region, but he's making it seem like it's just some simple thing caused by obesity alone ... and that all you need to do is change your diet. It isn't simply a diet disease as type 2 diabetes can be caused by a malfunctioning pancreas, which can happen regardless of weight. The article isn't exactly wrong, but it is exaggerating and isn't completely honest. I also couldn't care less what journalists have to say. Journalists aren't doctors. They can say whatever they want. I'm only referring to the doctor in that article. He can call it whatever he wants, it's still diabetes. It can't be called a metabolic disorder since that seemingly implies it's a weight-only problem and it isn't. He could just keep it simple and leave it at Type 2 diabetes. There's no reason to change the name. That doesn't make it easier for anyone else with diabetes. There's nothing revolutionary in this article. All he did was describe an aspect of type 2 diabetes and then said he'd like to change the name. He implied several times that it's not a disease ... that it's a weight issue only caused by a lazy lifestyle, when again ... people can develop it being perfectly healthy with an active lifestyle ... just their pancreas is not working as it should. The article is misleading, I'm sorry.
well being a UK citizen Id comment the Daily Mail isn't exactly a peer reviewed academic journal - its basically click bait. They sell papers by being controversial. Most weeks I have to cope with patients who have read some crap professed by some expert they have dragged up to promote their theory or product.
The interesting thing is the Sir Grey appears to be trying to challenge the feeling that Diabetes is an inevitable disease that the patient has no say in - viz Rheumatoid arthritis - where you don't have a choice - you get it or you don't - there have even been reports it might be caused by a virus.
What i believe he is trying to say - in a provocative - headline grabbing way - is for more people you can delay/put off the onset of T2DM by diet and to some extent exercise. I don't think he's saying that Diabetes isn't real or that it doesnt have serious long term consequences. Interestingly my most motivated patients are airline pilots - they loose their right to fly if they end up on certain drugs for diabetes. They can fly with DM but need a lot more checks so its in their interests not to be Diabetic. They live a fairly sedentary lifestyle living out of hotels and precooked food. I find that they of all my patients once told that they are heading that way - and there is a pre-diabetes zone - that they can pull it back for a few years at least. If they'd lived that virtuously from day 1 - they perhaps would never get it.
(ps i think most experts would agree that there is some genetic component to t2dm - but that diet and exercise (lifestyle) has a large part to play)
Wow, great post, I'm not being sarcastic, the fact that you took the time to go to that length, I I applaud you Sir, you won the day.