And I never said it was. They did approve it. Whatever word you want to say, cleared or approved. It was done.
[doublepost=1544118779][/doublepost]
You can google it. It's been rated that for a few years.
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 Watch Chief Jeff Williams Says ECG App is 'Huge Opportunity' to Empower People About Their Health
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
And I never said it was. They did approve it. Whatever word you want to say, cleared or approved. It was done.
[doublepost=1544118779][/doublepost]
You can google it. It's been rated that for a few years.
PM me your iMessage address and I will send you my heartbeat.
[doublepost=1544118821][/doublepost]
You made the claim. Source?
Technically it is approved the same as any blood pressure monitor you purchase from Walmart by the FDA. It is not an approved "Hospital / Clinical medical device".
Is it a blood pressure monitor?
Is there a similar EKG device I can buy in Walmart or elsewhere today that’s not a true medical device?
This is a new territory. Let’s hope Apple knows what they are doing.
I wish them all the best.
Wow, less than 5 seconds on Google. There are plenty more.
https://www.tomsguide.com/us/heart-rate-monitor,review-2885.html
https://www.businessinsider.com/the...ate-monitor-according-to-new-research-2016-10
If you run marathons, you are an elite athlete. You have nothing to worry about.
Apple Watch has one of the best optical heart monitors, but the technology is flawed.
I can provide links that claim that Garmin has better heart rate monitors. The truth is that the results are different for different people and environmental conditions.
In my and my wife’s cases, the heart-rate readings are inaccurate outdoors when doing aerobics activity (brisk walking, running, roller blading). Neither are the heart-rate readings accurate during strength training indoors. The readings are all over the map. At rest, the readings are accurate enough most of the time, but sometimes they are ridiculously off too.
For others, the optical heart monitors may work much better. This technology has very different success rate for different people, different climates, etc.
All I was suggesting was that Apple should put some R&D into improving the heart-rate monitor accuracy.
Are you claiming that this tech in the Apple Watch is at such a level of perfection that any additional R&D would be an absolute waste of time and resources?
James Fixx may have thought so also.
[doublepost=1544121500][/doublepost]
My claim is Apple is the first smartwarch out of the gate with afib detection and fall detection.
And while the technology is clearly flawed compared to ecg medical devices, it can detect an issue that might be difficult to detect in the absence of using the AW4.
So while more r and d will go into adding more features into these devices, the tech will continually be improving.
Weed increases blood flow so heart rate goes up, this pretty much universal for everyone. Unless you use something else on top of that.
[doublepost=1544123182][/doublepost]
Elite? Thanks
, but I doubt that. I run once a week for fun basically, not for time.You run a marathon once a week or you run once a week? How do you train for a marathon running once a week?Weed increases blood flow so heart rate goes up, this pretty much universal for everyone. Unless you use something else on top of that.
[doublepost=1544123182][/doublepost]
Elite? Thanks
When I was younger and was in track, I ran half a marathon once a week, and 10 miles per day the rest of the week days except for Sundays. Sundays were days off. Nevertheless, I never got the courage to run a full marathon. I would say anyone who runs (not walks) a marathon is an elite athlete.
Marathon once a week given it’s not raining or snowing or very cold.
Last edited:
Because you don't agree doesn't make it flawed. Please do provide the proof because what I gave you was proof it is the most accurate out of all the monitors to a professional device as it was compared to one. You sir are one of millions that disagree with you that it works great. Do you have a tattoo on your wrist? That will cause issues.
Your personal experience and issues does not make it fact.
One marathon per week is exceptional. Don't you think so?
[doublepost=1544124176][/doublepost]
No tattoos anywhere. Neither does my wife have any tattoos.
It shouldn't be necessary to specify which wrist the watch is on. You're measuring a difference in potential, and if the device is on the opposite wrist, all that happens is that the reading comes in upside down and the software turns it over.
If the situation with the watch is anything like the Kardia (I'm a Kardia user), if there are excessive artifacts which can't be filtered out, the software will report the findings as uninterpretable.
One advantage that the Apple Watch will have over Kardia is that the ECG collecting hardware is built in and will not need to be coupled to the watch or phone (Kardia connects ultrasonically), so there should be fewer artifacts.
It's a "hue opportunity" to create whole generations of NEW hypochondriacs to watch TV for what medicine to "ask your doctor" about and their watch to make sure their hearts are still beating correctly.
I'm sure there are those who really need this, but it will just create more worry and anxiety to a population as a whole, for those who don't. Just LIKE the TV commercials for drugs. If you need this or those drugs on TV, chances are your Doctor already knows it.
I'm sure there are those who really need this, but it will just create more worry and anxiety to a population as a whole, for those who don't. Just LIKE the TV commercials for drugs. If you need this or those drugs on TV, chances are your Doctor already knows it.
Even if it can detect 98.7%
I would want to know what the false positive rate was.
It would be no good if it also gave false positive rate of 98%
I think the biggest issue is false negatives. People who don’t go to regular check-ups and trust their watch to show perfectly normal data. With its three contact points (two of which are directly next to each other instead of using right arm, chest and left arm) it is barely able to get the one-lead test done. A proper 12 lead test would need more contact points including multiple sensors on the chest and the legs.
It’s a nice gimmick and might be the beginning of a whole new era of consumer health devices, but it’s a toy as it is.
Oh and inb4 someone asks about my credentials: I’m not in medicine myself but my gf and friends are doing their PhDs, so this was a conversation topic on multiple occasions. But you should be able to get to that insight with common sense and some googling on how EKG tests work, what for example the Einthoven standard demands.
It’s a nice gimmick and might be the beginning of a whole new era of consumer health devices, but it’s a toy as it is.
Oh and inb4 someone asks about my credentials: I’m not in medicine myself but my gf and friends are doing their PhDs, so this was a conversation topic on multiple occasions. But you should be able to get to that insight with common sense and some googling on how EKG tests work, what for example the Einthoven standard demands.
All of this is already live. If you live in the US you can choose to use these features or not. Either way, Apple has put a stake in the ground.
I just want to see more facts.
Time will tell if this is a gimmick or not.
If it does what it says on the tin, then all well and good. But Apple is a niche player in the world so a small percentage of people will benefit.
Heart rate monitors in wrist worn devices are already standard. No matter what anybody said about heart rate monitors in the beginning they are a standard now.
As far as a niche player, it's only a niche player if your calculations include $25 fitness trackers. If you are looking at bona-fide smartwatches apple is the dominant player. And, if you haven't noticed, apple has the capability of moving the needle. Just like they get a jump on technologies that change the way people interact with their devices, they are well ahead of the competition of the AW4 ECG health-related functions.
One can either choose to use it or not. It is not a medical grade device, but it seemingly does do what it claims.
Thats probably true, I was looking for a smart watch for my son and saw that some devices had heart monitors. Not sure if cheap ones have them.
Some things should be open standards, such if Apples cardio functions actually work, then they should share this.
Just like if they were able to get glucose monitoring working then they should share that. I know this is idealistic.